Talk:William Remington

message: Red, consensus is against you. Stop putting that part in because it does not meet WP:CON, WP:Revert, and WP:RS. If you restore it without tipping the scales of consensus in your favor, you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Also, you are using only one source when in fact there are other sources available as well. Jtpaladin 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong on all counts. You are advocating an edit that you have not in any way defended. You are deleting a simple and inarguable statement of fact: That Remington's death has been cited as being a result of McCarthyism. At no point have you argued that this fact is incorrect, and yet you want the fact removed from the article.  As I've said before, if there other sources that give a contrary argument, by all means add something from them. Alternatively, since you think I'm such a rampaging WP outlaw, please bring in an admin to tell me the error of my ways. RedSpruce 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Rob, but admittedly I was getting a bit disturbed by the claim that Remington was a victim of McCarthyism when in fact he was convicted of a crime that had nothing to do with McCarthy or the time period in which he was convicted. The man who murdered Remington in prison was clearly a mentally disturbed individual who used whatever reason he wanted to use in order to excuse his crime. People get murdered in prison all the time and make up phoney excuses to explain their behavior. Taking the word of this prisoner is hardly the basis of making an argument for Remington being a victim of McCarthyism. If the sentence is to be included, I would think that a better source be given and consensus be established for it. Jtpaladin 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Rob. I don't agree with you that Schrecker's view doesn't belong in the first paragraph; I think it belongs in the intro because it gives context that explains a major reason why Remington is a notable person. However, I accept the change as a compromise. RedSpruce 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RedSpruce, as I mentioned, Remington is not even listed as a "victim" of "McCarthyism" in the article on "McCarthyism". In order to be counted as a victim by this standard, he would have had to either have lost his job because of Senator McCarthy saying something that wasn't true or have been accused of security/loyalty claims that were not true. Remington was a convicted criminal who was not in jail because of either of these issues. So, it would be inappropriate to suggest that Remington was a victim of McCarthyism. Aside from that, you only cite one very biased source that makes that claim. Lastly, out of three people who have chimed in on this issue, 2 of the 3, are against keeping that statement. If you have further reasons for keeping that sentence, please discuss it. I will post this comment on your User page and the Remington Discussion page as well. Thank you. Jtpaladin 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Rob, I have already agreed to your edit and find the subject closed. I think you did a great job in settling the matter. Thank you for your efforts. However RedSpruce is engaging in personal attacks putting him in violation of WP:NPA, as can be found here []. He needs to get a grip on reality and understand that consensus building is part of the work in making an article work and that he does not own the Remington article. I would appreciate if you could tell him to stop vandalizing my Talk page with his bizzare comments. Thank you. Jtpaladin 15:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done so. I agree that the personal antagonisms that have arisen should be kept off this talk page as much as possible. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: This is my first encounter with RS over the article Annie Lee Moss over this edit. The edit wasn't over trimming the reference, or placing its better. I was just removing it:
*If you can't explain and justify your edits, then you are admitting that they are meaningless and unjustifiable. Continuing to make edits that you admit are meaningless and unjustifiable is, shall we say, not the most intelligent behavior imaginable. RedSpruce (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rather than copy/pasting the actual statements, diffs would be better, thanks. --Elonka 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think saying that RS displays WP:Ownership tendencies is offensive. That is why we have that article. Calling someone an "idiot and moron" is uncivil. He has never apologized, just rationalized that he was pushed to it by my restorations of his deletions, and for not engaging in his diatribe, and it made him feel better to do it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  RAN, thank you for the links.  RedSpruce, do you have any diffs of your own, of specific comments of RAN in the past which still bother you?  It is my hope that if we can clear the air on past communications, it may be easier to move forward, perhaps by everyone involved either apologizing for past statements, or going to where those statements/comments are in archive, and deleting them.  Though it may sound odd, that kind of small action, deleting a word that was said in anger and later regretted, can actually have a very powerful effect in de-escalating a conflict. It also makes the deleter look extraordinarily mature, to show that they are able to reconsider and refactor their own past statements. --Elonka 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my proposal below. I am not interested in this game. If I were to try to come up with a list of things for RAN to apologize it would have to encompass virtually everything he's ever written to or about me, and the research alone would take months. The goal here should not be for us to arrive at a state of something better than disgust for one another, and that's good, because that's not going to happen. By following the guidelines I list below, we can still negotiate, simply by being forced to leave that disgust unspoken. RedSpruce (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please provide a list of all of the articles where the dispute has taken place?  What is the common thread?  Thanks, Elonka 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had disputes in many (maybe 8 to 12?) articles, and over many different issues. Quotes in footnotes is the most common issue, but by no means the only one. If I wanted to say what the overall common thread is, I'd say it is that RAN has no concept of what belongs in an article -- what is valid and worthwhile content and what is extraneous, repetitious, redundant, trivia, irrelevant, etc. Luckily, whenever we've had a dispute in an article where a fair number of editors are active, or become active, the majority is always opposed to the worst of his edits and the outcome has been satisfactory to me. RedSpruce (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  RedSpruce, the above post is another personal attack, and I would ask you to please re-write it.  You don't know what RAN does or doesn't know.  You may have a difference of opinion on how to provide quality articles, but please present these opinions in relation to the article, not an assumption of the editor's mental state.  Thanks, Elonka 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History of encounters

message: Elonka, in your two most recent comments, especially the second, you've made it clear that you are not neutral on this issue, cannot maintain a pretense of neutrality, and therefor you cannot serve as any kind of a mediator. Therefore all discussion is closed as far as I'm concerned. If you know of a colleague who might be interested in looking into this case, please do so, because I genuinely believe that some progress can be made. have them contact me on my Talk page. I won't be watching this page for the time being. RedSpruce (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I am not here as a mediator, I am here as an uninvolved administrator. There have been a number of personal attacks on this page which I have overlooked, because it was my hope that if the rules were relaxed a bit to "get things on the table", that it might be possible to clear the air and then move forward.  However, this open season is now over.   If there are further personal attacks or incivility by any editor, restrictions may be placed on that editor.  On the other hand, I would consider it an excellent sign of good faith and maturity, if the editors on this page would reconsider their previous comments, and refactor anything which might be considered a personal attack.  I think that this would be a good way to try and de-escalate this dispute, rather than continuing to revisit the same grievances. --Elonka 03:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done for now 

message: There are several citations in this form inside curly brackets:
: Harvnb|May| 1994 |p=227
That produce uninformative output like this:
: May 1994, p. 227
How should these read? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem citation