Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
lowering archive threshold
Mosfetfaser (talk | contribs)
1,654 edits
Line 246: Line 246:


A editor was trying to take down my report here, but it is important that this editor is warring his position into the story and I hope my report here will get the editor to wait for agreement and discussion [[User:Mosfetfaser|Mosfetfaser]] ([[User talk:Mosfetfaser|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
A editor was trying to take down my report here, but it is important that this editor is warring his position into the story and I hope my report here will get the editor to wait for agreement and discussion [[User:Mosfetfaser|Mosfetfaser]] ([[User talk:Mosfetfaser|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
=== Misplaced "warning" ===
If your intention is to report me accusing me of edit warring, this is the correct place: [[WP:AN3]]. The talk page of the article is not the place to do so. Please follow the [[WP:TPG]] and remove the section you opened over there. Regards. User:Gaba_p 05:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
:It is a record of your warring not an official report - I don't want you banned, I want you to edit in a more consensus way - that is all - [[User:Mosfetfaser|Mosfetfaser]] ([[User talk:Mosfetfaser#top|talk]]) 05:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:34, 14 June 2014

Template:BLP noticeboard


Patriot Act reauthorization of roving wiretaps

Regarding this edit, and my partial revert and attempt to improve it... first off, CFredkin, I'm not meaning to wikistalk you; I just noticed this in the same paragraph as the one we were just discussing above re Roe. Your edit removed the term "roving wiretaps" despite the fact that this was the provision of the Patriot Act that that the sentence and source were talking about. (Once again, the source is the OnTheIssues page for Rubio; it simply says "Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)".) Anyway, I assume the omission was an error and restored.

Re your added explanation about what the Patriot Act is for: we need to be careful with this kind of thing; too much can sound like apologetics. Wiretaps sound bad, but catching terrorists sounds good. This can introduce a subtle spin, contrary to NPOV. If we must have it, it needs to be brief and accurate. We can't say that the roving wiretaps provision applies only to suspects outside the US or that a warrant isn't needed; it's not at all clear to me that either is true. Better to leave it vague and general. In the spirit of compromise I kept some explanation but simplified the wording and put in a pipelink that should help readers.

P.S. If you put in a colon right before your reply, it will indent, which helps make the thread more readable. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I missed this. Thanks for the tip. I also appreciate the calm feedback.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Rubio's war on poverty?

I added a short note about Rubio's biggest policy speech in at least the last year and it got reverted.

So what if anything can be said about his new policy? Hcobb (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just the source, how about this one?

In 2014, Rubio called for replacing the minimum wage mandate on private employers with taxpayer funded wage subsidies for the working poor.[1]

Hcobb (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section on presidential aspirations

Rubio is considered a potential nominee, so we ought to add a section for this aspect. Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Section

The content in the Awards section which was just added should have secondary sources to indicate significance.CFredkin (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. In these cases, it is best to add the template {{citation needed}} instead of deleting. Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm referring to secondary sources which provide some indication that the award is significant.CFredkin (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant enough if the sources include Marco Rubio's own senate.gov page and other sources. I don't get your edits, you seem to put the bar at whatever height you feel like. I can start again a new thread at BLP/N if that is what you want to do, but after a while it will become tedious and WP:TEND Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both politicians at the federal level and organizations generate high volumes of press releases. Not all of them are notable for mention in BLP's. Providing secondary sources to indicate their significance is a reasonable expectation. Please let me know if you can find any instances of me citing content only based on primary sources in the recent past.CFredkin (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You got it wrong again, Primary sources are not shunned in Wikipedia, see WP:PRIMARY, in particular the sentence that starts with: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive

@CFredkin: Why this deletion? [1]. First you removed it because you argued that the sources were not valid. I then added sources as requested. Then you delete it again because you think it does not belong to a section. Are you doing this in purpose to disrupt? Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, providing a reliable secondary source to indicate the significance of a press release is a reasonable expectation. I don't believe blogs are typically considered reliable sources. Additionally you added the statement to the section on his tenure in the House. The press release was generated during his tenure in the Senate.CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio chief of staff

@CFredkin: First you delete this content [2] requesting additional sources, which I added. After I add sources, you remove it again [3] with an edit summary of "Not relevant to tenure in House". I then move it to a more appropriate section, and you follow with a 3rd revert [4] with this edit summary: "Rm content per article Talk", when there is nos such discussion.

