Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 14 April 2007

Useful templates

• {{unsigned2|6:17, 18 Jun 2005| Jpgordon}}

which gives

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpgordon (talk • contribs) 6:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

documentation:

source: <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{1}}} (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><noinclude>]</noinclude>>

• Verification: {{fact}} | {{check}} | {{or}} | | {{what}} | {{specify}} | {{verify credibility}} | {{cite}}
• Templates: {{t1}} | {{tu}} | {{tli}}
• Misc: {{cquote}} | Template messages | User talk messages | Welcome messages

References

I added an example to the talk on Stossel's page and Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Morphh 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

+

Welcome!

Hello, Andyvphil, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: You're right that I need to archive the talk page. But you can always add a new comment by using the "+" button on the top of the webpage, and then use the "edit" button by the header to edit just the one section. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

There may be some value to placing a category on one of the "Discover the Networks" redirects, but not all four. Likewise there's no reason to add a category to "Front Page Magazine" when we already have one on "FrontPageMag.com".

Separately, this talk page has some categories that only belong on articles. Please de-activate them. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

further discussed at Beback Andyvphil 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite and their abuse of the AfD process

Hey, they admits that they are editing through POV tinted goggles here. Cheers. L0b0t 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting reading for you here. People don't agree with me, so they must be stalkers. LOL. L0b0t 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started RFCs on some of the articles that Hipocrite likes to censor. If you feel up to it, please join in.

• Talk:Paul Booth (SDS activist)
• Talk:Lynne_Stewart_Trial#Request_for_Comment:_Validity_of_sources
• Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Request_for_Comment:_Validity_of_sources
• Cheers. L0b0t 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Request

This is my final request that you stop labeling good faith edits as vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not my final request that you establish the good faith of your deletions, if you can, by responding to the questions I and others have put to you with something other than obstinate repetition of your assertions. Start with this question: Why did you nominate the David Horowitz Freedom Center article for deletion (on the grounds that it is a "Non notable organization - has no sources outside itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)") and have not nominated the Political Research Associates article on the same grounds? If there is some explanation other than your POV, please supply it. Barring an answer you will continue to have exhausted the assumption of good faith, and I will continue to revert your apparent POV vandalism wherever I find it. Andyvphil 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

POV warring is not vandalism. Please do not label it as such. I dispute that I am pushing my POV, but, even if I were, it would not be vandalism. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

POV warring, per se, is not vandalism. But you are apparently choosing vandalism as your weapon of choice for POV warring. Answer the question. Andyvphil 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite is cross with me

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/L0b0t, cheers. L0b0t 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Bad Faith

It is a violation of policy for you to assume bad faith with respect to my changes. If you believe I am out to harm the encyclopedia, I reccomend you file an arbitration case (WP:RFAr) or request a community ban (WP:ANI). In the absence of such, I must insist that you at the very least, make no assumption, and at best assume that a contributor, that, unlike you, has edits to articles that have nothing to do with politics that date back more than three months, is operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you have it wrong. WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy, and it allows for the "occasional exception" (that's you). Answer the question. Andyvphil 15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Berlet

Andy, you're in violation of BLP by restoring an unknown source from a dodgy website. Please read WP:BLP. SlimVirgin 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Killian

How exactly does 'because of his responsibilities with the' invent or assume any knowledge? It says the same thing as 'he had a campaign to do', except in a readable way. Having a campaign to do certainly entails 'responsibilities'. Color me boggled. Arkon 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The "assumed prior knowledge" was about the identity of "Blount". If it reads better, don't name him, just don't have an unidentifed "Blount" appear. "Having a campaign to do" does not necessarily imply "responsibilities", merely the opportunity to work on a campaign. The word has a semantic load which is not justified by the cite. Let me make my POV clear: Bush wasn't needed in the Guard and it's OK with me that he got on with his career. But his "responsibilities" are an invention of the editor who write the line. Andyvphil 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Blount is constant in both of our edits, and I could honestly care less if the campaign itself is identified. My confusion is in your distinction between having a campaign to do, and having responsibilities to that campaign. If I have a job to do, I have responsibilities to do that job. If you really wish to bunker down with this distinction, you are welcome to it. That article is hardly watched and we would just 3rr ourselves into oblivion if I pushed. Arkon 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery