User talk:Rebroad/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Rebroad Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:11, 19 December 2004 editShreem Fried Rice (talk \| contribs)14 edits →172 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:46, 19 December 2004 edit undoDori (talk \| contribs)9,615 edits Republic of MacedoniaNext edit →
Line 152:		Line 152:

	I was surprised to see your post on my talk page responding to such an old matter. I assume you were curious as to how Hugh Laurie and speedy deletion came up in the same sentence. Adambisset accidently created a page named Hugh Lawrie, trying to discuss this funny British actor. I felt that the misspelling was probably not common and nominated his article for speedy deletion since we already had an article under the proper spelling; a mod decided to redirect instead. Adambisset was just dropping a line to say that he realized his mistake and was ok with my speedy nomination. ] 01:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)		I was surprised to see your post on my talk page responding to such an old matter. I assume you were curious as to how Hugh Laurie and speedy deletion came up in the same sentence. Adambisset accidently created a page named Hugh Lawrie, trying to discuss this funny British actor. I felt that the misspelling was probably not common and nominated his article for speedy deletion since we already had an article under the proper spelling; a mod decided to redirect instead. Adambisset was just dropping a line to say that he realized his mistake and was ok with my speedy nomination. ] 01:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

			== Republic of Macedonia ==

			Please do not move the page. That is the consensus that has been reached, and you need community approval before making the drastic change. Thanks, ] \| ] 15:46, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:46, 19 December 2004

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Misplaced Pages:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold! Arb Com election]] 18:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush intro

First, I hope you read the section I referred to in my summary, and saw that the election dispute is covered in the article. Therefore the charge of censorship is just wrong.

Second, the Supreme Court ruled on the election procedure, not its results. Florida's electoral votes were cast according to the election results as machine counting had determined them, not according to any order from the court.

Third, there's really no reason for mentioning that the justices are unelected, except to push a "selected not elected" POV. Gazpacho 15:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gazpacho. Nice to make your acquaintance.

Apologies if I have caused you any offense, it was not intended. I'm sure there are other areas on Misplaced Pages that contain mention of the supreme courts involvement, but I would still maintain that simply deleting other people's contributions is still a form of censorship.

How the Supreme Court made a difference doesn't change the fact that they made a difference. It doesn't change the fact that members of the Supreme Court had conflicts of interest (let me know if were not aware of this, and I can elaborate) and therefore should have abstained.

The fact that this is the first time in history that a president has come into power in this way is relevant, as it strikes at the core of what a democracy is about. To many people, it's one of the most relevant things about the current president of the US.

If the "selected not elected" was a point of view then surely it's just your POV to suggest that there is no reason to mention it. As far as I was aware, the justices were selected, at least, that's what the article on the Supreme Court says. Are you saying that they are actually elected and the Supreme Court article is wrong?

Cheers, --Rebroad 19:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will say this again: the election dispute is already covered in the article.

We could cover in the intro every point that some editor thinks is the "most relevant," but obviously that would give an impractically long intro. So, Bush is the president, for two terms, and before he was the president he did other things.

I hope you don't think that these matters have not been raised, and discussed, already in the past four years. Gazpacho 00:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User page

You wrote: "Interesting. It says "Please do not create an article to promote yourself", so I guess I'm not allowed to say anything about myself then....". Your user page is not an article, it is a user page, and it is allowed to contain information about yourself (although you should avoid excessive self-promotion: it doesn't look too good :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fennec. Thanks for visiting my page. Well, when I went to edit my page, it gave me that message, so if the rules are different for user pages, then strictly speaking, should that message be removed? --Rebroad 23:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's just boilerplate text, which isn't specific to the namespace. Besides, the rule applies to "articles" and anything outside the main namespace is not considered an article, so writing about yourself there is okay (to a certain extent :P). ed g2s • talk 03:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sept 11 Reversions