Are you trying to be disruptive just for the fun of it? What is your rationale for your reverts? Cwobeel (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section immediately before this one, which I believe you started.CFredkin (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is for a different edit, related to the "Awards" section. Here I am asking you to provide a rationale for the deletion of the content about Rubio's chief of staff. Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a template for legislators that includes slots for CoS, so this can be applied uniformly? Hcobb (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I added two additional secondary sources to replace the press release. BTW, press releases from Senate offices are also reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is good faith presupposition?

This article belongs to no single editor, and, once surpassing the hurdle of content coming from a reliable, verifiable source, no single editor's view of what is or is not sufficiently significant to remain should prevail. Moreover, it is not the offering but the reverting editor's responsibility to exercise respect and caution in rejecting a good faith edit from another editor. In this vein, the recent reversions by CFredkin of the edits from Cwobeel are, in my view, inappropriate. Rather than use the authoritative approach of reverting the content, which appears to have been sourced and verifiable, it should have been tagged, requesting better sourcing, or brought to Talk, to have its significance discussed. Bottom line, reversions are to be exercised very cautiously, and not against reasonable quality good faith edits. Put the material back, and raise your objections here. This is no more one editor's article than another. Le Prof 12.49.20.42 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just say no to Rubio's own statements on drug policy?

Can't we have one tiny mention of how Rubio's own experiences have shaped his views on drug policy? Hcobb (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Rubio has a history of drug abuse, without reliable sourcing, (as you did here) is defamatory.CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If ABC is too lamestream a source, then how about Reason?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/marco-rubio-stonewalls-on-his-pot-smokin "Marco Rubio Stonewalls on His Pot Smoking—for the Children"

Hcobb (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just about exactly the same text:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/marco-rubio-marijuana-pot-no-answer-florida-2016-106829.html Rubio claims that his decision to stay silent on his own marijuana use spurred from the publishing of his recent memoir “American Son,” where he admitted that he “wasn’t a very good high school student” and received only at 2.1 GPA.

So it looks like my text passes every sniff test. Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Twice now [5][6] the statement "The National Climate Assessment released by the White House in 2014 found that Florida, Rubio's home state, is one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change." has been removed alleging WP:OR and/or WP:SYN The sentence is backed up entirely by the source in place, so I'm not sure what Collect and Cwobeel are referring to. Please explain. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right. I should have consulted the source before deleting. I will undo my edit. Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to think Wikipedia is the place for political campaign rhetoric.
It isn't.
BTW, when misquoting a person, one ought to be more careful: I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it is not the same in any respect as he did not believe that climate change was caused by human activity, and catenating a "slight misstatement of fact" in order to make a political point does not help readers here. Collect (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First: Cwobeel thanks for restoring the sourced content.
Second: Collect I do not care for this unfounded attack: "You appear to think Wikipedia is the place for political campaign rhetoric" and I certainly do not appreciate this one "BTW, when misquoting a person, one ought to be more careful". The sentence you are referring to was not added by me, it was there before I had made any edits to the article.
Third: Collect not sure what you mean by catenating a "slight misstatement of fact".
Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect you have again removed the sourced content that was added by me and re-added by another editor. There's no "political purposes" in stating what a WP:RS says in an article about Rubio in a section about his position on climate change, in relation to his home state and the effects climate change will have over it. Please re-add the content. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all -- the claim as to what Rubio actually said is not the claim which was made. Second is the use of "although" making a connection between an agency report and Rubio's comments, when it is clear that his comments were not in any way related to the report juxtaposed with the incorrect claims as to what he said. The combination is deadly on Wikipedia where we much maintain absolute NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: the claim is now almost entirely verbatim so that's not an issue anymore.
Second: at no point was the word "although" used to connect Rubio's denial of climate change to the statement put forward by the National Climate Assessment. Not in the original version I added and not in the version crafted by Cwobeel. You removed twice that piece of reliably sourced content, first claiming "OR, SYNTH", then claiming "political purposes" and now you re-affirm your removal claiming an incorrect use of the word "although". I am going to politely ask you once again to please restore the content removed. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, this is a pretty poor showing on your part. The L.A. Times piece is entitled "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change". It is therefore appropriate to summarize this source by saying that Rubio "did not believe that climate change was caused by human activity". I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. The person misusing the source in this instance is you; the source could not be clearer, but you seem determined, for reasons about which I can only speculate, to muddy it.

Separately, other sources clarify that Rubio consistently questions or "denies" (their word) the scientific understanding of climate change. See, for example, PolitiFact: "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." I have added back the accurate summary of the L.A. Times source, along with the new PolitiFact source, and removed the MSNBC opinion piece (since we should limit the use of partisan opinion pieces as much as possible, instead preferring reliable news/factual pieces). MastCell Talk 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, this is very poor reasoning on your part. In case you did not know this headlines are not part of the newspaper article. They are written by folks who do not write the articles. They are not "fact checked" and they frequently are written to get folks interested in a topic, and are not intended to be the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's crazy. Headlines are subject to the newspaper's editorial control, just like the rest of the article, and are thus equally reliable. In any case, the L.A. Times article is hardly the only source pointing up Rubio's stance on climate change; as I noted above, PolitiFact summarizes numerous instances where he "denies" (in their words) the human role in climate change. MastCell Talk 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell thanks for your edit and cmmt. What do you think of the original sentence that prompted me to open this section (see first comment)? Do you think it should be re-added? Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it out. While I understand that it appears in the cited source (L.A. Times), it doesn't quite fit with how our paragraph is written. MastCell Talk 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of main article link from Climate change sub-section

CFredkin removed[7] the limh ''{{main|Climate change}}'' claiming it to be a "superfluous link". I disagree that this is superfluous given that the sub-section is precisely about climate change. Is there policy-based rationale for this? Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The climate change article is linked in the text, and that is sufficient. Cwobeel (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is about Rubio. If the article as about climate change, or aspect of climate change, then it would appropriate to include a link in the sub-header.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't believe MSNBC pundit Hayes's opinion of Rubio's statements on climate change is relevant. Hayes isn't exactly noted as an expert on climate change or scientific topics.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. You guys are really into serious whitewashing. Off my watch list. Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hayes

The comment by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) on Rubio's position on climate change has been removed. The comment is this one:

  • His position regarding climate change has been characterized by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) as a "train wreck of incoherence."[2]

The source is a reliable one (MSNBC) and the author is a well-known journalist. I believe it should be restored. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News pieces from MSNBC are arguably reliable sources, but the quote in question is taken from a partisan opinion piece. This distinction is an important one—news pieces from reputable media outlets are good sources, but partisan opinion pieces or editorials are much less so. MastCell Talk 22:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - partisan opinion piece - attacking in nature - no include Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

headlines

[8]

Headline writers are not there to summarize a story but to grab readers. And the headlines are not written by the reporter. Collect (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines are subject to a newspaper's editorial control, just like article content, and thus equally reliable. To contend otherwise strikes me as a bizarre example of motivated reasoning, but I suppose you could take it up in a more suitable forum. MastCell Talk 23:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting contention which has thus far not gotten support in discussions thereon. Collect (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "labelled" for "claim" against the sources

Editors Collect and Mosfetfaser have replaced the word "labeled" with "called" in the sentence:

