Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:46, 17 April 2008

Reply

Yes, you are allowed to remove messages from your talk page once you have read/understood them. Some users choose to archive them.   jj137 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wendy Yoshimura

I have significantly expanded article Wendy Yoshimura including many sources from "back in the day" to indicate what I believe are all the notable aspects of her criminal history that I can find, but also including reviews of her art. I would appreciate your feedback there or on my talk page. I am just doublechecking to make sure the NPOV dispute is resolved. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Earth Liberation Front

Regarding this edit of yours, just curious as to why. I wouldn't normally alter someone else's post to a talk page, even if I totally disagreed with it. But I didn't want to roll back your edit without at least checking with you as to why. Please advise. Thanks. -- Art Smart (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. I thought the comment was asinine, but it's not mine to mess with, so I'll roll it back myself. Proxy User (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the comment was asinine. That's precisely the word for it. Nonetheless, such words are a reflection of the writer and no one else. On the other hand, if someone flagrantly vandalizes a talk page or any other content, that's different, and I would have no qualms if a third party reverted it ASAP. Sort of like washing graffiti off a neighbor's house while the paint is still wet. Anyway, thanks for doing the right thing. Very much obliged. Art Smart (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Stanislav Petrov

Please do not remove referenced NPOV material from Misplaced Pages, such as you did to Stanislav Petrov. Thanks, скоморохъ 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add POV material to Misplaced Pages such as you did to Stanislav Petrov. Thanks, Proxy User (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

Yor addition to the Wells article is excessively POV. I don't mind including material that indicates Wells lawyers disagree with the rulering, 'but the article is not a Forums For Rebuttal.' If you rewite it, I will not object to it. But otherwise, I will rewrite it. In any case, I've added a POV tag, because it is POV.

Also, as to your comments in the discussion, hostility has nothing to do with it. This is not an article about Wells' career, it's a biography of an individual and therefor includes information about more than Wells career. Proxy User (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

POV? I have presented Well's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness to a living person. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the article's purpose. This is NOT the biography of a private individual - Misplaced Pages is not intended to include such biographies. Wells' biography is included on this forum because she is NOTABLE as an actress. The article's primary focus should pertain to her notability, not minor incidents in her private life - such as traffic stops. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. It is an encyclopedia. Cleo123 (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! It's not Ms. Wells' personal PR article. Proxy User (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

POV? I have presented Well's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness to a living person.

As I said, it is improper to use the article as a forum for rebuttal. Why not rewrite it so it's not so POV? Proxy User (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have rewritten it so that it is less POV. I have added the other side of the story - which you don't seem to like. Thus far, I have cited WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. I'm not sure where this "rebuttal" concept of yours is stemming from. Can you please direct me to a Misplaced Pages policy that supports your argument? Cleo123 (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"The other side" is by definition POV. Facts have ONE side. Rewrite it or I will. Proxy User (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider adjusting my tone if I were you. You seem to be missing the point. From my perspective, I came accross an a biography in which you contributed FALSE and LIBELOUS material about a living person - that she served time in jail - which is UNTRUE. I could have simply removed the libellous material in accordance with WP:BIO. Instead I opted to simply present the other side of the story and provide a source. If you'd like me to get the Biography Project team involved in this matter, I'd be more than happy to. I would also caution you that edit warring under an annonymous IP could result in a sock puppetry report being made against your account.

And BTW, it is improper to insert a POV tag over a few sentences "you don't like". If you want to tag something - you need to tag the entire section. I suggest you find something better to do with your time than trying to trash celebrities on Misplaced Pages. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for anonymous individuals to vent their frustrations by posting libel about living people. Cleo123 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page show how POV you are. I *did not* contribute "FALSE and LIBELOUS" material, I added verifiable information from legitimate national news sources. If I where *you*, I would curb your comments about "FALSE and LIBELOUS" yadda yadda, if you continue in this vain, you'll only hurt your position. PLEASE COOL DOWN.

Please do NOT move the POV tag again, the content I added is VERIFIED BY LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND NEWS REPORTS and not POV. If you do that again, I'll make a complaint with an Administrator against you.

Do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest in this? Are you a personal associate of Dawn Wells? Proxy User (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request pointless

There is no sense wasting your time on a mediation request. I have declined it, and as such, it will not be accepted. All parties must agree to mediation, and I have no interest in wasting my time on that. I suggest that you file a request for comment. I imagine that will perhaps drill WP:BLP into your head. FCYTravis (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read this part of the mediation page:

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

FCYTravis (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you fear from Mediation? I've removed YOU fro the request. Proxy User (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Dawn Wells. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This business is proof that Misplaced Pages is a biased cult, and has little value other than a source of trivia. Proxy User (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)