We have a little rule here called the Three Revert Rule. I understand that you have been reverting certain pages excessively. If you continue to revert pages in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. Please take steps to prevent this from occurring. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. I am aware of the 3RR, but I was not aware I had broken it. Please could you let me know where and when this was done? Otherwise it will be difficult for me learn from any mistakes I make if I don't know when I'm doing them. Thanks in advance, --Rebroad 23:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That would be at this page. There are multiple instances in which you are reverted, by various users. This qualifies as an "edit war". -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - I know this is an edit war, but my question was whether I had broken the 3RR, as far as I can see, it was not me doing the reverts as you yourself just mentioned above. --Rebroad 09:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The database was broken; when I tried to look at the older version, it kept saying it didn't exist. So I copied your links, reverted, then put the links at the bottom. Didn't this show up in my edit summary in my edit after the revert? Or did that edit not take? I haven't checked it, I had to run out. I don't complain about the links, just their placement. --Golbez 04:49, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. No this didn't show up in the summary. I'll have a look and see. Thanks. --Rebroad 15:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

The edit I reverted had added "Judaea (in Palistine vis.Isreal)". Besides inserting a political opinion, two of the three words were misspelled. Rick K 23:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

As for the Cupertino article, I explained my reasons on User:LegitReality's Talk page. Rick K 00:00, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

And your trolling is now noted. Rick K 00:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Vote against disrupting Misplaced Pages

I'm laughing out loud at you voting against disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, especially given the recent activity. :-) You have a good sense of irony, and I mean that as a compliment. Slim 15:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers Slim. Although I'm sure any irony is mostly accidental! :-s --Rebroad 17:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the dogs are mine. One's a poodle and the other's a cross of some kind -- she looks like a cross between a fox and a Queen's corgi. :-) Slim 17:31, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist? Hmmm . . . I feel that's a little strong. How about "a coordinated series of polite requests . . ."? :-) Slim 18:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you find something else to do besides following me around, undoing my edits, and tattling on the mailing list. I notice that nobody has felt the need to reply to your silly email list postings. Don't you have something constructive you could be doing? Rick K 20:33, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Bob Wilson

Why on earth did you move that page? Many of the other players are listed by their familiar names, are you going to move all those too? It is not a standard for Misplaced Pages to use formal names for people articles. Bob Palin 23:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well a disambiguation page is really the right thing to do and a move to Bob Wilson (footballer) would be appropriate. You didn't even remove the See also for another Bob Wilson from the page - I don't think his name is also Robert Primrose! I'll tidy up. Bob Palin 01:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have changed all the links to the appropriate Bob Wilson, I trust you will be adding the Bob Wilson (scientist) page soon. Bob Palin 02:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Links and user pages

Misplaced Pages is not made to promote outside links. The redirect to the external link of the Logan's run website will therefore not work. As for personal promotion, you can talk about yourself as long as it's confined to your user page. The normal namespace is reserved for encyclopedia articles. And the majority of Wikipedians isn't important enough to have their own encyclopedia article. ] 15:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this?! --Rebroad 16:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because I was under the impression you made an article on Logan's run and only added an external link. And because of the comment on your user page. My apologies, if I made a mistake. ] 17:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

172

Three questions. Does this set a better standard for image file naming? What is wrong with removing personal attacks from your talk page? And have we ever interacted with each other? (Given the ancient and obscure examples-- not much considering that I've been here for around two years and have become one of the 50-70 most active editors in Misplaced Pages's history--that you provided for the disendorsement, it seems like you have a pretty narrow picture of me based on a couple of bad first impressions... I'm not responding you to give you flack for your statements, but rather as a way of reaching out to you. It seems like you have been a pretty active user lately. So I'd rather have a better working relation with you that does not rest on just a few unpleasant run-ins. 172 18:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to make an effort to vote for everyone. So far I'm spending far too long researching each person before voting, so I'm having to apply some pretty strict criteria to speed up the process! One of the things I give a black mark to is people trying to hide negative feedback. If I see just one instance, I'm opposing them. I'm applying the same standard to everyone, whether I've ever spoken to them or not. Regards, --Rebroad 19:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"As of now, arbitration seems to focus too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits". Quoting you here ( 2nd para), I was voting for you purely on the merit of your edits. It is nothing personal, and I hope you understand this. Cheers, --Rebroad 19:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not hiding negative feedback. I was deleting an extremely inflammatory and hurtful personal attack. The attack was utterly illegitimate and politically motivated-- an attempt to cast me as some sort of Stalinist as opposed to commenting on the merits of the edits in question. It was an extreme affront to the professional standards to which I hold my research on Wiki and moreover outside Wiki and my beliefs (I am not a Stalinist by any stretch of the imagination). Since personal attacks are against Wiki policies of civility, I had every right to remove it from my personal user talk page as a sign that I would not dignify the comments by responding to them or by leaving them on my page... It would be different, though, if the comments were posted on a community talk page. In that sense, I did not remove-- or even comment on-- Fred Bauder's half-baked (sorry-- that's the kindest description I can think of) "disendorsement" charging me of systematically conspiring to "whitewash leftwing totalitarian actions and leaders" on Wiki, even though these comments stike me as even more mean-spirited and baseless. 172 20:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your professional standards? Oh good HEAVENS!! Just STFU 06:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo

On VfD you said that even Jimbo is in favor of episode guides on Misplaced Pages. I'd be happy to drop my case if that's true. Can you point me to a place where he said so? ] 13:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember where exactly. It was on someone's talk page, a fairly well known sysop, and Jimbo commented that he agreed. I'll have a quick look and see if I can find it. Might have been Blankfaze. --Rebroad 15:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, here it is, here. --Rebroad 17:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship

Would you mind taking a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein please?CheeseDreams 08:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR counting

VeryVerily

3 Dec, 11:11
3 Dec, 07:25
3 Dec, 07:17
3 Dec, 07:10
3 Dec, 07:07

ArbCom "elections"

Hello Rebroad,

I want to let you know about a message I've just put on the ArbCom elections endorsements page. I'm letting you know because I've seen from your comments on that page and in its history, that you are concerned about the fairness of these "elections". So am I. "Neutrality" has had a grudge against me since I voted against him in his admin elections and has made it %^&$ hell for me to try and continue to use the Misplaced Pages since then.

He keeps blocking me. I have disabled hands and it's very hard to try and stand up against this abuse by this bully. Please help me stop this stich-up of the election by publicising what's going on and demanding proper fair dealing from Danny and the other organisers. Thanks. - WikiUser.

(P.S. They should stop keeping the "elections" as quiet as they can, i.e. put a notice on the Main Page. They should stop trying to prevent people from taking part, all they want they say is for the candidates to praise themselves, their friends to praise them- and anyone else to shut up and no criticising. Some elections! It's a stich up for the same old group of users.)WikiUser 20:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above user has been unblocked now at my insistance CheeseDreams 02:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship

Would you care to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/John Kenney ? CheeseDreams 02:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well Corwin8 couldn't possibly have included a reference for his facts. Because he had the facts wrong. Yes, I do tend to revert untrue additions on sight. Wolfman 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Although only an infinitely wise person would be able to recognise all of them on sight! --Rebroad 10:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chicago

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you--very time-consuming computer problems have kept me mostly off Misplaced Pages most of the past week. I don't think RickK has anything against Chicago--at worst he's become a bit jaded as a tireless defender from unwarrented edits, such as the constant barrage of people making unsubstantiated claims about how wonderful their city is. The key is to cite specific reports/organizations/lists/whatevers that make specific claims and data to back it up. Niteowlneils 04:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hematoma

Discussion moved to Talk:Hematoma.

Hugh Laurie

I was surprised to see your post on my talk page responding to such an old matter. I assume you were curious as to how Hugh Laurie and speedy deletion came up in the same sentence. Adambisset accidently created a page named Hugh Lawrie, trying to discuss this funny British actor. I felt that the misspelling was probably not common and nominated his article for speedy deletion since we already had an article under the proper spelling; a mod decided to redirect instead. Adambisset was just dropping a line to say that he realized his mistake and was ok with my speedy nomination. Indrian 01:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Please do not move the page. That is the consensus that has been reached, and you need community approval before making the drastic change. Thanks, Dori | Talk 15:46, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)