Collect claimed that ""labelled" implies fact in Wikipedia's voice" while Mosfetfaser only claimed "disputed" which is hardly (not to say not) a reason for reverting an edit.
I explained that the word "label" is no more authoritative than the word "call" and furthermore, the word "label" is backed up by numerous sources:

  1. prompting Democrats to label him as a climate-science denier; National Journal
  2. label him a climate-change denier, the Florida senator brushed off a backlash labeling him as a climate-change denier; Politico
  3. OFA can use to support its labeling of Rubio as a "climate change denier."; PolitiFact
  4. Rubio said on Sunday, placing himself firmly in the "climate change denier" camp (...) Rubio is uncomfortable with that label; The Wire
  5. critics labeling him as a climate-change denier; LifeNews (a pro-life site also using the word; hardly a left-partisan source)

I'd like to ask any of these editors to please revert their edit based on these reliable sources or present their own sources for the use of the word "call". Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources you give do not support using a BLP for Climate Change Denier labelling of anyone at all. I suggest you note the ArbCom decision at this point. Collect (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? Collect: please be clearer on what you are saying and please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem ArbCom saw was that some editors were improperly abusing biographies of living persons by labelling them as "climate change deniers" etc. Cheers -- sorry you did not read that case, I think you would find the evidence and findings interesting. Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to distinguish between Wikipedia labeling Rubio a "climate change denier", and Wikipedia noting that others have labeled Rubio a "climate change denier". The former is inappropriate; the latter is potentially appropriate, assuming suitable sources and attribution are provided. I find that much of the discussion here conflates these two scenarios in an unhelpful way. MastCell Talk 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect let's try this one more time: please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former.

MastCell as you can see in the article, the label "climate change denier" is clearly stated as assigned by others, not in WP's voice. Also please check the sources in place and do tell me if you believe either of them is not appropriate.
There is no reason to use the word claim when the sources use label. Unless either Collect or mosfetfaser present a policy/Arbcom ruling preventing this, I'll be restoring the proper word. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for any other outside editors who are interested in this discussion: if I understand correctly, the proposed and disputed alternative to the word "labeled" is the word "called"—i.e. not, as Gaba says immediately above, the word "claimed". Is this understanding correct? Writegeist (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writegeist yes, you are right. I believe I corrected the typo just before you made your comment. Regards and sorry for the confusion. Gaba (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • - a few opinionated sources labeling someone as something does not mean wiki has to report exactly that - wiki has more of a duty of care than biased opinionated sources - there are no republican sources or uninvolved peeps labeling him as whatever are there - no - it is only attacking opinionated biased sources - and that should either be explained or ignored - labeling is not a good position to report at all - try adding to the story that opinionated sources have attacked him or add his comments so as to correctly detail his position rather than just trying to demean him and degrade him using attacking opinionated comments without stating that is what they are - please consider also the words of the closer of the related war report - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=612641810 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A You are both arguing a completely different issue. This thread is about your change of "labeled" with "called". I note not you and Collect have failed to give any reasoning backing this change.
  • B You are incorrect. These aren't a "few opinionated sources", these are WP:RS and are in fact numerous. The coverage is significant enough that Rubio himself felt he had to go out on record and deny being a denier.
Seeing as neither editor gave a reason as to why we should go against the reliable sources presented which use the word "label", I'm going to re-instate the original edit. If you want to discuss the mention of Rubio being labeled a climate change denier, open a new section about that. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the use of the term "label" in this instance. I believe it connotes some sort of official designation which is not appropriate here.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter one bit whether we disagree since it's what the reliable sources say. We do not modify the information to accommodate our own perceived notion of what should be said. We are WP editors, not journalists. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't get to cherry-pick subjective terms from non-neutral sources.CFredkin (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin only one source mentions 'Democrats' which makes your first edit incorrect at best, and you changed the word used by our sources with a summary of ce after I explained clearly why this is not acceptable. Now you've reverted again claiming talk discussion when you've provided nothing to explain your position on why we should not follow what the WP:RS say. Your last edit borders on WP:VANDALISM and I strongly advise you to stop. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin one more revert against sources. You've been warned in your TP. Please revert your last edit. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained my objection to the use of the term "label" above. Your insistence that we must use the term "label" because it appears in a source, while also arguing that we can't attribute "climate change denier" to Democrats when it also appears in a source is hypocritical. The consensus in this discussion does not support your position. Please stop edit-warring. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As nothing "official" attaches to the word "label" in this usage (categorization), CFedkin's disagreement [9] appears to be based on a belief that's based on a premise that's false. Can we have it authenticated please? Also I don't understand CFedkin's implied assertion that "labeled" is more subjective than "called".[10] It would help to have clarity on that also. Writegeist (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not implying that "label" is more or less subjective than "called". I'm just saying that "label" is subjective. Therefore the insistence that we must include it in this WP:BLP because it appears in a source is not valid.CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? "Label" is subjective? What does that even mean? The sources are clear in using the term, even a pro-life source uses it which means partisan sources can't be claimed. You are not making any sense. Gaba (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin It does not appear in "one source" it appears in all of the sources I've presented above. They are all WP:RS and other than you not liking the term, there is absolutely no reason not to use the word that the reliable sources use. "Democrats" on the other hand does appear in only one source which makes your edit incorrect at best and purposely misleading at worst. You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.
WP is not a democracy and votes with no reasons given to back them up don't trump over policies. The page history shows 3 edits of yours removing the word after I added it back this morning which makes you the one edit-warring (of course, you know this already). I'm asking you once again (after you've removed the warning from your talk page) to re-instate the word used by the sources. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page history also shows you restoring the term 4 times since June 12. Regardless, the National Journal attributes the "denier" claim to Democrats, Politico attributes it to "liberal critics", Politifact attributes it to OAS (a liberal/Democratic support group). I don't care which of those terms is used, but if you're going to insist that the term "label" appear with respect to the denier claim, then we're going to have to attribute the phrase to either Democrats and/or liberal critics. That's a reasonable expectation in my opinion.CFredkin (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above: You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.. I never objected to this. If you do not care which term is used, why did you remove the sourced term 3 times? Go to the article, attribute it respecting the sources and put back the word backed by the WP:RS. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I mis-spoke in my previous post. I do prefer the term "called", but can live with "labelled" if it's attributed appropriately.CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should bear in mind that the reason the sources use the term "label(led)" is because "climate change denier" has become a category in public discourse. That is to say, it is not necessarily the case that a partisan source is calling somebody else a derogatory name, though there will obviously be many people that have a negative association with "climate change deniers" due to their respective position on climate change. Considering that Rubio is politician, then obviously such public discourse in the media is something that Wikipedia should cover.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

warring user - Gaba p

User:Gaba_p

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=prev&oldid=612805570 Revision as of 19:44, 13 June 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612804848&oldid=612804301 Revision as of 19:38, 13 June 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612792834&oldid=612593571 Revision as of 17:42, 13 June 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612590741&oldid=612554185 Revision as of 05:03, 12 June 2014

Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is the place to report a warring user on the story - a user is warring on this story and here is the report Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gaba_p#Marco_Rubio.23warring_user_-_Gaba_p

A editor was trying to take down my report here, but it is important that this editor is warring his position into the story and I hope my report here will get the editor to wait for agreement and discussion Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced "warning"

If your intention is to report me accusing me of edit warring, this is the correct place: WP:AN3. The talk page of the article is not the place to do so. Please follow the WP:TPG and remove the section you opened over there. Regards. User:Gaba_p 05:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a record of your warring not an official report - I don't want you banned, I want you to edit in a more consensus way - that is all - Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kucinich, Jackie (8 January 2014). "Rubio: War on Poverty has been lost". www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 January 2014.
  2. ^ Benen, Steve (05/05/14). "Rubio stumbles, falls, keeps digging". MSNBC. Retrieved 11 June 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F612854899

Leave a Reply