Not sure why you removed it. Maybe to cut the length? The other cleanup was very good. I noticed you said "primary source" in the edit summary, but there's no prohibition on using a primary source in this way, and actually having the entire transcript might be good in this particular situation since news media mangled and summarized it many times. -- Avanu (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my Talk page:

This is what occurred, and my latest edit:

You made major changes to a section, including removing a phone call transcript and revising text. The section had been the way it was with only minor changes for months. I reverted and said it should be discussed first on the talk page.

Another editor partially reverted my edit, leaving the text changes but restoring the call transcript. You had started the talk discussion, and you reverted that editor, saying it should be discussed first. Your original edit is what should have been discussed first, however. The other editor removed what might be questionable, the text (even though it's been there months), and Talk discussion showed that the transcript was acceptable and another source, Mother Jones, could be given. Since the transcript wasn't objectionable I reverted to the version of the other editor. The consensus on the page seemed to be that the transcript should stay. One editor mentioned that some text added to the transcript, such as noting when sounds of a car door opening are heard, could be removed, but that is the only mention of it. And those things could just be removed, if you object to them. Psalm84 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post this also to your Talk page. Psalm84 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed it on the talk page. You reverted the same info back in twice. The fact that there was an intervening edit does not matter. If 1RR is no longer the rule, so be it, but you made these reverts when other editors were right in the middle of discussing it, and you did not even bother commenting on the talk page. You should anticipate that such editing behavior is going to escalate the dispute. Take the time to actually consider my points about the transcript, rather than quickly reverting to your preferred version. Minor4th 03:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not revert the same info twice. I reverted to Avanu's version which is only the transcript and which left your edits. And all the other editors have been for keeping the transcript, saying it's helpful and it isn't OR but WP:TRANSCRIPTION. One said that some added text could come out, but that isn't the same as removing the whole transcript. Psalm84 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting personal definition of what constitutes a revert and what doesn't. You reversed all or a part of the same edit 3 times now, and I note that you continue to edit war. Have at it, the article means a whole lot more to you than it does to me. I was trying to improve it, but the rules and guidelines are suspended on this article, and it's fallen to POV editors.Minor4th 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl Kitteh!

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet  Br'erRabbit this user is a sock puppet 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I made a comment regarding the Shooting at Trayvon Martin page that relates to the present issues regarding the article. Psalm84 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [1] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sons of Perdition (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oprah Winfrey Network. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSN#Use of a lawyer blog in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for a discussion in which you have been involved at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M4th: would you do me the favor of reviewing the top article in my Sandbox for NPOV and other WP requisites, before I put it up. Our pal is bound to take exception (if not hysteria) to it as a matter of principle. I would like it to be as sound as possible beforehand. Feel free to tear it up (constructively). Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do as time allows.Minor4th 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)See User:PraeceptorIP/JEM Case. I've worked on it some for him. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Greg.Minor4th 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minor4th, I recently moved a comment Mattnad made, which he placed in the middle of one of my previous comments[2] because it removed my signature from the comment. I see you reverted. [3]. Was this a mistake? It's a relatively minor thing, but I think it's clearer if that comment that I made in one edit, remains in one piece (it was a two part edit, directed at two different editors, but breaking it up removes my signature from part of it). Do you mind if this is changed back?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a total mistake. Had no idea I did that.Minor4th 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, and can even agree in a very small way - but since you mentioned it, I will say that Wehwalt is an excellent example of an admin who does great content work. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wehwalt would be a glaring exception, if he's an admin. I don't know that I've ever seen him doing admin work. Minor4th 03:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He usually acts if he's asked directly, I think. He was one of my inspirations, actually. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo for this. Of course, you do realise that speaking out in such a fashion will expel you from any future RfA you may wish to undertake. Good on you! Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yeah, there will be no RfA's for me ;) Minor4th 13:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor4th, I don't think we've ever "met" before, but I found your insights to the overall atmosphere of content editing to be insightful and thought-provoking. Thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw. We haven't "met" but other editors have mentioned to me that you're one of the best content creators; so I've followed some of your content and discussions. I don't edit very much - mostly because the atmosphere can be so toxic when one is actually trying to accomplish something here. I get too frustrated and discouraged and find other things to do that don't leave me feeling slimy. :D Best -- Minor4th 03:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has a snowball's chance of success, so maybe it's high time to stop badgering the opposes: ([4]). This process has been stressful for all involved, and the continuing confrontations there are so unlikely to impact the outcome that they appear egregious at this point. RO^(talk) 16:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Minor4th 16:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the nom got no more opposes and seven supports per hour, it would still fail. So it seems really unnecessary to continue to badger opposes this late in the process, as the outcome will not change. But I'll leave it at that, since you either get my point now or won't get it no matter what I say. RO^(talk) 16:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made exactly one reply to exactly one oppose; it was substantive and civil. I have not "badgered" anyone. But if there's no reason to comment on the RfA, why do you continue to "badger" the candidate? It's a rhetorical question - no need to answer ;) Minor4th 16:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented there in three days. RO^(talk) 16:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

liar. Cassianto^Talk 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't counting copyedits to my oppose rationale as independent comments. BTW, you're really popular over at Wikipediocracy: ([5])RO^(talk) 17:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you, but I knew about it on the 17 September, so sorry to piss on your parade RO. IT's nice to know that while the trolling fuckwits are talking about me they're leaving someone else alone. Cassianto^Talk 18:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the trolling fuckwits" Such language for an educated adult. I am deeply saddened that you've recently adopted this persona, because I remember seeing you around last fall, but I don't remember you acting so aggressively. Maybe you take this place a little too seriously, but I'm glad you realize that most of us are having a good laugh about it. RO^(talk) 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think it's "recent". I don't forget RO; supporting someone who likened me to a person who mocks rape victims is about as low as you can go. It's behaviour like that which causes me to act "aggressively". Cassianto^Talk 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You totally misunderstood me then, and you're still carrying that misunderstanding with you today. I never said that, Cassianto, nor did I think it at the time or now. It's ridiculous. I never supported that accusation; I tried to help you two see that you were talking past each other and not seeing the other person's point, just like you're doing right now. RO^(talk) 18:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make anymore comments about this here, but if you want to discuss this please feel free to come to my talk page. If you bring some diffs, I'll be able to show you I did not take the position that you think I did. There's too much long-term grudge holding around here, and if you want to make an effort to end ours I'll be very happy to discuss it with you. RO^(talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]