| Revision as of 01:06, 18 September 2006 view sourceKaimiddleton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users739 edits mentioned← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:00, 18 September 2006 view source Tyrenius (talk | contribs)37,867 edits →Boosterism: You don't seem to have taken into account that this is not an editorial comment.Next edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| You have deleted material again, and left the edit summary "Misplaced Pages is not boosterism". There is no such thing in guidelines. Could you kindly explain what you mean by this? The information is referenced from a major publisher. It is relevant to the book if someone of note (which I understand the Jersey Girls are) says something of this nature about the book and its author. This is interesting and informative material for the reader. We are here to provide information, not censor it. You have complained that conspiracy theorists are intent on pushing a POV agenda on wikipedia, and I have agreed this is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to try to undermine any information or anything that is favourable to such theories. That is also POV. If you wish to participate in this article, perhaps you could help to find material to add to it. ] 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | You have deleted material again, and left the edit summary "Misplaced Pages is not boosterism". There is no such thing in guidelines. Could you kindly explain what you mean by this? The information is referenced from a major publisher. It is relevant to the book if someone of note (which I understand the Jersey Girls are) says something of this nature about the book and its author. This is interesting and informative material for the reader. We are here to provide information, not censor it. You have complained that conspiracy theorists are intent on pushing a POV agenda on wikipedia, and I have agreed this is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to try to undermine any information or anything that is favourable to such theories. That is also POV. If you wish to participate in this article, perhaps you could help to find material to add to it. ] 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :If we were talking about a NY Times Book Review, or any review for that matter in a mainstream publication, it would be notable. Book jacket quotes are by their very nature subjective editorialisms, intended to promote the book -- hence "Boosterism". Otherwise, they would not be placed on the book. ] is an official policy of long standing. Also, this is an encyclopedia that everybody gets to edit -- I do not appreciate the hounding and the threats you have made. ] 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | :If we were talking about a NY Times Book Review, or any review for that matter in a mainstream publication, it would be notable. Book jacket quotes are by their very nature subjective editorialisms, intended to promote the book -- hence "Boosterism". Otherwise, they would not be placed on the book. ] is an official policy of long standing. Also, this is an encyclopedia that everybody gets to edit -- I do not appreciate the hounding and the threats you have made. ] 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| You don't seem to have taken into account that this is not an editorial comment. It is a quote from a third party. I assure you I have nothing to advertise and have no connection with this book (nor any affiliation with views, whatever they are, expressed in it). My interest is in creating an informative article to improve the encyclopedia. | |||
| As you seem to remove material as soon as I put it in the article, it is not surprising that I question your actions, particularly when your early explanation was "I like Peeps' version better -- that's all", an obviously flippant and provocative comment. | |||
| I have not suggested that you do not edit the encyclopedia. I have suggested that you discuss things, and that you help to find suitable material to include in the article, rather than just delete other people's work. Perhaps you would like to be more specific about what you perceive as hounding and threats, as I feel I am being hounded whenever I edit ], and for that matter ], where you have also deleted material. | |||
| ] 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notability (books)== | ==Notability (books)== | ||
Revision as of 02:00, 18 September 2006
| Please leave a new message. |
|
This user is a member of the Counter-Propaganda Unit |
Discussion Conventions
- Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
- Please sign your comments. Type
~~~~after your text or use the edit toolbar. - Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.
See: Don't be a dick
- Caveat: Please keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with the thoughts expressed by others on this page.
 Archives |
|---|
Remember remember, the fifth of your mother
The truth is on to you, neocon scum! You are being tracked and watched! You will be brought to light! Viva la revolución!
Your recent actions have been noted, and your actions are being tracked and tallied for irreperable harm caused. Your vandalism must stop--you are the enemy.
(The foregoing comments brought to you by my good friend The Che Vandal)
- Sorry I couldn't talk to you before you got blocked. Maybe we wudda been chums!
Morton Devonshire
Do you know anyone from the U.K. (are you from U.K.)? Just FYI, This is the beginning of a Guy Fawkes night poem "Remember, Remember the 5th of November" commemorating a foiled plot to blow up parliament. It's celebrated with fireworks in U.K. like the 4th of July in the U.S.--Tbeatty 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The Chewbacca Defense
This one seems perfectly attuned to the standard 9/11 conspiracy line of thinking. Morton devonshire 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The Terror Timeline
Could you tell me why you reverted again on the above article without any proper edit summary, or any discussion on the talk page, when I had clearly given reasons why the material should stay? This is not collaborative work, and reeks of meatpuppetry. I expect a higher standard of conduct than this. Tyrenius 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like Peeps' version better -- that's all. Meatpuppetry? Get real -- that's for amateurs. Morton devonshire 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I wish someone could explain to me what "collaborative work" has to do with "merciless editing", the wikipedia credo? PainMan be confused regarding this.
PainMan 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
in re: Up Right Now
Thanks for the heads up; in re: 9/11 Conspiracy "Theories". Is there going to be a vote or something on these? PainMan 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- GabrielF maintains the list for people who are interested in seeing which conspiracy theory article are up for Articles for Deletion. Click on any of the links on his list, and you'll see where they go to. Morton devonshire 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
How I found your user page
I found your page while googling for tinwiki. I hope the "truth" movements decide to leave wikipedia and go there.
I first heard of Alex Jones via wikipedia (always a bad sign) when someone added his anti-Arnold group to Schwarzenegger's article. Do you think Jones' article will ever be deleted?
Do you feel that the article religion of peace is irredeemably bad?
I liked your comment about "truth" being like "people's republic", but my personal favourite about "truth" is from one of the Indiana Jones' movies, where the teacher says that archaeology is about facts, not truth. Thanks, Andjam 07:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jones? No, like it or not, he's a notable Nutburger, so his article stays. Religion of peace -- I think eventually it will go, because it's made-up political rhetoric, designed to demonstrate just how "inclusive" and tolerant we are in America. I think it was made up for a poltical speech, and doesn't have the staying power of say, Axis of Evil. Truth Movement leaving Misplaced Pages? Not until Google changes its search methodology -- right now, because of some strange search algo, Misplaced Pages outranks almost everything else -- it shouldn't -- it's shit for accuracy. So long as Misplaced Pages stays on top of Google, it's the battleground. Cheers, and happy editing. Morton devonshire 07:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's easy enough for nutters to get good google hits without wikipedia - try googling for Nicholas Berg. I think the tendency for wikis to have the subject matter in the page title helps, as google gives a fair weighting to that. That kind of advantage would apply for any wiki. With respect to religion of peace, you're aware of its additional use in a sarcastic tone, aren't you? Andjam 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Chewbacca
Hi Morton. While I rarely play copyright cop, the Chewbacca image is fair use and probably shouldn't be used in userspace. Take care -- Samir धर्म 08:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Waaaah! Okay. Morton devonshire 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Headgear engineering
Hello there. If you're into tinfoil hats, you may be interested in the article on Michael Menkin, which is up for deletion. Byrgenwulf 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
afd
It look like you missed this one. --Striver 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dude! Giving up on Alex Jones (radio)? He would be so disappointed. Morton devonshire 22:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, i am still a great fan of him. Lets say that some circumstances has discouraged me.--Striver 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Boosterism
You have deleted material again, and left the edit summary "Misplaced Pages is not boosterism". There is no such thing in guidelines. Could you kindly explain what you mean by this? The information is referenced from a major publisher. It is relevant to the book if someone of note (which I understand the Jersey Girls are) says something of this nature about the book and its author. This is interesting and informative material for the reader. We are here to provide information, not censor it. You have complained that conspiracy theorists are intent on pushing a POV agenda on wikipedia, and I have agreed this is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to try to undermine any information or anything that is favourable to such theories. That is also POV. If you wish to participate in this article, perhaps you could help to find material to add to it. Tyrenius 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- If we were talking about a NY Times Book Review, or any review for that matter in a mainstream publication, it would be notable. Book jacket quotes are by their very nature subjective editorialisms, intended to promote the book -- hence "Boosterism". Otherwise, they would not be placed on the book. Misplaced Pages articles must not be vehicles for advertisement is an official policy of long standing. Also, this is an encyclopedia that everybody gets to edit -- I do not appreciate the hounding and the threats you have made. Morton devonshire 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to have taken into account that this is not an editorial comment. It is a quote from a third party. I assure you I have nothing to advertise and have no connection with this book (nor any affiliation with views, whatever they are, expressed in it). My interest is in creating an informative article to improve the encyclopedia.
As you seem to remove material as soon as I put it in the article, it is not surprising that I question your actions, particularly when your early explanation was "I like Peeps' version better -- that's all", an obviously flippant and provocative comment.
I have not suggested that you do not edit the encyclopedia. I have suggested that you discuss things, and that you help to find suitable material to include in the article, rather than just delete other people's work. Perhaps you would like to be more specific about what you perceive as hounding and threats, as I feel I am being hounded whenever I edit The Terror Timeline, and for that matter Paul Thompson (researcher), where you have also deleted material.
Tyrenius 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Notability (books)
Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
mentioned
Hey! You mentioned me on your page. I'm honored. I doff my tin foil hat for thee. Kaimiddleton 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)