| Revision as of 09:21, 15 January 2008 editLuk (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators44,788 edits →Sockpuppettry: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:03, 20 February 2008 edit undoWJBscribe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,293 edits Redirect | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ] | ] 20:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Crime add'n == | |||
| Hi there. I made a small change to the section you added. (Nothing major, so feel free to revert if you don't like it). Best, --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. Way to work on the wiki-karma :) --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re TV Episode== | |||
| THe episode was hacked off a networks server and distribuited on the internet. THe only place info can be found on this is on the sites the videos are, because fan sites refuse to talk about it. ] (]) 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That's the thing, you can go to the sites and find it, but no other site reports it. ] (]) 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The fan sites don't talk about it cause they don't want people watching it. And FYI, I am an admin also, I just wanted another opnion. ] (]) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::THere are NO refrences that say it was hacked, the sites don't say it, they just say they have it. ] (]) 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:CONGO == | |||
| My advice to you on ] would be to follow the steps at ]. Direct questions on project formation to the ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Prius article == | |||
| Thanks, man. I've been working on cleaning it up, as well. Great to know that there's others joining in on the effort to clean that monstrously huge article that really doesn't need to be that huge. >.> ] (]) 09:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Uh, just a note, cleaning up an article usually entails removing useless details and consolidating references, not expanding the article and increasing the already monstrous list of references... ] (]) 06:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==on ANI: possible new user's committee?== | |||
| Someone posted on ANI about a pedophilia userbox. Blocking was discussesd. I was shocked to hear of such userbox. I commented that we consider a committee or study group to formulate acceptable user conduct so we can welcome new WPedians, not let them display bad judgment and get themselves blocked, particularly if they have good content to contribute. We should encourage the good content and not have them start bad content. | |||
| I proposed a common sense guideline, not a page of legalese. My first proposal is to include in the guidelines:<br /> | |||
| 1) Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Contents/Getting_started<br /> | |||
| 2) No support of pedophilia, whether in edits, user pages, userboxes, etc.<br /> | |||
| 3) Be nice philosophy. No 3RR. Try to compromise and discuss. If there is a dispute, try to form a convincing discussion, don't resort to socks.<br /> | |||
| 4) AGF<br />] (]) 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 5) The choice of username must be made carefully to avoid being denied editing ability. Please do not test the limits of what is permitted, such as if the name is barely acceptable. | |||
| == FAC/Reese Witherspoon == | |||
| Hi there, thanks for your suggestions. I've made some improvements per your review and responded to a few matters. :) Please check on my edits and review the article; and if there are more that need correcting, please don't hesitate to tell me at the FAC. Thank you! ] (]) 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, me again. Concerning ] (tired of me yet? ;)) Several kind users have helped me with fixing the article and I suppose all the copyediting has finished. I see your opposition still stands, so I was wondering if you could review the article again. (I'd love to hear more suggestions about how to further improve the page and make it qualify as an FA). Thanks for your time and take care, ] (]) 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==rankun's space plox== | |||
| ====]==== | |||
| I need your help moving this to a ga nomination for the same reason i wanted it fa.. im also looking for a wiki mentor if your willing ] (]) 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :im willing to bet ] and ] but let me look <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :YEah apparently harvard and princeton arent... oh man the admin is gonna love this one <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : I understand you... i just like the fact that the small school i go to could beat out harvard in exellence ] (]) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Where do you suggest i start? | |||
| Can you help me archive the talk page | |||
| Should we make a seporate whitehead article and then merge it back in with the main or no?``04:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Could i get you to add yourself to the wikiproject seton hall.... i want more members.. to take over the world with] (]) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC) veritas, vivicum, and hazard zit foward... | |||
| == MEETING == | |||
| If possible theres a meeting going on in irc.freenode.net in channel #SHU about seton hall ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Dartmouth Medical School FAC == | |||
| Hi -- I've been away, and I was unable to finish addressing your suggestions at ] before the nomination was closed. I just wanted to respond to your comment that ''My comments are meant to help improve, not to say that the article is bad'' -- I fully understand and didn't mean at any time to suggest that I thought otherwise. I appreciate your comments, and I'll work to incorporate them so that the article passes next time. Thanks! ] (]) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not at all! Please feel totally free to help out -- I don't stake any more of a claim on that article than any other Wikipedian. It would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfA thanks== | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 5px solid #CCCCCC; background-color: #FF9999;" | |||
| |align="left"|] | |||
| |align="center"|Thank you for voting in ], which which passed '']'' with '''45 support''', '''0 oppose''', and '''0 neutral'''. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then ''pass the Marigolds''. <!-- this thank-you created with Template:RfA-thanks --> | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thanks for your support and a good, if tough question. It was a sort of generic editor I was thinking of, who always exhibits the behaviour exactly as you've described (I've come across three of them, so far). Cheers ] (]) 16:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| FYI, I got out of the debate at ] because ]. Sorry, I had to walk away. Bearian, a/k/a ] (]) 04:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Yawn == | |||
| In other words, lighten up! Known liberals and a known conservative? Jeez, cut down on the drama juice. I am a moderate myself but I cant speak for the other editors. Neither can you. Who are you anyway and why are you watching/observing/stalking other editors? What business is it of yours? ] (]) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ANI is about the most public forum on WP. That's not stalking. Ok, you may be a moderate but your reputation is a liberal. You can speak about others. For example, Howard Dean is a liberal. There's no question. That's not saying he's bad or good. | |||
| Ok, yawn (per your definition). ] (]) 06:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| So from looking over my edit history you have cleverly deduced that I am a "known liberal" with a "liberal reputation"? Still, what business is it of yours? You have the gall to say that we should keep fighting on the page and that nothing has been settled? The two editors most heavily involved both agreed to the solution. What is your issue? ] (]) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It looked to me like there was not a strong effort to reach a consensus. Just read ANI. Sounds like a brawl. | |||
| :I never said "we should keep fighting on the page". Ferrylodge is a known conservative as reported in the national news. I just assumed that you were liberal but did not research your edits, just your ANI comments. It does sound like a brawl. | |||
| :The issue is that if you reach a consensus that includes Ferrylodge and if he reaches a consensus that includes you, you will have made an achievement. Both of you brawling is not good. Why hasn't Ferrylodge attacked me (yet)? I have not said he is right and you are wrong. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Consensus was reached by about a dozen editors on the talk page. If you don't have the ability to take the time and figure out what is actually going on then you shouldn't accuse people you don't know of shifty behavior. Your comments were rude and completely inappropriate. I tired of discussing your rude behavior and trying to reign in a disruptive editor (not you). Take care and think more about what you are doing in the future. ] (]) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If you have anything more to say, please don't argue it with me. Try Elkman or Pairadox. ] (]) 06:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reply to your comment on my talk page== | |||
| Right. Well, bringing in your characterization of my politics in an AN/I discussion that I was not a central party to, just trying to help settle - and that you had nothing to do with at all - was way out of line and unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, so let's just stop this conversation, ok? But having read the above, I must say you sound awfully familiar. If you are who I suspect, stop now before this goes to its inevitable conclusion. If you are not, let's just stop the conversation anyway. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 07:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:AN/I stuff == | |||
| You know, it could very well have been what you attributed it to. I've lost comments once or twice on AN/I, but always my own. What I'd suggest is that on AN/I, because it's such an active page, type your comments, then ''highlight'' them and do a "CTRL+C" before hitting post. Then, once you hit post, if edit conflict comes up, go back to the page, re-enter the edit mode, and "CTRL+V" paste your previously typed comments back where you wanted them, and try hitting post again. That's the process that I've had to adopt, but it seems to work for AN/I as a ''very'' active page... ] (]) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Noticeboard == | |||
| Sorry for the dealy in responding. At least one of the parties involved in that instance seems to have a history of perhaps falsely presenting a reasonable front. It's really hard to deal with anyone like that, as I know from experience. I've added a few comments myself, and asked for clarification on a previous restriction on that party. If it does seem to be the case that one side just isn't willing to discuss or acknowledge potential weaknesses, though, there's really nothing you can do other than do what was done there, and try to get additional input. I think it unfortunately happens more often than anyone would want, but that does mean we should be ready to deal with it when the situations arise. In this case, it's already on the admin board, so some better informed parties will probably be able to figure it out. ] (]) 19:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sockpuppetry== | |||
| You have been confirmed via checkuser as the operator of several abusive sock puppets. See ]. Do you have any comments? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I ask that you continue contributing, particularly your current work in bring the two articles to FA status. ] (]) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppettry == | |||
| I just wanted to remind you that ] in order to avoid scrutiny is contrary to our policies. Your alternate accounts are indefinitely blocked, and I encourage you to refrain from creating such accounts in the future, or we have to remove your editing rights. Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:03, 20 February 2008
Redirect to: