Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 15 April 2009

Bobby Fischer

I think I understand your concern over the question of who Bobby Fischer's father was, but the evidence is rather strong that it was Paul Nemenyi. This is discussed a bit in the Bobby Fischer#Early years section. It appears that the FBI thought that Nemenyi was his father (they had a file on Regina) for the reasons described in that section. The best analysis I have seen in print is in Bobby Fischer Goes To War. Quale (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is alright and perhaps this theory is correct but it's not proven and it's only a theory, it is extremely strange that this wikipedia article is taking sides on that and I will not allow it. This theory is discussed sufficiently elsewhere in the article without the likely remark.

• You don't get to make that decision ("I will not allow it") on your own. My impression is that most editors of the article disagree with your opinion on this, so unless you are able to convince them, it will stay. I appreciate the attempt that you made on the Talk page to engage others on this and it's too bad that you didn't get any responses. (I think sometimes anonymous editors aren't accorded as much attention on these sorts of matters.) I suggest you try the Talk page again if you want the article to be changed. Quale (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, the theory is in no way "vague", as you describe it. Regina Fischer's FBI file is quite concrete about the details, and there is other evidence as well, including support payments Nemenyi made to Regina Fischer and the word of Nemenyi's son. Quale (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alleged support payments and the alleged word of Nemenyi's son, I don't hear anybody and I don't see any receipts.

Honestly it looks to me like most of them don't care one bit. And I don't see why anyone would want that line there after all the opinion it contains is just a guess, who knows maybe his mom slept with the pizzadelivery boy. I question your motives for wanting that line there. I for one would be pleased if this matter was proven one way or the other but there exists no prove. There exists an alternative to the two options we have used so far, perhaps I'll take it.

You have at least three editors who oppose your Bobby Fischer edits. Why is it that you are ignoring the wishes of multiple other editors? Just to clarify (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered son. Looks to me as if this is something that you should not be involved in.

Guess what, buddy. This is an encyclopedia where we try to come up with consensus, not an encyclopedia where only you get to edit pages. So, learn to work with the rest of us. Just to clarify (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if that advice applies better to you than it does to me.

Dreamhost

In regards to this edit , wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the article only, not for small talk about the subject. Your comments were removed correctly, I have reverted them as well. The topic already appears contentious, there's no need for extraneous discussion on the page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message either here or on my talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No man

It's like this it's due to my comments that this whole archiving discussion has been sparked and archiving has been implemented, I will not be denied my right to have my say. I look at these reverts as an attempt to silence my opinion for questionable reasons, please do not interfere again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk • contribs)

You can say whatever you want on the talk page about the article itself. Please read WP:FREESPEECH, no one has the right to say anything they want on wikipedia. This is not a forum. If you'd like to improve the topic, please go right ahead. However, on an already contentious page, there's no place for small talk about the product and your opinions on it. Dayewalker (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh so now it's ok for people to archieve the whole discussion based on what I said but not for what I said to be visable. It is obvious that you work for dreamhost. Go bother your coworkers instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk • contribs)

For future reference, I do not. I've opened up a thread about this on ANI here. Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.--194.144.90.118 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the edit below and sign your articles, the bot often fails to sign articles and it is your responsibility to do so. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• i'd like to reiterate what the other editors have said: the article's discussion page is meant to be used to discuss improvements to the article only. any other messages, especially those not directly related to improving the article, will be removed. you may, therefore, post any message related to improving the article. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just posting to confirm what should hopefully already be clear. Your personal opinion has no place on Misplaced Pages. For a humourous look at this, see WP:ACCEPTIT. On a more serious note, please don't continue to mis-use the article talk page. I don't want to sound like I'm making threats, but to protect Misplaced Pages from disruption, steps will be taken as necessary: you may be blocked from editing, the talk page may be protected, and ultimately an abuse report may be sent to your ISP. Please use Talk pages for their intended purpose (see WP:TALK). SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)