| Revision as of 00:11, 18 August 2005 editAgiantman (talk | contribs)549 edits Revert vandalism/personal attacks← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:45, 18 August 2005 edit undoUser2004 (talk | contribs)23,415 edits rv, Removing user commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ==On Lenin (and Stalin)== | ==On Lenin (and Stalin)== | ||
| I am asking for page protection. You may want to add your comments here . ] 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | I am asking for page protection. You may want to add your comments here . ] 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==Stalin== | |||
| Hi Agiantman, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at ] and for incivility on the talk page. This is just to warn you that if you violate 3RR in future, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Also, it's better to leave out the ''ad hominem'' comments when dealing with contentious issues. I've never been involved in editing this article, but I know it has caused a lot of trouble for various editors, so it's best to tread lightly and deal only with the content issues, and not with what you perceive to be the motives of other contributors. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Spelling Error== | ==Spelling Error== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 32: | ||
| ==Zoroastrianism== | ==Zoroastrianism== | ||
| You may be interested in participating in ]. ] 15:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | You may be interested in participating in ]. ] 15:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == That was my point == | == That was my point == | ||
| Line 34: | Line 39: | ||
| != means "does not equal" | != means "does not equal" | ||
| ] 14:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | ] 14:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==Ted Kennedy Page== | ==Ted Kennedy Page== | ||
| Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks ] | Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks ] | ||
| == No Personal Attacks == | |||
| Please do not refer to two editors who happen to agree that two particular Ted Kennedy incidents were non-encyclopedic as sock-puppets. That is a personal attack. ] 19:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===No Frivolous Accusations of Vandalism=== | |||
| The deletion of unsourced material is not vandalism. The deletion of sourced material may be. In this case, the statement that Freeman did not believe in antisepsis does require a source. Also, is there any evidence that infection played a factor? If not, it simply proves that Freeman was a quack, but that is not the issue about Rosemary Kennedy. Frivolous accuasations of vandalism are personal attacks. ] 23:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == A further warning about Misplaced Pages policies == | |||
| Over the years, the Misplaced Pages community has developed several policies and guidelines about editors' conduct. These standards are applicable to admins, other longtime editors, newly registered accounts, and even anonymous IP’s. We want to ], but that doesn't constitute a license for them to be disruptive. You've been here several weeks now, and important policies have been called to your attention, yet you continue to violate them: | |||
| * ]. Your talk page shows that your incivility has been called to your attention by ] and by ]. When Robert tried to help you by advising you of this policy, you accused him of harassing you. After these warnings, you made , suggesting that Robert was "on the Kennedy PR payroll". The policy against such personal attacks isn't just some vague hope that people will be nice. It's a policy. It's enforceable. ], a longtime member of the Arbitration Committee, has ]: "The no personal attacks rule has been one of the most frequently cited Misplaced Pages policies used by the Arbitration Committee. Violations have resulted in bans of up to a year in extreme cases." | |||
| * ]. We have a clear policy: "Any ] effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages." The policy goes on to note that NPOV violations are not vandalism. So, if you disagree with an edit, even if you disagree because you consider the edit biased, that doesn't make it vandalism. You shouldn't continue to sling around the word "vandalism" in such circumstances. | |||
| This message is not an attempt to harass you. It's an attempt to persuade you to conform your actions to the community's policies so that you can remain a member of the community. ] 15:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Comments == | == Request for Comments == | ||
| Please see ]. ] 12:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | Please see ]. ] 12:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==Removing user comments== | |||
| The message that ] left for ] was extremely civil. Deleting warnings about bad behavior is, by itself, evidence of bad faith. -] 01:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:45, 18 August 2005
I said "look up" as in "above". You will find the link in my previous comments. Derex 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- (a) i have never met kizzle & i'm not his professor. i did work for one year at his university, while he was not even in attendance -- a coincidence we discovered by chance not long ago. (b) i'm not a sockpuppet, wolfman retired. a sockpuppet is using two accounts at once. on my user page you will see that i mention having a past name, and i have not made a secret of it (or you obviously wouldn't know about it). i did use wolfman once since derex: to vote in a vfd that required a minimum 100 edits; wolfman had about 6000. i am quite proud of my record as wolfman. i do note that you seem awfully damn knowledgeable about wikipedia details for such a newbie. you wouldn't be a sockpuppet yourself, now would you? (c) of course i checked to see what you were adding to other articles. the first thing i saw you do was say that tyson got convicted with mentioning the wee tiny detail that espy was acquitted of 30 charges. you are indeed a paragon of neutrality. btw, you followed me to the espy page. and i wrote the rape page in the first place. (d) kizzle should indeed mind his language, but you should also consider why you provoke such a reaction. you should mind your language too. (e) don't assume you know my politics. i'm not a democrat. but since SBVT, i have had a very low tolerance for smear campaigns and lies. i like to combat smear with fact. and that is what i have been doing. if you don't think i'm being neutral, then supply facts of your own. that is what i have been doing myself. i am happy to be educated. Derex 17:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Musachachado
Responding to User talk:Casito#Vandal Musachachado:I am not an admin, so I can't block him. I added him to WP:VIP so he should be dealt with. I know several admins personally and I will contact them if need be. BTW, his German grammer is so bad that it's pitiful. -Casito⇝Talk 03:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy
Thanks for your help. I've been trying to get a balance on this page for weeks now. 24.147.97.230 00:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thanks mr.sockpuppet
always nice to have a vandal target the clinton article, seeing how it isn't george bush there's vritually no chance of it being reverted - 172.150.56.37 01:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
no, you were warned--172.150.56.37 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
On Stalin
look, i appreciate removals of pro-Communist bias as much as the next guy -- I'm a registered U.S. Republican. however these guys are right that what Stalin did is not genocide by any definition of the word and you're really not helping your case on the talk page. i'd suggest you concede this one and try to make more objective edits on USSR-related articles where leftist bias actually is a significant problem.
i'm messaging you rather than just dismissing you because it is my opinion that several wik political articles do have a leftist bias, in some cases very egregious bias that goes untouched, and if you could focus on NPOV rather than political debates you'd gain more credibility on this project. J. Parker Stone 03:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
On Lenin (and Stalin)
I am asking for page protection. You may want to add your comments here . Ultramarine 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Stalin
Hi Agiantman, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Stalin and for incivility on the talk page. This is just to warn you that if you violate 3RR in future, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Also, it's better to leave out the ad hominem comments when dealing with contentious issues. I've never been involved in editing this article, but I know it has caused a lot of trouble for various editors, so it's best to tread lightly and deal only with the content issues, and not with what you perceive to be the motives of other contributors. Cheers, SlimVirgin 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Spelling Error
question for user:Agiantman : the question is, are you sure your name isn't supposed to be spelled AgiantTroll? It is unclear if this is a mere spelling error, or a more serious misrepresentation, thanx -- Gee Wiz
Zoroastrianism
You may be interested in participating in this vote. KHM03 15:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
That was my point
!= means "does not equal" Glenford 14:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy Page
Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks 24.147.97.230
No Personal Attacks
Please do not refer to two editors who happen to agree that two particular Ted Kennedy incidents were non-encyclopedic as sock-puppets. That is a personal attack. Robert McClenon 19:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No Frivolous Accusations of Vandalism
The deletion of unsourced material is not vandalism. The deletion of sourced material may be. In this case, the statement that Freeman did not believe in antisepsis does require a source. Also, is there any evidence that infection played a factor? If not, it simply proves that Freeman was a quack, but that is not the issue about Rosemary Kennedy. Frivolous accuasations of vandalism are personal attacks. Robert McClenon 23:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
A further warning about Misplaced Pages policies
Over the years, the Misplaced Pages community has developed several policies and guidelines about editors' conduct. These standards are applicable to admins, other longtime editors, newly registered accounts, and even anonymous IP’s. We want to avoid biting the newbies, but that doesn't constitute a license for them to be disruptive. You've been here several weeks now, and important policies have been called to your attention, yet you continue to violate them:
- Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Your talk page shows that your incivility has been called to your attention by SlimVirgin and by Robert McClenon. When Robert tried to help you by advising you of this policy, you accused him of harassing you. After these warnings, you made this edit, suggesting that Robert was "on the Kennedy PR payroll". The policy against such personal attacks isn't just some vague hope that people will be nice. It's a policy. It's enforceable. Fred Bauder, a longtime member of the Arbitration Committee, has written: "The no personal attacks rule has been one of the most frequently cited Misplaced Pages policies used by the Arbitration Committee. Violations have resulted in bans of up to a year in extreme cases."
- Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. We have a clear policy: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages." The policy goes on to note that NPOV violations are not vandalism. So, if you disagree with an edit, even if you disagree because you consider the edit biased, that doesn't make it vandalism. You shouldn't continue to sling around the word "vandalism" in such circumstances.
This message is not an attempt to harass you. It's an attempt to persuade you to conform your actions to the community's policies so that you can remain a member of the community. JamesMLane 15:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Request for Comments
Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Agiantman. Robert McClenon 12:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Removing user comments
The message that user:JamesMLane left for Agiantman was extremely civil. Deleting warnings about bad behavior is, by itself, evidence of bad faith. -Willmcw 01:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)