Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:36, 29 November 2011

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives:

Sept 2010, Oct 2010, Nov 2010, Dec 2010.

Jan 2011, Feb 2011, Mar 2011, Apr 2011, May 2011, Jun 2011. July 2011. Aug 2011. Sept 2011, Oct 2011, Nov 2011, Dec 2011.

Odds & ends...

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: ]. Thank you!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on Anders Behring Breivik

May i ask the both of you to cease reverting eachother, and instead discuss the issue on the talk page? Reverting over and over will not solve the issue, and it will definately not improve the discussion, so please, i would really prefer to see this solved without the need for silly measures such as full protections or 3RR blocks. Also as a warning, you are technically already over the 3RR Josh, which normally means an automatic block. So please, don't step over it any further and discuss before changing again. And please provide a source on the talk page for the claim. Excirial 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, I'm not Josh, for a start. I'm not over 3RR, and I've been trying to get Josh to talk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to post the same message to both parties, since that tends to make the discussion a lot easier to document on a talk page (And it prevents people from thinking i'm taking sides in a discussion) - the latter part of the message was only meant for Josh though, since he is the one outside 3RR. Excirial 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

source

just to help you out :P... today in court, breivik claimed that he was the "military commander of the norwegian anticommunist resistance movement" .-- mustihussain  20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that'll do as a source :) Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome. i would have entered the discussion myself but i'm busy with the islamophobia article which is flooded with unreliable sources and minority views...another victim of pov-pushers.-- mustihussain  04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed you were busy elsewhere. I think I'll stay out of the Islamophobia article for now - I've been causing enough of a ruckus elsewhere, and should probably keep my head down for a bit. I'm sure you know a lot more on the subject than I do, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks/Conspiracy theory of manipulation.

14:24, 6 November 2011‎ AndyTheGrump (144,798 bytes) (Undid revision 459293426 by 81.50.20.140 (talk) This is WP:OR, and would need a source that stated there was a 'conspiracy theory', at the very least)

Hello Andy,

I was 81.50.20.140. Sorry for my English, it is not my native tongue. Indeed, I forgot to put a reference for the second half of the sentence. The reference would be "see Main article Reception of WikiLeaks". Please have a look at the subsection I put there at the time on the subject. Regards, Adrian Belua (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a matter of policy that Misplaced Pages does not cite itself as a source, and nor does it cite other-language Wikipedias. Personally, I don't think that the two other sources cited actually back up the suggestion either. The correct place for discussion of article content, however, is on article talk pages, so others can contribute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ram Dass

Could use some support on this article. Another editor keeps added "religion = Jewish" even though the subject was a professed atheist before converting to Hinduism, the only religion the subject has professed. Yworo (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion involving you at WP:AN/I

Hi AndyTheGrump,

I realise you are upset about this, but the usual procedure is to first of all discuss the problem with yourself. If that doesn't work, you might also want to report yourself to WP:WQA, before moving to WP:ANI.

I also note that you did not notify yourself of this WP:AN/I discussion, as you are required to do.

Lastly, please don't burst an artery; as I'm sure you are aware, if that happened, Misplaced Pages cannot give you any medical advice.

Thank you, and columns of superheated-water-ly happy editing.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes - I've obviously failed to notify myself properly, and should therefore raise a complaint on AN/I about this...

Thanks for the comments, anyway. I'll try not to burst anything I might regret later ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Your recent editing history at CETI Patterson Power Cell shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. »εϻαdιν _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't post ridiculous notices about 'consensus'. The fuckwits edit-warring over this article don't give a damn about such concepts - and frankly, if Misplaced Pages is going to tolerate such morionic POV-pushing turds, it can manage without me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)