Talk:Ed Morrissey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] There is already a Captain's Quarters page on Wikipedia

This page is superfluous, and should redirect to Captain's Quarters, minus the cheerleading and unsourced claims. Eleemosynary 05:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the *other* page is superfluous, trite and surface-y, and gives little to no real understanding of the blog and its impact, and *it* should redirect here.

There is no "cheerleading" whatsoever.

As to the "unsourced" claims - I'll fix that in fairly short order.

Mitchberg 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Attributions provided.

"Fact" tags removed.

As to "cheerleading" - I challenge you to show me any neutral observer who'd consider my article anything but factual.

I will be stripping out anything from the other article that isn't in this one, and putting in a redirect.

Mitchberg 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not any more

The other piece was less-informative, and included no information that isn't already in mine. I zapped it and redirected it to here.

And I see you removed the cheerleading of your previous version. Good boy. You're learning. Eleemosynary 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "I don't have all the time in the world to dig this stuff up - but if I write it, odds are it's a fact."

The above edit is from "Mitchberg"'s edit in the edit comments. One predicts it will follow him on Wikipedia for some time to come.

Thanks for the heads-up, Mitch. Sorry, not gonna work. Unless the claims are substantiated, they will be tagged as needing substantiation, or removed. Welcome to Wikipedia. Eleemosynary 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then let *this* statement follow me, too:

"Your diet obviously lacks fiber, El."

Mitchberg 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Often, one with no argument to make is reduced to sniping comments. Thanks for showing your true colors. Eleemosynary 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, little fella, I'm finding the cites right now.

As to predicting "it will follow him on Wikipedia for some time to come" - well, I'm glad you have found something to bring meaning to your little Wiki-obsessed life. Don't say I never did anything for you.

OVer at the Alt-media (right) piece I did, I took a slightly more constructive approach ^{[citation needed]}

Mitchberg 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You get to work there, son. But if your cites don't back up what you're saying, they'll be removed. Try to exercise "detachment" in that event.

Wiki-obsessed life? LOL. Who's the one spending Saturday desperately trying to back up his impotent conspiracy theories? Yeah, I thought so. You take care now. Eleemosynary 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As re detachment - I've clearly shown I'm more capable of it than you - your POV shows in the above statement.

Speaking of removals and your selective fussiness over rules - you haven't responded to being caught lifting three paragraphs of another article to drop into one of mine. In the media I used to work in, that's called plagiarism. I'd be happy to check around about that.

I took five minutes on a saturday morning - nothing desperate about it - to supply the cites that have shut you up. I see your response was on a *saturday night*.

Any further comment would be superfluous.

Mitchberg 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Still amusing as ever. I responded to your claims of "plagiarism" on the comment page on which you made the impotent allegation. You're free to read it there. In short, I cited using the paragraphs in the edit commentary, and linked right back to the page. That's called "attribution"; plagiarism is when, say, Hugh Hewitt's Regnery editor Ben Domenech gets caught lifting text from others and passing it off as his original work. Check Domenech's page for more on plagiarism. Perhaps when you master the concept, you'll be welcomed back into the media you "used to work in." It seems you have a lot of anger about your dismissal from that particular field. Let me guess: they demanded "objectivity" from you.

Oh, wait. I forgot. "Objectivity is a myth." Eleemosynary 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You have shown, by the way, why Wikipedia is an essentially worthless tool. It's only as accurate, useful and well-written as the ratio of the determination of people like me (who want to explain things) to outlast people like you (whose goal would seem to be to remove political badthing from your little assumed fiefdoms).

Which, given that I have a life, is not great odds.

You take care, too.

Mitchberg 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone with over 500 edits, you certainly seem to enjoy using a "worthless tool."

Any further comment would be superfluous.

But here's a helpful one nonetheless:

Shorter Mitchberg: "I'm taking my ball and going home! Until about five minutes from now, when I'll be back to tongue-burnish John Hinderaker's throne."

Seeya soon. Eleemosynary 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)