Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 30 January 2007

All speech is welcome here

Date Formatting

Good afternoon on this wonderful "Day after Christmas". I am writing to let you know why I will be changing the date format in articles to the European style:

The Modern Language Association views this format to be the proper way to write dates in essays, articles, and yes, encyclopedias. Therefore I urge you all to join me in this effort to make Misplaced Pages a "proper" encyclopedia in this regard. Together, we can make Misplaced Pages the perfect place to find information. (EnglishEfternamn 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

Advice: How to use dates on Misplaced Pages Please don't change the format of dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in ] or ]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences. Just hit that and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Misplaced Pages articles are written can be seen in our Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. Type in WP:MS and you'll see the page.

If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Misplaced Pages and they will help you. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. Accurizer 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this claim. Universality is paramount in a functional encyclopedia.

I see you're relatively new here and I can understand your misconceptions about what Misplaced Pages is and how it functions. Policies and Guidelines have been developed since the founding of Misplaced Pages through the consensus of the thousands of editors that have contributed and worked on the project. Your point of view regarding dates has been discussed as part of that long process. However, current Misplaced Pages Guidelines regarding dates can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and, as the above user points out, all dates containing a month and date should be wikilinked and your preferences determine how they appear in your browser. This is the current Misplaced Pages guideline. There are ways to change guidelines and policy and it is not to go about changing every date you find as you will simply be reverted more often than not. Can you keep up with over one million articles? Your efforts would be fruitless.

If you wish to change Misplaced Pages Guidelines or Policy, there are on-going discussions where you can raise your concerns and try to win people to your side. Your time and energy will be more effective there. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). There is also Misplaced Pages:Village Pump where you can suggest and discuss changes to policy and guidelines. --WilliamThweatt 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thweatt, you have agreat deal of nerve just jumping into something that clearly is not your affair. (EnglishEfternamn 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

I thought I saw the words "all speech is welcome here" at the top of this page. Besides, harmony and proper editing practices are the concern of every Misplaced Pages editor. And it was in that spirit that my friendly advice was given after I noticed you changed the date format of some articles on my watchlist. Best of luck on your quest for adminship.--WilliamThweatt 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In that you think I'll need it, huh? Well, you're entitled to your opinion. And I said you had nerve, I never said you weren't within your rights to post speech here. (EnglishEfternamn 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

I would underline the excellent advice you have been given above. Please do not change the date format of any more articles unless you can demonstrate a consensus for doing so. Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus? Not sure you have used the correct term, but is by that you mean explanation, see my UserPage for more details. "Best wishes" (EnglishEfternamn 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

No, consensus was definitely what I meant. On issues like this, Misplaced Pages operates by the mutual agreement of its editors. In this instance, the relevant agreement is found at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and your opinions (as described so fully on your user page) are best deployed on that page's discussion page. If you are able to convince enough people there, it will be adopted as policy and you can get on with standardising the dates on Misplaced Pages (although I will be very surprised if you are successful there). Until then, edits of this type will only be reverted (I've just reverted your last two), and if you were unwise enough to continue making edits like these you would certainly be blocked from editing. I'm confident however you will see the sense in what we are all saying to you, and work according to the community's norms. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The community's norms is exactly what I am working towards. Standardisation of format is key. Unless you can cite a rule that I am breaking, you are in no position to threaten to block me. Personal attacks are frowned upon here. (EnglishEfternamn 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

I can't add anything to my previous message on the subject and all the other messages you have been sent on the subject. The relevant "rule" you are breaking is Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), as I mentioned already. This will be your last warning. Please don't continue; if you do I will block you for violation of WP:POINT. Thanks. --Guinnog 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a violation never took place... (EnglishEfternamn 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Please do not turn this into an edit war. You have been informed by multiple people that it is Misplaced Pages's policy not to make this type of edit simply for the sake of your preference, and you have been informed of how you can make sure that you see dates in the format you wish - simply use the preferences functionality of the Mediawiki software. If you do not agree with this policy, discuss it at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), as you've also already been told. Don't simply go around making changes and reverting and re-reverting pages, when multiple editors (and administrators) are telling you to stop. If you really want to become an administrator one day as you say on your user page, this is NOT a good way to get started. —Krellis 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

By what standard? It is not my "preference" that is the issue. It is about standardisation. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and therefore has a responsibility to operate under a standard format. This will be one of my top issues, but it troubles me to see that around five users and one admin have violated the rules regarding civility, assuming good faith and not "biting the newbie". I am very disappointed to see this. (EnglishEfternamn 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

A couple of things

(1) You will find that playing around with date formats in articles will wind people up; don't do it. (2) If you find a stale URL is used as a reference, do not simply delete the refererence, but follow the advice here. Happy wiki'ing, and compliments of the season, Mr Stephen 12:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

As I warned you would happen, I have blocked you for 24 hours for a breach of WP:POINT. When you return, please listen to the advice of more experienced editors who are trying to help you. The edit you were blocked for was . --Guinnog 01:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is completely unfair. I never violated this rule.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishEfternamn (talk • contribs)

If you feel I have treated you unfairly, feel free to seek a review. As far as I can see I treated you fairly; telling you to listen to the several others who had told you nicely what you were doing wrong; telling you what to do if you disagreed, then warning you not to continue to edit badly. By choosing to continue after so many warnings I'm afraid you chose the block. Please reflect on your practice for when you return. You can use the time to read up on consensus and other Misplaced Pages policies. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help you. --Guinnog 03:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I can guarantee a review will be requested. Just because a few users disagree with me does not mean their position is true. By what standard was I "editing badly" according to whom?? "Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help you. - The last time I did that, YOU blocked me... (EnglishEfternamn 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

You were editing badly according to me and according to half a dozen 4 others here, because you wouldn't listen to what we were saying. Things like date formats cannot be decided upon in an ad hoc manner; they are agreed centrally. In the case of dates, as you will know if you even looked at the MoS page you have been referred to several times, the rule is that UK and Commonwealth articles use British dates (6 December) and US articles use the US system (December 6). Articles with no clear affiliation can use either, but changing the date formatting is seriously frowned upon. It's like UK versus US spelling; sure, it would make sense to standardise, but which system would we standardise on? Either one would annoy and potentially alienate about half of our readership and editors. Which is why the compromise we have arose. I hope that makes it clearer to you why you were blocked; if you truly want to help standardise date formats, contribute to the policy discussion page. Going through changing a few articles when you have had it explained why this is a bad idea... well, it won't achieve anything, trust me. I was really sorry I had to block you as I know your intentions are good. But this is a collaborative project and you have to accept the opinions of others sometimes, irksome though that often may be. --Guinnog 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting citations

I have found that at the "reception" sections of many video games, there are statements pertaining to a given game's critical reaction, number of copies sold, etc. Please be advised that these type of statements must carry citations to be proper encyclopedia content. Review my latest edits, and try to look for similar incidences of uncited information. Do not delete this information, but please request that citations be provided. Use the "citation needed" tag which will generate a message that looks like this: . Thank you, and together, we can keep this encyclopedia free, fair, and authoritative. (EnglishEfternamn 01:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Jimmy Wales

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Jimmy Wales. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Beardo 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I DID NOT make that revisison.(EnglishEfternamn 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Identity theft ? Someone else using your computer ?

Keeping your account secure

Users, especially administrators, should keep their accounts secure. If someone accesses your account and causes malicious damage, your reputation could be in trouble! Below are some tips on keeping your account secure:

1. Never give your Misplaced Pages password to anyone, not even users claiming to be staff!
2. Only enter your password on a Wikimedia site. Beware of fake sites.
3. Keep your computer up-to-date with the latest anti-virus software.
4. Your password should be easy to remember, but hard to guess.
5. Do not log on using public computers.
6. If you decide to log on using a public computer, remember to log out when done.
7. Be careful when running user scripts. Some scripts can be programmed to steal cookies and thus compromise accounts.

- Help:Logging_in#Keeping_your_account_secure -- Beardo 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

Please do not vandalize articles as you did at Free Republic, please discuss changes at the talk page.--RWR8189 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Free Republic:

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Prodego 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am supposed to believe they "commend blatantly racist or bigoted postings"? Prodego 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not to assume edits of this nature are vandalism. Again, read the guidelines.(EnglishEfternamn 02:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

TWO THINGS: 1. My edits to the Free Republic section are not vandalism. 2. Both users have failed to assume good faith and have resorted to personal attacks. (EnglishEfternamn 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

You can bring this up at the administrators noticeboard if you wish, however, you are removing cited material without a satisfactory explanation. Prodego 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The citation in question was never removed. Check the history. (EnglishEfternamn 02:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

You are removing the material the cite supports, and replacing it with material that it contrary to it. Prodego 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the citation itself was never absent from the page. Check the history. (EnglishEfternamn 02:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

No, but you removed the material that the cite supports, and replaced it with false material. This is disruptive, and can be considered vandalism. Prodego 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Only by means of subjective hypothesis. I am sorry, I would like to continue this, but I havn't the time, I am EnglishEfternamn after all.(EnglishEfternamn 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Thank you, and please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Prodego 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Socialism

Can you please stop repeatedly adding {{fact}} tags to the lead paragraph of this article? This edit is a violation of WP:POINT. Please do not make further such edits. I'm especially disappointed as I had to block you fairly recently for a similar issue. If I have to block you again it will be for longer this time. I genuinely hope not to have to do that this time. --Guinnog 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's your case, then all edits should be thought of as a violation of "WP POINT". There is no point I am trying to make other than that even the most basic of facts are subject to varifiability rules. I actually stopped added the tags to the head paragraph as I realised it carried a Britannica reference anyway, but some of the paragraphs really need these tags. Some of these "basic" facts after all include things that only the very learned in politics would know. I genuinely hope I don't get blocked by you because I feel I am editing under your shadow because of your subjective interpretation of this rule. (EnglishEfternamn 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

That's fine, but if you feel strongly that certain facts need to be verified, you need to raise them on the talk page and failing that in some centralised forum. You can't just keep endlessly reverting, especially not once someone has asked you not to. Best wishes --Guinnog 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and "frustrated" I am, because I have talked at length in the Socialism discussion page about the POV abuse that goes on by about 3 users who determine the content of about 75% of the page. It's a POV monopoly if you ask me.(EnglishEfternamn 04:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Also, I feel this place is the most uncivil "centralised forum" I've ever seen. As soon as I joined SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I had people basically telling me to leave. I try genuinely to edit articles in the most informing ways and I get users who not only don't bother to discuss the issues with me, they tell me in their own words that I have no place in editing, then I mail complaints and or questions to admins who don't bother to even respond or at least tell me how to change the font of my signature. I don't know why users here are so eager to lambast me, but I'm beginning to doubt this place is the least bit fair. (EnglishEfternamn 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a forum? Prodego 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just follow the rules and try and listen to others' points of view, and you will get on all right here. I can tell you have a lot to add to the project, but you must be careful not to let your passionate point of view predominate. Although you have been here a wee while now, on these articles you are diving into there are people who have worked for months to get them as good as they are. You have to discuss, compromise, adapt, compromise more... it's no place for an absolutist. I hope you can get the hang of it, it is a lot of fun. Good luck and best wishes, --Guinnog 04:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See? You're learning how we do business here and that gives me hope. Remember there are lots of friendly folks here who will help you if you need it. If you feel intimidated by me as you indicated above (although I was only doing my job when I had to block you that time), I can easily put you in touch with others. Hang in there. --Guinnog 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (EnglishEfternamn 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

That was kind of rude. I made a few improvements in the wording that were lost in your revert. A good rule is "Don't revert, edit". Another good rule is that adding tags should be a last refuge. Also, in my experience it seldom achieves anything. Please explain clearly either here or on my talk or the article talk what your issue is. I want to help you but you're not making it easy. --Guinnog 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of rude, I was in a hurry when I pointed out Misplaced Pages isn't a forum (above), and I was a bit blunt in the possess. I wanted to apologize if I offended you in any way with my comment, I should have toned it down a little. Prodego 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to revert your edits, Guinnog, so I'm sorry about that. But could you at least tell me why you don't think the Socialism article is in need of a tag?(EnglishEfternamn 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

See Talk:Socialism. I made a suggestion there as to how we can maybe take things forwards. Best wishes --Guinnog 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you weren't going to do this any more? You are pushing it here I think. Please take up my suggestion on the tlak page; write an actual draft of the lead para the way you want it and we can discuss. --Guinnog 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that a genuine concern for rules, or is it a knock at me, like what every other user here does? Again, some of the facts there are not all that basic, we need to go by the book, correct? Some of the tags should stay, and I must note that no one else gets told off when they revert my work, but I am not allowed to revert the work of others? (EnglishEfternamn 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I am insulted by the question. Of course it's a genuine concern for rules. I don't know you and have never met you other than through your edits here. Why would I have something against you? I am annoyed that when I was asked to intervene by another user concerned at your disruption of the article, I suggested a way forward which you have not yet taken. Please take it; that would indeed be "going by the book". Adding loads of tags in the way you have is just disruptive. Please stop it and instead take the alternative that I have gone to some considerable trouble to prepare for you. --Guinnog 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are insulted, I didn't mean that, but you know how I feel. I only speculate you have something against me because I've not talked to one other user who doesn't seem to. Why have you disregarded the rules users have broken against me? I've seen numerous violations of 3RR, civility, and what not. Why ignore their offenses?(EnglishEfternamn 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

PLease do as I asked you to do in the Socialism article. If you are following our policies then you will be in a much stronger position to complain about the conduct of others. In the meantime if there is a specific instance you want me to investigate, tell me and I will look at it. --Guinnog 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact I can't do anything here without having another user basically tell me to go to hell? I've been told off even for EXPANDING A STUB INTO A FULL ARTICLE, AND ALMOST ACCOMPLISHING THIS AGAIN TOO.(EnglishEfternamn 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Sorry to hear it. What are your main strengths here in contributing to an online encyclopedia? I decided some time ago that copyediting and photography are mine. It's easy to be offended when your improvements are rejected but that's the way it works here. Maybe I can help you to have a happier time here, if you let me. --Guinnog 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutralising language and working on non-political pages seems to work best. People get so worked up on ideology articles. Some linguistic problems remain in the socialism page. Can I at least fix those?(EnglishEfternamn 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

What linguistic problems do you have in mind? --Guinnog 20:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, before we get to that, could you look at the last message I sent to Socialism's talk page? I've explained there why, again, some of the facts where the tags were removed need something to verify them; not all of these facts are as basic as a few users assert they are.(EnglishEfternamn 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

And by the way, would you be able to tell me how to visually alter my signature, as some others have done? Or can only admins do this?(EnglishEfternamn 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Also, would you happen to know WHO DELETED MY IMAGES in the Test Drive II section. That took time to put those in and it was incredibly rude. (EnglishEfternamn 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure. Were they properly licensed? If so then try again. --Guinnog 11:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialized Medicine

Please see my latest comments on the talk page for socialized medicine so we can resolve your change to the introduction. I apologize for putting this on your user page orginally, it was just a miss click. Kborer 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

Re your edits to Back to the Future: The fact was not deleted; it was moved to the 'cultural impact' section. Trivia sections should really be avoided in mature articles. If information is worthy of inclusion then it should go under an encyclopedic heading. The JPS 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is the rationale. Again, the information you added was not deleted. It was moved to the 'Cultural impact' section. The JPS 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The DirecTV info has been in the article since January 8th, long before you added a second, redundant reference to it. It has been moved a few times (from the intro to Cultural impact, then to its own section, and back to Cultural impact), but it was always already there each time you added it - as several people have pointed out to you. Please pay attention to edit summaries, not to mention the article itself. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Michael Savage (commentator)‎

When editing Michael Savage (commentator)‎ please be aware of Misplaced Pages's official policy on the biographies of living persons. When making allegations that could be potentially slanderous, especially such as accusing someone of being a fascist, make sure you have documented verifiable and reliable sources to support the claim. The links provided in the current section point to nothing specific and is not acceptable.--RWR8189 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Only by your standards.(EnglishEfternamn 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Also by mine, and more importantly by those of the project. --Guinnog 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

These standards are a point of view, what outside these standards make anything so?(EnglishEfternamn 19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)) In other words, there is no acceptability/unacceptability outside the standards YOU have presented, a matter of nothing more that opinion.(EnglishEfternamn 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm sure that, philosophically, you have a point. However, for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, I am sure you will accept that it is Misplaced Pages's standards as established by consensus of the community here that apply.--Guinnog 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I assure you, Michael Savage DID say the things the paragraph said he stated. I heard it myself, and as soon as I can find the manuscript, the paragraph will return. (EnglishEfternamn 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I reverted that last edit as I didn't see any reason given for it. Care to explain? --Guinnog 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what he was trying to do. He was trying to change a description of Savage's stand into a "controversy" by adding that final sentence. However, that added sentence was unsourced, weaselly and Original Research. Guinnog was correct to revert.--WilliamThweatt 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

His stand was controvserial and should be seen as such. Don't take my word for it; Savage was criticised by about three media entities for his position on the matter in question. Those citations, I will eventually find too. The fact is that Savage is not so good (of course by this I mean accoring to my own view). But it does not matter what I THINK, I know much about his character and when I find the evidence the rest of the readers should know too., doing so is not un-neutral, it is merely informing.(EnglishEfternamn 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Maybe for the wrong reasons! I thought it was a deletion, and you were just moving something. I agree with William though, such a change would have to be agreed. It would also help if you could use edit summaries more. Thanks. --Guinnog 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog, Can I please ask you again, How do you alter the font of your signature? I've asked about 5 people about this and for some reason have received absolutely no response.(EnglishEfternamn 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Image for Teddy Ruxpin

Hi, thanks for adding the image. The reason the other image was deleted is probably because no sourc information was provided, I see the new image has no source too, also the tag should be for screencap, not that you are the creator of the work.--NeilEvans 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you delete it? Are you aware of how hard I worked on that article and how much your actions set me back??(EnglishEfternamn 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

No I didn't delete it. If sombody tagged the image as having no source then Wiki would automatically delete it after a number of days.--NeilEvans 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not automatic, it's a regular admin chore. Any image that is not properly sourced or not properly tagged for copyright status can be deleted seven days after notice is posted on the image page. In this case, the notice had been on the image page for two weeks when I deleted it.

What if my image archives was the source? How can I prevent this from happening again, most of the images I upload are photos I took myself.(EnglishEfternamn 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

I suggest in the summary section of the image description page you state that you capped the image from your own copy of the TV series, and change the licensing tag from {{GFDL-self}} to {{tv-screenshot}}. I think that should prevent it from being deleted again.--NeilEvans 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. State clearly that the image is a screen shot that you captured, and use the

Thanks for the tip(EnglishEfternamn 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Re: Vandalism

To which article do you refer? Surely it is not Michael Savage (commentator), where you have shown utter disregard for WP:BLP? --RWR8189 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Sometimes nonsense is WP:NONSENSE. The way to not be described in such terms is to not edit in such a manner.--RWR8189 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a much better way to describe edits which proclaim the Soviet era environment "pristine." I doubt the politburo would even make such a claim. If you feel my edits are out of line, please do report me to WP:ANI.--RWR8189 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I should. And by the way, what you think the politburo would and would not claim is speculative, and therefore unneutral, a violation of the rules.(EnglishEfternamn 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Only articles must conform with NPOV, speculating about the opinion of defunct entity, in jest, on a user talk page is not a violation of the rules.--RWR8189 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::If that is the case, I should express my opinion. I don't think you are in a position to talk about neutrality after your editing choices are so clearly for right-wing serving reasons. (EnglishEfternamn 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Just so you know

I have already left you comments on the Socialism talk page before you messaged me in which I acknowledged that part of my last edit was out of line, and I came here to let you know that personally. You may take them as you wish and of course any other action you feel necessary is your prerogative. However, I will say that I have not sent you any emails, my wikipedia email is disabled as I have always communicated only through talk pages.--WilliamThweatt 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can offer no explanation. All I can do is guarantee that it was not me. I don't know your email address, nor do I know how I would even be able to get it. Also, I have no animosity towards you personally, just your chosen methods. I have been editing WP for over two years as a way to relax from my busy life outside of Misplaced Pages and have never had any problems with anybody, even the people I disagree with...we usually just mutually and respectfuly agree to disagree and leave each other alone. It is just irritating that you and I, supposedly having the same goal of improving an article, can not do the same.--WilliamThweatt 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can go to the properties within you email client and check the header of the emails in question. That will tell you the email address from which it originated.--WilliamThweatt 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem, William, is that I am 100% convinced that the Socialism page is biased. I sincerely want to improve it, but I am being intimidated by users in hopes that I will leave. I just might for now, but I can assure you that I will return to my ambitions there. I must say though, that just because a few "hardcore socialists" believe the article is neutral does not make it so; this is a fallacy of association.(EnglishEfternamn 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Your VandalProof Application

Dear EnglishEfternamn,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I declined your request because Betacommand has asked me to be more careful approving requests, and you have gotten into disputes recently. Normally I would have approved you, so I suggest you contact Beta about it, since I don't want to approve anyone he would consider it inappropriate to approve. Prodego 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)