Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 2 August 2009

Queen & Freddie Mercury

Please do not accuse other editors of a biased agenda, particularly when you don't explain why they should have such a thing. Please assume good faith. Your edits were removed (as I have done again) because the list you are linking to clearly do not list Queen as "the world's second best-selling rock band", and you offer no other reference to support this claim. Besides this, Misplaced Pages cannot act as a cite for itself, so the link would not be acceptable anyway. --Escape Orbit 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed these claims again from these two articles. As I explained above; you have no cites to back this claim up, the Misplaced Pages article cannot be used as a cite, and combining the two is original synthesis. Please stop adding it. --Escape Orbit 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Specifically the phrase "Undid contribution by spastic". Darrenhusted (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Escape Orbit 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Give it a rest.

Stop with the "biased agenda" nonsense. The phrase became a standout is awkward, how are you defining standout? And standout isn't even a word. The four words went on to win are summed up with won. He won more than one championship so including the 1973 Calgary City Championship is undue weight for one championship. The phrase was preparing to try is better expressed as considered trying. And but financial constraints prevented him from doing so. He decided to pursue a college degree instead. has no citation, so by deliberately introducing un-cited information you are vandalising the article.

Given your editing history I can only assume you were previously 89.168.132.16, 88.110.69.31, 88.110.70.19 and Brendan Heron. So this is not the first time you have been told to assume good faith and stop with the attacks. Exactly what agenda do you assume I am pushing? The anti-Calgary City Championship agenda? There is no agenda, simply bad edits being made by you, (including you putting WWF in brackets rather than in piping). Darrenhusted (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What agenda?

Most of your edits, including those to Queen and Faceparty, have been reverted by other editors, because they do not improve the articles. Why is the 1973 championship so important? There is not source for his intentions, and his high school is not sourced, all you are doing is adding back in opinion and rumour. Find a source that he was better than the other students, find a source as to why the 1973 championship is more important, find a source that he intended to be a film director, find a source for his high school. And stop using the word "agenda" when you don't seem to have a basic understanding of what the word means. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He became a top student as cited by the DVD. He won the championship as cited by the DVD. This was the sole championship mentioned by Hart, therefore eligible for inclusion. I put "film" director in an attempt to support the sentence - no, it isn't cited yet. The High School was there before I touched it. An agenda is what you have. You now have a personal agenda against myself, illuminated by the fact you are now following me. Get a life. People like you are the reason why Misplaced Pages is regarded as a joke by the majority of Internet users. 88.109.58.238 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

An agenda against you? You edited pages on my watchlist, when one editor pops up on several pages, and has been reverted by several different editors then it is natural to review an editor's contributions. I have hundreds of pages I am watching and I really do not care about any other user, just improving the articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Very commendable. 88.109.58.238 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Assume good faith

Please stop labelling edits by other editors as vandalism or biased, simply because you personally don't agree with them. Doing so violates the behavioural guideline of assuming good faith, which is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. If you continue with this behaviour, not only are you going to always be generating conflict with others, but you will earn yourself a block on editing.

It is also hypocritical of accusing others of "inexplicable" edits, when a large percentage of your own do not use the edit summary to explain themselves. Indeed, the only time you seem to use edit summaries is to accuse others of being biased vandals. Use of edit summaries to explain what you are doing and why can help avoid misunderstanding and is helpful to other editors.

The way to handle disagreement over content is discussion to establish consensus, not by edit warring and insults. --Escape Orbit 05:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring

88.109.58.238 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Why have I been blocked? Well? Give me a valid reason... if you can. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Why have I been blocked? Well? Give me a valid reason... if you can. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Why have I been blocked? Well? Give me a valid reason... if you can. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock