| Revision as of 17:53, 12 September 2005 editGator1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,151 edits →RFC← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:45, 27 April 2019 edit undoJJMC89 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators344,654 editsm Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Template:Blocked user |
| (483 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{sockpuppeteer|blocked}} |
|
{{welcome}} ] 20:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hi there== |
|
|
I was looking at your contribs and I noticed that you maybe got off on the wrong foot with some people. I hope that your impression of Misplaced Pages was not based on the misbehavior of a few who may not have realized you are new around here. (see ]) I hope that you stick around long enough to realize wikipedia is not the liberal bastion that you initially thought it was. It's just a bunch of flawed people trying to write a good encyclopedia ] 19:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hey, pal == |
|
|
|
|
|
BD, I really appreciate your work on the Coulter page -- especially your persistence and willingness to defend yourself. But I encourage you, in the spirit of friendship, to please calm down and self-edit your frustration and tone out of the discussion. It will only be used against you by others. Many people game the system by making unreasonable edits to bait others to frustration. Do not fall into their trap. Quietly, calmly, make your point, and discuss things on their merits. If others are acting in bad faith, it will be evident -- you don't have to point it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, stop right now and do a very thorough check -- '''twice''' -- to count all the reverts you have made the Coulter article in the last day. If you step over the line and make more than three, it will be used against you and you can be blocked. A revert can be construed as any time you changed back someone's remarks, and not just 3 for the same remark, just three in total. I'm afraid you might be getting close to the line, and I'm trying to protect you. Let me know if you have questions about the policy. Kind regards, ] 00:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A different page. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Are you interested in anything but politics? One of the best ways you can help with the encyclopedia is providing knowledge in the less contravercial sections of our encyclopedia. Give it a try. ] - ] 08:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cindy Sheehan== |
|
|
I find it terribly amusing that you insist on pigeon-holing everyone into your "conservative" and "liberal" categories. Unfortunately, that is just overly simplistic. With regards to the Sheehan case, how can you seriously make any claim that she is a liberal stooge, puppet, etc? She has availed herself of various media resources as they were offered, but that doesn't make her a puppet--that makes her media savvy. As for your constant presumptions of neo-liberalism (I assume that you know the difference between classical {free market} liberals like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, et al., and neo- {socialist}liberals, like FDR, Hillary, et al.), you should do some more research. Cindy Sheehan was writing for lewrockwell.com long before any of the so-called liberal media got involved in covering her activism. If you want to make the laughable claim that LRC, an anti-war, anti-state, pro-free market site, is a mouthpiece for the socialist left, go ahead, but I think you know better. ] 16:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== In keeping with... == |
|
|
|
|
|
...the above comment. You should match intelligence with brevity. I just looked thru Pat Robertson and thought "useful contributor who's so all over the place I don't f***king get it." Short and sweet works better than a rant and you're ranting too much. Seriously, leave the liberal/conservative bullshit for blogs. And don't take this comment badly at all. You strike me as someone who could and should provide worthwhile stuff. Write back as you please. ] 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --] 20:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== repeated vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ] |
|
|
This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you vandalize a page you ''will'' be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
You continue to ignore the notice about discussing changes before making them to the Ann Coulter article. --] 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Formatting issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign your posts by using four tildes in a row <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Otherwise it gets confusing as to who is saying what on talk pages. Also, please try not to use so many line breaks. Consolidate your sentences -- there's no need to have one sentence per line break; it makes pages scroll too much and discourages editors from reading your comments. Thanks. · ]<sup>]</sup> 16:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I see you're using the tildes; thanks so much. But can you please, please start consolidating your sentences? You're still using one sentence per line break. Now I'm having to come in behind you and strip them out, and I'd prefer not to be doing it. Thanks. · ]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pat == |
|
|
|
|
|
I made an edit today and suggested a couple of more to address some of your concerns. I do hope you realize that others do bear in mind perceived problems and that you can usefully contribute if you mention things without the initial confrontational attitude. ] 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please be aware that an RFC has been filed regarding your conduct on various talk pages. You can read it and respond at ]. As a personal note, I contine to hope that you will become a positive contributor here, and I did not file this RFC with the intent of moving it further down the chain, or driving you away, merely as an attempt to get you to tone down on various Talk pages. ] - ] 00:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Echo Hipocrite. --] 00:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You're doing the right thing by not responding to the RFC (if I was our attorney that's exactly what I would tell you too :), it would only dignify it and it can go nowhere. There seem to be a healthy number of people fighting it.] 12:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You do realize how the dispute resolution chain works, right Gator? The requirements for an arbitration case (much more serious) is to point out that an RfC was already tried before and failed. Both Hip and I have stated just above this that we are not seeking punishment against BigDaddy but to try to convince him to change his behavior. If BigDaddy takes your advice, then it could get much more serious. --] 17:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Now the threats...what a surprise. All of this from an RFC that they said wasn't meant to punish you....now if you don't respond to them or bend to their will and tell them what they want to hear then it "could get much more serious." This IS a joke and will go nowhere as its unfounded and completely unwarranted. Next thing you know, they're going to start threatening me (assuming that "condoning" language wasn't already a threat") Some people just make me sad...] 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey check out the respnse I got on my talk apge for this: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Seriously, WTF? == |
|
|
- |
|
|
- Have you ever participated in an RFC process before? All I want is for him to stop being such a jerk to his fellow editors. If he came to the RFC and his responce was "I see your concerns, and will address them," then that would be all. By advising him to ignore our incredibly reasonable suggestions you're explicitly condoning his behavior. An RFC is not severe in the least. ] - ] 13:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I blanked it and didn't respond, but I might get an RFC too since I am "condoning" your actions....yeah righ.....Anyway, enjoy the ride, this entire episode is beginning to make me giggle.] 13:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hip = stalker. Striaght up. |
|
|
] 13:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Now he's gone and told on me!! LOL. Man, now this is making me laugh out loud! This is embarassing.... I hope he just moves on soon, what a huge waste of time and wiki-resources.] 14:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I realize you're new here, but it seems like a lot of sparks have been flying as a result of some of your edits. It may help you to read ]. Some of the key "nots" include: Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a soapbox. Talk pages are for discussing articles, not politics. Even on political articles, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get much better results if you take a less combative stance (this means refraining from insulting other editors), and briefly explain on talk pages what changes you think the article needs, and why. The long polemics simply turn people off and make them less likely to read your entire post or take you seriously. The use of CAPITOL LETTERS may also tend to turn people off. |
|
|
|
|
|
Another key point to understand is, Misplaced Pages articles are NOT meant to contain "The Truth", either yours or someone else's version. Deciding what is The Truth would lead to endless disagreements, so on Misplaced Pages we go by what is verifiable instead. Hope this helps. ] ] 15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for your response via email, but I'm afraid it just shows that you're not understanding the problem here. ] is an official policy, and your assertions that other articles aren't following it properly don't really relate to anything. These issues should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Also, note that verifiability may not mean what you think it means. If someone wanted to add a bit to an article, saying, for example, "Larry King reported on 9.5.2005 that George W. Bush is a lizard-headed alien disguised as a human", we do not have to try to "prove" the truth of this claim. It's verifiable as long as we can cite a source that Larry King said it. This example is a bit silly of course, but hopefully it will illustrate what is meant by verifiability. ] ] 16:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
