| Revision as of 04:01, 13 July 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:38, 13 September 2024 edit undoGrace Note (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,516 edits →Blocked: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (538 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == If you ever run for admin, please let me know == | |||
| ==WP:RM== | |||
| For comments or votes to matter on a ] the votes and comments must be placed on the talk page of the page to be moved. Please move the votes and comments you placed on ] onto the appropriate talk pages. ] 15:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You said ] that you'd never RfA, but please let me know if you ever change your mind. Your ideas on rotating power are interesting. -<span style="font:bold 10px Verdana;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship == | |||
| :Har. ] (]) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::G-n; no, i was not laughing at you; intention was convey that you are too outspoken to pass a witch trial. Admin candidates cannot afford not to pull punches. ] (]) 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is that very quality of ''not'' being a politician which I think we should see more often. -<span style="font:bold 10px Verdana;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :By way of explination for my suddenly turning up; you made a very perceptive comment on your user page about a stalking horse a while back; during that badsites hullabloo. I watchlisted you page then (something I rarely do) and its been interesting following you since. I like reading bright people's musings, what can I say. ] (]) 12:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| ...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion . ] 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| In light of your comments at ] and the views expressed on your user page, I am disappointed that you did not leap to the support of my proposal for parallel articles, suggested and and ]. | |||
| == Enviroknot == | |||
| Mel Etitis never protected Enviroknot's userpage: see . ] ] 06:07, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC) | |||
| The idea seems much in line with your views, but, of course, no one has supported it. --] (]) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think you may find this useful: . Cheers, ] ] 21:23, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Good instincts == | ||
| After reviewing the history of the "Sam Blacketer" incident I noticed that you were among the very few who opposed his adminship. I just wanted to compliment everyone who did since all of you had either good instincts, good reasoning and weren't afraid of going against the grain. If you ever seek adminship then please let me know - we need more good admins. ] (]) 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Further conversation there seemed out of place. The reason the last attempt at de-adminship went down in flames was the way it was being done. Long story, and it was spread over many pages, just trust me, it was bad. Also, while I do agree there is some merit to having a simple process for de-adminning, upon further review I'm not sure it would be worth the cost. All proposals so far would have resulted in a melee of abuse, hard feelings, and other unproductive edits. There doesn't seem to be a way to allow valid requests for de-adminship and not allow the invalid ones without appearing to be playing favorites. Allowing them all would be a mess and no one would get any work done. The problem is admins stick their necks out and even when following policy and acting in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, they are of course going to anger those they sanction. So there will always be people willing to harass any de-adminship process. The only legitimate process I see to avoid some of the problems would be to have a discussion every year on every admin to reapply. Those that get at least half supports would stay, those no would lose their admin rights. But that still faces the problem of getting harassed by editors who have been legitimately blocked and banned. Also, for those admins clearly following Misplaced Pages policy, they would certainly, and rightly be supported by other admins. That would lead to even greater cries of cronyism. If you have a magic system to avoid enough problems that it would be worth the cost let me know. - ] <sup><small>]</sup></small> 17:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I left the response on my talk page for continuity | |||
| :I was looking at more logs (no I'm not stalking you), and found that you opposed both William Connolley's adminship and Guettarda's. Initially I wasn't going to compliment you for the first one, but then I laughed out loud when I saw the second. At this point I think wikipedian's "requests for adminship" should begin and end with you, but hey, maybe I'm wrong and you are just a polemic. ] (]) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == RFM? == | |||
| == Lydda and Ramla == | |||
| Hi there! I have no clue why you and Mel Etitis seem to be at each other's throats (figuratively speaking), nor is it really any of my business, but maybe the two of you should consider mediation? Yours, ]]] 10:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Grace Note! I have replied to your comment at ]. Please have a look. —] <sup>(])</sup> 12:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == ] Images in your User Space == | |||
| :I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on ]. I ask for your support.--] 20:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hey there Grace Note, thank you for your contributions! I am a ] alerting you that ] files are ]. I some images that I found on ]. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your ] or your ]. See a log of images removed today ], shutoff the bot ] and report errors ]. Thank you, -- ] (]) 04:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editor assistance list== | |||
| ::Grace, I saw that you no longer agree to mediation. I hope I didn't drive you off. I believe in the Choir having many voices, even if we sing different parts. And I'd hate to lose someone who sings with compassion. Please let me know your concerns.--] 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. Since your account has recently not been editing very regularly, on the page ] you name has been moved to a list of editors who are willing to give assistance, but may not always be available. There is an explanation at ]. You are, of course, welcome to move yourself back to the other list if you wish to. ] (]) 11:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::I agree with Ghost, although I couldn't bring the lilting metaphoric entreaty that he does. I read elsewhere that you were concerned about certain partisans getting their way. I can assure you that while we can't do much about their spew, there are a serious handful of us who have been staunch protectionists of keeping the facts in the article (as NPOV as possible) and the conspiracy garbage out. I recall you were an effective partner in that endeavor and I wish you'd come back. So far as the mediation is concerned, I read between the lines (and perhaps inaccurately) that you didn't have confidence in aspects of the process (I needn't elaborate, particluarly if I misinterpreted your thoughts). That's alright; we could still use your input in the article itself and on the talk page. ] (] 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the note. Come on back, please. You'll be interested in my indictment for alleged 3RR violation. ] (] 03:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691988767 --> | |||
| == |
== (I don't know where to start) == | ||
| Just ... O my. | |||
| Check out ]. I'm at a loss about what to do about this matter.--] 22:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| (It would be good if you would please date your essay. I -- and I presume others -- would better understand what you're saying if we knew that any particular essay were from, say, 2004, not last week.) | |||
| ] (]) 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Well yeah but all edits are dated anyway and I don't care. I deleted most of it anyway. Don't fool yourself though. Looking around, I see it's still shit, particularly for women. But it's not worth fighting over. ] (]) 19:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Your vote on my RfA == | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| Hiya Grace Note, thanks for voting on my RfA! I'm sorry if I worded my explanation a little badly, so let me clarify: Everyking's opposition is to one of my proposals, which was to change the requests for admin procedure into a mentoring system. Everyking didn't like what he saw as a step away from democracy and voting (which I explained was incorrect on the RfA page, as my proposal involves discussion and feedback quite prominently). So the irony is you have opposed due to me not following Everyking's proposal, whereas the one thing Everyking thought I did not follow was his democracy view, which you just said you thought was evil! I hope this clears it up :) ] (] | ] | ]) 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Grace Note. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| : Hiya, if you're not watching my talk page this is just to let you know I replied. ] (] | ] | ]) 4 July 2005 01:06 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :: Hiya, I replied again. Would you prefer that I replied here? ] (] | ] | ]) 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Tote the Ranks == | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=813406758 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2018 election voter message == | |||
| Welcome to ], conscientious objector! :) | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Grace Note. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :''When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?'' | |||
| :: - Eleanor Roosevelt | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == "Cunt" == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to point out both that the date was 05:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC), and that I apologised to SqueakBox that same day. I'm guessing you also biased that out, huh? Not that I care, though. Happy editing. ] 4 July 2005 21:46 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/05&oldid=866998124 --> | |||
| == June 2022 == | |||
| i want to paddle you and pull down your pants and give it to you in the wanker | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors ] while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at ]. Here is Misplaced Pages's ], and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Misplaced Pages! ''To wit: Oh I didn't realise you people were controlling this. Tommy-Sizzle is obviously right but you've appointed yourselves arbiters so I guess this article will be one more that's dishonest and nothing anyone can do about it.] (]) 03:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)''<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> ] ] 07:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Encore == | |||
| :Yes, I get it. I didn't realise you were gatekeeping that page. There's no point bullying me. I don't give a fuck. ] (]) 11:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Ahh, Grace, how nostalgic tonight's performance is on ].... And back on Earth, {{User|61.129.44.201}}, previously warned on his talk page, has now broken 3RR. You don't happen to be an admin, do you? ] 05:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. Good night. ] 06:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Blocked== | |||
