Misplaced Pages

Deletion of talk page comments

Please cite the policy under which you are wiping my talk page comments? Thanks.Wjhonson 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that active discussions shouldn't be wiped. We were discussing on that page, whether or not we should be allowed to post to that page. You really can't hold a discussion like that somewhere else, it wouldn't make a lot of sense. And even if the page is historical I don't see any harm in allowing people to continue to post there if they wish. Wjhonson 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm hoping to achieve is the ability for people to hold discussions on historical talk pages. I see no reason to suppress this.Wjhonson 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"being raped isn't your thing"

In the discussion on Islam and Slavery i was told "If you think its so nice do you want to be possessed by my right hand? No really being raped isn't your thing" and "that you find this insulting is good but the truth hurts. As the kids of today say "Take the Shame!"" by user Hypnosadist. I find talking about raping me a very sensetive topic, even if he claims he wasn't threatening me, I'm sure most women would, like me, be extremely offended by such ovetures or "jokes" by a man we don't know. Then he said that me feeling insulted by this was a good thing, this made it worse, which means he showed no remorse. I don't know what to do, it has upset me very much, can you help, can i report him? Aaliyah Stevens 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Aaliyah Stevens repeated support and mitigation of slavery highly offinsive, though i was out of line. Hypnosadist 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Jon Awbrey sockpuppeteer

Banned User:Jon Awbrey is editing with at least 15 sock puppet accounts. See the entry at Talk:Charles Peirce. One of the sock puppets he is using is User:Slim Margin, an obvious "salute" to you. --Blainster 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

• Citylightsgirl (talk · contribs)
• PunctualPeter (talk · contribs)

Because of a report on WP:BLP/N, I had begun to monitor edits by these two accounts, which was why I restored a version of Neil Clark (journalist) as it had been prior to serial vandalism by them. Very soon after that, I was glad to see that you removed what I also see as an extremely questionable portion of the remainder. — Athænara ✉ 09:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to post a note with my sincere gratitude for (both of you) helping me to understand the issues going on at the Neil Clark (journalist) article and talk page. I seem to have hopped right into a giant mess instead of taking baby steps like most newer editors should. I am very grateful for the help in getting this sorted out factually, and for the opportunity to learn policy and process by example. I worry that the "war" won't be over until page-protection occurs, such as with the related Oliver Kamm page, but I am hoping for a better outcome with careful "third-party" monitoring and discussion. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information from old WP:RS

the sum of my question is why did you remove this? If you felt the section was poorly written or not coherent, the policies spelled out at WP:DR clearly state that outright removal is to be avoided... and the general guidelines for changes to a policy (not arguing your opinion of whether RS was a seperate policy or not) is to obtain consensus before major changes. Reviewing the talk page at RS i found no such discussion. I will be returning the Non-scholarly sources section to RS's new home as discussion needs to be done to remove it in the first place. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved that material to WP:ATT/FAQ, and adapted it so that it is compliant with current policies. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on the FAQ, so that it does not become the mess that RS was prior to the merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha!

"I find the sourcing in Medieval cuisine not too bad, given the topic; it would need more if it were a contentious subject, but I doubt people are fighting in the aisles over whether almond milk was used instead of cow's milk during Lent."

"Not everything must actually be attributed, which is an important distinction, obviously, otherwise we end up with articles about Australian cricketers having references to prove that the subject of the article isn't some sort of imposter."

You funny woman!

qp10qp 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Thank you for your comment.

Please participate in the discussion under "role of truth": I would like to see examples given of real or hypothetical situations where policy writers believe that the wording "not whether it is true" would serve better than some other wording. Please also comment on the hypothetical situation I described there about an editor insisting on keeping in an assertion the editor admits is false. I'd like to know what you think of that situation -- what you think the policy should do and would do in that situation. We need to work together to find a wording that will work well for all situations.

If there is a policy that says how much experience editors must have before participating in policy discussions, please tell me where it is.

Please do not remove dispute tags before a dispute is resolved. There is in fact a dispute: I object to the new wording "not whether it is true". Your participation in the discussion can help end the dispute. --Coppertwig 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly advice. If I've done anything against any policy, please let me know. I hope the dispute will not be protracted. You can help shorten it by participating in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Role of truth. --Coppertwig 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice addition

The Finkelstein image adds a lot. Cheers. (→Netscott) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Template:Policy section:

You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry:

You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Anthony cfc#Spellings

Good evening (GMT time); hope you're well! I've replied to your post (located above) at my talk page underneath the original comment.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting without explaination

Hi Slim, it seems that including an explaination for a revision would go along way to helping the project and other editors. Otherwise folks have no idea why you did what you did. Does that make sense? Anyways, --Tom 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

URLs in ref tags

Hi, you made the comment "please don't put simple URLs inside ref tags" in an edit summary for Edwina Currie. What's your thinking? I do this because it's a minimal effort way of showing where material came from, when I'm trying to quickly improve an article. Of course, I could expend *more* effort and do all kinds of fancy things inside the ref tags, like using cite templates. But then, there are lots of things I could do. So, are you objecting to me putting the URL there, or to leaving something else out? Stevage 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

T in K

Hi, You recently participated in an AFD on Terrorism in Kazakhstan. Your input on a proposed page move is desired. Regards. cs 18:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips

Hi, SlimVirgin. I've just come across this, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a BLP problem with that article. Haven't time to look in detail, just going to have dinner. But if there is a problem, it would probably be helpful if that page is on your watchlist. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reverting

Please stop taking the side of every stalker you see. The anon IP you just restored has been issuing some very serious threats using a number of IP addresses. SlimVirgin 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how am I taking the side of every stalker I see. I was friends with Mackan even before he started disagreeing with you. And why is it every time someone actually does disagree with you, you resort to calling them stalkers or finding a way to have them blocked? Try a lesson in humility. MetsFan76 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing block

Sorry to harp on this (which we have discussed) - but I am troubled by this issue. Whatever else is going on, and whatever else relates to User:Pigsonthewing, I think the current block is based on mistaken evidence, as I commented at Talk:Gillian McKeith.

SlimVirgin's WP:ANI report makes reference to four reverts as part of the reason for the block on Pigsonthewing. If you look at those cited as 2nd revert and 4th revert , they appear not to be reverts at all, but minor revisions of material restored by User:Jooler. Tearlach 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tearlach 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note received. I don't see how you interpret it that way.

Explain exactly how those diffs you called 2nd revert and 4th revert are reverts. They're clearly not. Tearlach 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin, I've written up my rationale for this controversial block on my talk page and am open to comments and questions. Cheers. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

Thanks for working constructively on the article. There's still room for improvement (isn't that Misplaced Pages's unofficial motto?) but it's looking a lot better than the mess that existed a few weeks ago. -- ChrisO 02:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Simply so you know, the instances of your showing up completely randomly on pages to quarrel with me include as recently as here and here, after having agreed to stop doing so here after previous incidences here and here.

You may have missed when Jay recently "strongly recomended" that I be "sanctioned" for having filed a checkuser request that he had nothing to do with.

I'm really sorry I continue to annoy you so much, but the fact remains I have no idea how I've crossed you so badly. The fact also remains that I have not stalked you, and in fact have often avoided commenting in places where it might attract your attention. I could give you examples, but then, that would tend to undo all my hard work in not commenting on them...

That said, if you think we should avoid each other, it's an idea I'm open to. As long as you and Jayjg keep inexplicably hounding me, though, which you'll have to admit that you are, it kind of makes it difficult. Really, I'd suggest we just try to be a little more civil about the whole thing, which I think would make everything nicer, if genuine respect is really impossible. Along those lines, have you noticed that just about everybody else seems to manage to hash things out conventionally on the talk pages, without making everything so personal? Anyway, if you'd like to remove this, feel free, and I'll feel free to remove the section on my page. Mackan79 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)