Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:01, 11 March 2009

Hello from Bob

Hello, Leatherstocking, 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:

• Manual of Style
• How to edit a page / an editing cheat sheet
• Help contents
  → New contributors' help page

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, you can ask me on my talk page, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on this page and ask your question here. Happy editing! — Bob • (talk) • 01:33, July 31, 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights Riot

Hi. Thanks for requesting comment on the article. Edstat clearly thinks he owns it, and he reverts anybody else's edits. On top of that, he's one of the least civil editors I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, it may be a little while before anybody comments. In the meantime, Edtstat is just loading the article full of more POV. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I blew my chances at a favorable outcome at WP:ANI when I responded to Edstat on the Talk page with the same kind of nastiness he exhibited toward me. Based on what I've seen in other disputes, the way an editor conducts her/himself in a disagreement is taken into account when admins review these sorts of conflicts. For the most part, I've been trying to stay out of Edstat's way — although today I started doing some fact-checking of my own, and he's misrepresenting a lot of the article's sources. We'll see what happens if anybody responds to the RfC. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

Your request at WP:AN/I has been marked as resolved. . Tiptoety (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom decision

• See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed

The findings of fact of the original decision Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

• a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Misplaced Pages articles,
• a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Misplaced Pages. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Misplaced Pages, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

I am drawing your attention to these standing principles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Save your threats for someone who is actually promoting LaRouche. I don't like fanatics on either side of the Great LaRouche War. When one such fanatic tried to claim that Coriere della Serra was not a reliable source, I reverted him. I am wondering why you did not. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Civility is a requirement on Misplaced Pages. Comments like this one are needlessly uncivil. Please read WP:CIVIL and be more respectful of your fellow editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting deletion of edits by a banned user is not helpful, and may be considered meatpuppetry, per WP:BAN. If you think that material should be added please do so in your own words based on your own research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Unusual source

Can you please explain how you came to find the source you added in this edit? That obscure page was created by banned user and prolific sock puppeteer user: Herschelkrustofsky. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I found it by surfing the web. You don't have something more constructive to do than pore over my edits from over a year ago, searching for evidence that I once visited a web site that is connected to your arch-enemy? Do you have any evidence that he has any connection whatsoever to that website? You need to read WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who caused me to look into your account list when you claimed that you'd never promoted the LaRouche POV. And now you explain your edits by asserting an amazing coincidence. Not only do you share the same interests as HK, but you also just happened to use his obscure little AOL page as a source for an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You want to claim that adding an inline citation to a quote from a classical composer is "promoting the LaRouche POV"? Please, go and peddle your WP:BAIT somewhere else. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not my claim. My suspicion is that you are HK, or an associate of his. The appearance is that this account is either a sock or a meatpuppet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "appearance," it's a "delusion." I asked whether you had any evidence for your claim that the classical music site was owned by Herschelkrustofsky, and your silence was deafening. Face it: you're in a blind rage because I demonstrated that your team-mate Dking has a rather obvious COI problem. You have a bad case of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and you need to take a break or get counseling or something. In any event, kindly respect my wishes and stop trolling my talk page. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish it were a delusion, however HK has used at least 25 socks. You have behaved in a manner similar to HK, taking similar positions in articles and even linking to his webpage. In the history of Misplaced Pages, so far as I'm aware, HK is the only editor to have ever linked to that page. Plus you. This isn't a blind rage, it's a sober assessment. I'll continue to investigate the matter and take action if the evidence warrants it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Krassner

I removed the COI tag you placed on Paul Krassner because you never explained the tag on the talk page. I don't see any editor using the name "Krassner" or "PaulK", or anything to lead me to believe that the subject is editing. Who the conflicted editor might be, or what conflict they may have, isn't at all clear. Please fill in those details before restoring the tag. Also, even if a peson with a COI has edited the page, their edits should have been significant in order to merit the tag.   Will Beback  talk  18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoring banned editors

PLease do not disrupt the project by editing on behalf of a banned editor. If you think an edit made by a banned user is wortwhile, then please explain why and seek consensus before restoring it.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)