| == <font color=ff0000 size=5><strong>C</strong></font>omments... == | |||
| You have been blocked for a week for spreading unpleasantness in this collaborative project. Probably you have been here long enough not to need any references to particular policies that violate; I expect you've heard of them. I note the unpleasantness of your userpage too. Not sure why you bother to edit here at all? You can request unblock by placing <nowiki>{{unblock|your reason here}}</nowiki> on this page. ] | ] 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC). | |||
| :Didn't notice. Don't care. Have a nice day. ] (]) 03:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| thx 4 your remarks, grace n, but I did in fact try hard to talk to duck & get his reasons for strange editing behavior, which NO one had agreed to; | |||
| I appreciate your support for him, and yes, my POV is sometimes self-serving, but I msut also be accurate, as there ''is'' truth to many or all of my assertsions | |||
| I may not be retired and have twenty-forevers to edit, but I work with consensus, and try to get input -IF the other parties are willing; While I'm not perfect and you mean well, I think you didn't see the fine details of my answers in the 3RR page; I made numerous efforts, all for the better readibility (not pushing MY websites), so that is selfless, not selfish. We don't get paid, so you can understand how things get hard for editing for free -and add to that the LACK of screening for editors -especially on big articles, where vandals can whack an article like that - a recipe for trouble. | |||
| REad my '''detailed!''' complaint on the 3RR page, and then if you stil have questions, hit me up for a clarification. Take care, --] 13:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I want to add that I think it's good that you suggested Duck not revert too much and get in trouble (but instead to ask other users who would be glad to make the edits/reverts) --I would think (and hope) that if my edits were good, you'd do the same for me; I was only trying to help improve the readibility of the page, not offend anybody; Thank you for your concern, but do know I tried my best as indicated by my contemprary comments at the time.--] 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive user == | |||
| Due to the rudeness of your vote on this page, your vote was removed along with a statement that was clearly vandalism. You might want to re-make your vote with actual reasoning, rather than an inflamatory statement. ] ] 15:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, why did you use an IP on my talk. Second, I didn't remove your vote. Third, why don't you try a real vote instead of insulting the proposal and not saying why you don't like it. So I think you should put the vote back yourself with a real reason. ] ] 02:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I wish to let you know that IP:210.84.240.148 has been signing comments using your name. I was wondering if this is you or someone else. Thank you. ] ] 05:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have two thing to say. In defence of Husnock, it is not rude to respond on your own talk page. I don't like it either, but a lot of users do it. Second, just a breach of the personal attack rule that you might want to know about. From the personal attack section of wikipedia:blocking policy "Derogatory humour only avoids being a personal attack if the subject agrees that it is funny." As Husnock and I don't find your statement funny, it could be considered a personal attack. Happy editing. ] ] 14:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| In the interests of my own, and their, sanity, I'm leaving this pair with this final word. I simply hope they are never exposed to the kind of real personal attack that life often throws one's way: they'd probably expire on the spot. -- Grace Note | |||
| ==Hammesfahr== | |||
| I've read some of his comments about her, and I agree they seem unlikely, particularly in light of the autopsy report that half her brain seemed to be missing. However, it remains the case that he's a practising neurologist, that he has no charges of unprofessional conduct against him, that he examined her (unlike many of the doctors who have expressed views), and that he offered a dissenting opinion. Therefore, if the diagnoses of the other seven neurologists who examined her are to be mentioned in the introduction, then so must his, and without comment as to his credibility. | |||
| However, if you read my intro, I also added the brain size from the autopsy report. I did that in order to make it clear that any diagnosis of reversible minimal consciousness was unlikely to have been correct. In controversial articles like this, and particularly in the intros, the facts have to be allowed to speak for themselves in a subtle way. We can't just not mention people, or mention them but then add commentary that poisons the well. | |||
| Finally — and I stress I'm not defending Hammesfahr's diagnosis here — it's perhaps worth remembering that Hammesfahr practises alternative medicine, and such doctors are routinely dismissed as quacks, or accused of wrongdoing, by the medical community for political reasons. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, and also because their "diagnoses" are not made for scientific reasons, of course. -- Grace Note | |||
| ::I agree with your comment on my talk page, but (1) we should discuss the controversy over him in the article, but it's no reason to leave him out of the intro; (2) bear in mind that the diagnosis of PVS is itself highly unscientific; and (3), in passing, just because something is scientific doesn't make it right, and just because not, doesn't make it wrong. The autopsy report states you can't see PVS; there is no physical condition that's regarded as constituting PVS. It's an opinion from a doctor about the extent to which a person has an internal, subjective world (and whether that world might one day return). This is an impossible thing to judge - not a difficult thing, but a thing that is ''in principle'' impossible. Sure, when you know the person only has a half a brain, consciousness in any meaningful sense — what we would call a subjective experience or perception of I — becomes increasingly unlikely. But they didn't know she only had half a brain at the time. It was all guesswork, some of it educated and probably right, some of it less so. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:38, 13 September 2024
If you ever run for admin, please let me know
You said here that you'd never RfA, but please let me know if you ever change your mind. Your ideas on rotating power are interesting. -moritheil 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Har. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- G-n; no, i was not laughing at you; intention was convey that you are too outspoken to pass a witch trial. Admin candidates cannot afford not to pull punches. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is that very quality of not being a politician which I think we should see more often. -moritheil 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- G-n; no, i was not laughing at you; intention was convey that you are too outspoken to pass a witch trial. Admin candidates cannot afford not to pull punches. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- By way of explination for my suddenly turning up; you made a very perceptive comment on your user page about a stalking horse a while back; during that badsites hullabloo. I watchlisted you page then (something I rarely do) and its been interesting following you since. I like reading bright people's musings, what can I say. Ceoil (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
In light of your comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutrality enforcement and the views expressed on your user page, I am disappointed that you did not leap to the support of my proposal for parallel articles, suggested here and here and here.
The idea seems much in line with your views, but, of course, no one has supported it. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Good instincts
After reviewing the history of the "Sam Blacketer" incident I noticed that you were among the very few who opposed his adminship. I just wanted to compliment everyone who did since all of you had either good instincts, good reasoning and weren't afraid of going against the grain. If you ever seek adminship then please let me know - we need more good admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was looking at more logs (no I'm not stalking you), and found that you opposed both William Connolley's adminship and Guettarda's. Initially I wasn't going to compliment you for the first one, but then I laughed out loud when I saw the second. At this point I think wikipedian's "requests for adminship" should begin and end with you, but hey, maybe I'm wrong and you are just a polemic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Lydda and Ramla
Hi Grace Note! I have replied to your comment at Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla#Images. Please have a look. —Ynhockey 12:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Grace Note, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:Grace Note/Archive January-March 2006. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Editor assistance list
Hello. Since your account has recently not been editing very regularly, on the page Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/list you name has been moved to a list of editors who are willing to give assistance, but may not always be available. There is an explanation at Misplaced Pages talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. You are, of course, welcome to move yourself back to the other list if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
(I don't know where to start)
Just ... O my. (It would be good if you would please date your essay. I -- and I presume others -- would better understand what you're saying if we knew that any particular essay were from, say, 2004, not last week.) GcT (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Well yeah but all edits are dated anyway and I don't care. I deleted most of it anyway. Don't fool yourself though. Looking around, I see it's still shit, particularly for women. But it's not worth fighting over. Grace Note (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Grace Note. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Grace Note. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
June 2022
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:MintPress News. Here is Misplaced Pages's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Misplaced Pages! To wit: Oh I didn't realise you people were controlling this. Tommy-Sizzle is obviously right but you've appointed yourselves arbiters so I guess this article will be one more that's dishonest and nothing anyone can do about it.Grace Note (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 07:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I get it. I didn't realise you were gatekeeping that page. There's no point bullying me. I don't give a fuck. Grace Note (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for a week for spreading unpleasantness in this collaborative project. Probably you have been here long enough not to need any references to particular policies that these edits violate; I expect you've heard of them. I note the unpleasantness of your userpage too. Not sure why you bother to edit here at all? You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC).
- Didn't notice. Don't care. Have a nice day. Grace Note (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)