| Revision as of 15:09, 6 March 2009 editTHF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,107 edits →March 2009: re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:45, 16 November 2010 edit undoMechamind90 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,610 editsm Remove redundant. | ||
| (85 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | == Request for Arbitration == | ||
| ==Welcome!== | |||
| ⚫ | I hereby request that my permanent ban be appealed to ArbCom in accordance with the appeal process and that I be unblocked for the sole purpose of dealing with the appeal. ] (]) 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| _________________________________ | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --''Avant-garde a clue''-'''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><sup><font color="#FFFF00">]</font></sup>''' 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| I have decide it is not fair to you as a new user, to throw you into this. RfCs are much too disruptive and contentious. See my talk page for an explantion of what a RfC is, and a good example. ] (]) 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I would instead suggest ] for you and collect, if you would like help setting it up, I would be happy to help you. ] (]) 01:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::ok, I'll also just think about it for awhile. I don't want to get into any kind of altercations either, and it's hard to predict what might annoy or upset somebody else. ] (]) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello again Abbarocks, if there is anything i can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask. I notice that you have email disabled. ] (]) 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Your thoughts would be helpful == | |||
| An editor has asked me to look into a slow edit war between them and you at ]. Is there any reason you don't wish to use the article talk page and talk about your edits? There is also a question as to whether this is someone's ]. Your thoughts would be helpful to me. Cheers, ] (]) 11:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deleting comments== | |||
| ]: | |||
| :Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. | |||
| ] (]) 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| #So you know, you've now made 3 reverts on Prescott Bush, and are in danger of violating the ] rule if you continue to edit-war, which can result in a block. | |||
| #The accusation in this (which you repeated in a is very bad form: either it is a ], given that the language you deleted was clearly supported by , or it shows that you ''still'' do not understand the ] rule. Either way, you should not make that accusation. ] (]) 04:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :::You're joking, right? Your reading comprehension can't possibly be as poor as you're pretending it is, which is making it hard to assume good faith in your continuing this tendentious position. ] (]) 05:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be fair, it could simply be that you just do not understand the ] rule. I don't know if you've read it yet--though it's been suggested to you several times that you do read it, and you've deleted those notices. If you have read it, and you're still confused, can I suggest the ]? There's also a ] that does nothing but discuss NOR issues. But you should definitely stay away from contentious edits in mainspace until you understand it. ] (]) 08:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. Luck for Collect Dicklyon didn't report Collect either. ] (]) 04:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::See, I didn't mislead you with quoting that policy about user pages above, . ] (]) 04:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == new message == | |||
| {{talkback|THF}} | |||
| ==Skull and Bones== | |||
| Not sure what to do. Collect followed me to Skull and Bones, then he accused me of being your SPA soc on gwen gale's talk page, the THF came into Skull and together they took off lots of info at Skull and Bones claiming it as OR which it clearly is not. Now THF is threatening a Block of me if I don't do an edit THF wants me to do. I'm about to just forget about editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :THF has no authority to block. He is an average user. They want to intimidate you, bait you, and stop you from editing on wikipedia. That is the way they operate. ] (]) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You will never guess what happened, THF just opened a ]. ] (]) 12:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Slow-motion ]--reverting once every two days, as you are currently doing--is still impermissible edit-warring. This is especially problematic when (1) it is against consensus and (2) it is the addition of material that violates Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. There is a talk-page consensus of every single editor except you that agrees that your addition of this material is incorrect. You are welcome to use other ] methods if you don't want to accept that you are in the wrong, but do not add that material again until that dispute resolution process agress with you. See also ] and ]. ] (]) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :AGF, I don't feel like I'm in an edit war, just that I'm trying to improve some articles when there is no consensus against my edits doing so. ] (]) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::An edit war is determined objectively, not subjectively. Not clear how you can say there isn't a consensus when four other editors have removed the material you keep adding, and three have explicitly told you on the talk page that it doesn't belong, no one else agrees with you, and I have personally warned you on your talk page that what you are doing is disruptive to the project and could lead to you being blocked. I am quite concerned that such a high percentage of your edits seem to be intended to push conspiracy theories against Misplaced Pages policy; nearly all of your main-space edits are reverted by other editors following policy. I see very very few constructive edits on your part. This is a formal notice that I will escalate this to administrators if you do not immediately self-revert your Skull and Bones edit and start complying with policy. ] (]) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == "Meatpuppet" == | |||
| Can you show me the diff where I supposedly called you a meatpuppet? I may have accused Ikip of trying to make you into a meatpuppet (which is jargon with a ]), but I don't believe I ever actually called you a meatpuppet, since I don't think you are one. If I haven't, can you use the <s>strikethrough</s> option to delete your allegation? ] (]) 18:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, THF, Isn't this: "You injecting yourself into Skull and Bones through a meatpuppet would be the harassment" calling me a meatpuppet? ] (]) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. It's complaining that Ikip is trying to use you as a meatpuppet by asking you to violate policy. I admit I could have phrased that more clearly, and I apologize for any inadvertent offense. ] (]) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's ok; apology accepted. A lot of times the discussion edits I make can be ambiguous or misunderstood too. ] (]) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Search article history== | |||
| . ''''']''''' 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Cool: thanks so much :) ] (]) 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Noticeboards == | |||
| There is nothing wrong with using noticeboards for ] to obtain consensus, especially when editors on an article are not following policy. That's the whole point of noticeboards. ] (]) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : It's just so damn time consuming for guys like me who type slow. Can't we just work things out at the talk page? ] (]) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Life would be easier for both you and me if you just made your argument once instead of repeating it over and over and over. You've complained about Collect's mistake about the BBC/Bush multiple times, you've complained about the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" multiple times in identical language (ignoring each time the explanation given), and so on. It would save you typing, and would make the talk page easier to read, too. ] (]) 22:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::you're right. ] (]) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk pages == | |||
| Hi, I've been watching the Business Plot page from afar (I came in briefly when Ikip asked for a ]), and want to make a suggestion to you. Your last post started with "Main problem here,imo, is that assertive and controlling editors profess to know the contents of RSs when actually they have not read them (this is if we AGF)". You will never get anywhere with editors by using such phrasing. They won't take what you are writing seriously. I tried making this point to Ikip, and although he knows this academically, he is rather set in his ways... You seem fairly new to WP though, so I thought to try to give you some advise. | |||
| If you want editors to consider your points, provide "just the facts". If there is a phrase from the source they are missing, quote it and provide only logical reasons why it supports your point. Ignore editors that don't do the same. I have to remind myself to be careful in situations like this not to get worked up. The more you mention policies and the actions of others, the more a talk page discussion will just go on a downward spiral (you may notice this when arguments start getting repetitive). | |||
| Trying to read around all the similar remarks that other editors are making will also allow you to better understand their points and perspectives, and either provide reasoning that will help them see things your way or find compromises that you can both agree to. Remember that the vast majority of the time you are dealing with editors who truly believe they only want to make the article better. | |||
| For these reasons, the ] policy explicitly explains that those pages are only for discussing content and it's improval, and not for the actions, motivations, or unrelated opinions of anyone. Per ], anyone would be totally within their rights to come in and delete half the Business Plot talk page, as statements such as the one I quoted from you above have nothing to do with the content, and only "poison the well" and get in the way of constructive editing. I'm telling this to you because you are a fairly new user, and as such are still getting comfortable with your editing style and goals here. I'd hate to see a bad experience at this talk page ruin the rest of your editing experience at Misplaced Pages, or lower your expectations of otherwise well meaning editors (we all have some rough edges after all). ] (]) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :ok, I quickly read what you are saying and I appreciate it. I will read it more slowly and try to digest and make use of it. Thanks. ] (]) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2009 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Business Plot|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''I further note that your edit-warring has been against the consensus of me, Collect, and Paul.h that the removal of the material violates ] by falsely implying that ] is a mainstream commentator. Self-revert immediately, or your behavior will be reported to ], and I will request a topic ban.'' ] (]) 01:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, It looks as if some other editor has reverted both Buchanan and Skull and Bones so it does seem like the consensus is not with me on these, although I still don't think there was an edit war going on, at least I don't think so. ] (]) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You need to read the ] policy, because your response shows you don't understand it. You made three reverts of identical material against consensus in ten hours, and that's the very epitome of an edit-war. ] (]) 01:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ok, I think I'll sit out for awhile and watch to see if I can figure out how your and Collect's edits differ from mine: is it mainly a matter of there being 2 of you and 1 of me? I can understand it if that is the main difference. ] (]) 15:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The difference is that we discussed our edits on the talk page and got consensus. This isn't 2 to 1. It's 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 or 6 to 2. Plus our edits comply with policy, and yours violate policy. ] (]) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Business Plot reversions == | |||
| , , | |||
| Could be construed as editwarring by an admin. I would be upset at reporting it as you did apologize before -- peraps you did not realize how this would appear. Thanks! ] (]) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:45, 16 November 2010
Request for Arbitration
I hereby request that my permanent ban be appealed to ArbCom in accordance with the appeal process and that I be unblocked for the sole purpose of dealing with the appeal. Abbarocks (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC) _________________________________