| Revision as of 00:28, 20 July 2005 editArrigo (talk | contribs)2,546 edits →"fabrications and resembling"← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:44, 20 July 2005 edit undoChoess (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators78,725 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| Your beliefs, whatever such are, mean nothing here. | Your beliefs, whatever such are, mean nothing here. | ||
| :Well, the prose I pointed out was either incompetent or sub-literate. If you insist on your own incompetence, so be it. | |||
| I have not given you any permission to change mine, nor use my signature. | I have not given you any permission to change mine, nor use my signature. | ||
| Re your ideas, you seem to grasp the policy inadequately anyway, and are making baseless allegations. Your accusations do not hold water, unless there is sockpuppetry used in some vote. | Re your ideas, you seem to grasp the policy inadequately anyway, and are making baseless allegations. Your accusations do not hold water, unless there is sockpuppetry used in some vote. | ||
| :No, you are wrong. Voting with a sock puppet is a bannable offense; using sock puppets in general is discouraged and anti-social, as ] makes clear. Whether or not you vote twice, editing the same article with two accounts, and not acknowledging that they are the same person, is sock puppetry. Given that you have been after ] for his ] account, you can hardly be unaware of this. | |||
| As you Choess have used my name as signature somewhere, I have to revert your such action. ] 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | As you Choess have used my name as signature somewhere, I have to revert your such action. ] 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :I will leave them, then, although I still consider them deceptive on your part. Your description is misleading, however; I did not "use your name as signature", I attributed the comments of 217.140.193.123 to you. I did not and will not make any edit which attributes my prose to your authorship. ] 01:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:44, 20 July 2005
Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.
Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (] 10:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (]) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.
Redwolf24 The current date and time is 24 December 2024 T 20:11 UTC.
P.S. I like messages :-P
Not really..
Hi. First, Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Please, do verify an article's history and talk page before claiming "vandalism". I reverted the anon's edits because then he severely edited the article a couple of hours after I had added the tag. I didn't edit the article further (which also resulted in not removing the tag) to prevent altercations with the anon that were ensuing from connected discussions. When the anon complained about the tag, I told him to go ahead with his edits. Those tags are not untouchable, they exist to help the community work better together. I actually don't know why it was left there for so long after I declared that I would not be editing the article for now. You see, in most cases it's all about countext. No worries though. For more on vandalism, please check Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Cheers, Redux 23:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Jtdirl
Please do not move a page if you don't know what you are doing. You created a multiple redirect that tangled everything together. To undo it I had to undo your move. Wait until there is consensus for the move before doing it, and make sure you do it properly. FearÉIREANN
\ 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
1. The previous move by Deb was without any consensus. High-handed act, resulting in an impractical title. You should be forbidding her to do such. (Most of which I have seen about deb's doings here, indicate that she does not necessarily know what she is doing.)
2. There was no tangled, no problematic redirect. At least not before you did whatever you did. Your move should be reverted. (Btw, speaking about problems created by less-than-thorougly-thought moves, have you yet repaired the problem you created to the attached Talk page when you made the ridiculous page Elizabeth of wied (sic!) - see Talk:Elizabeth of wied: does such exist still?) Arrigo 00:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Accusations
I notice that you've now accused the creators of the articles on Lady Catherine Grey, Lady Mary Grey, etc. of being part of some sort of nebulous conspiracy to add "titulary" to article titles, when none of those creators appear to have any pattern of doing so; nor do they appear to have any connection to the people with whom you've been sparring. As someone who would prefer to work with you rather than against you, I would like to respectfully suggest that you relax a bit and try to assume good faith on the part of other users when you see an "incorrect" title, rather than getting angry. I know it's easy to get worked up about things in Misplaced Pages (I've certainly done so myself), but a calm and professional demeanor will, I think, greatly enhance your standing. Your campaign to remove titles of nobility from article titles is, as far as I can see, sound, and I realize you think you're doing a great service to Misplaced Pages by bringing them in line with the standards; but your abrupt movement of articles and attacks on people who protest have been rather high-handed, and I think that the more you do that, the more people will write you off as an obsessive crank rather than a useful contributor. (And if they do lodge a protest about your behavior, the fact that you're correct about moving the articles doesn't mean your behavior will be upheld.) Misplaced Pages is always under construction; taking an extra week to get some consensus on a move isn't the end of the world, and doing so is likely to defuse a lot of the hostility directed at you. Be that as it may, I wish you the best in your work and hope you obtain a peaceful resolution to your conflicts. Choess 03:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, certain namings were changes, not (always) made by creators of article. Admittedly, the edit history too often shows very badly where the heading comes from, and misunderstandings about such source can easily happen. It seems very obvious, checking the edit history of the first article you listed, that there was a renaming very recently, and that the curent heading is not from the creator of the article. Arrigo 09:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
"fabrications and resembling"
- I believe you mean "dissembling".
- "Fabrication and dissembling" is precisely what you are engaged in by making edits to the same page signed with two different names: Arrigo and 217.140.193.123. Your carelessness in doing so leaves you open to accusations of sock puppetry by those unaware of the situation. (If, of course, you deny being 217.140.193.123, that is a different story.) Choess 00:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Your beliefs, whatever such are, mean nothing here.
- Well, the prose I pointed out was either incompetent or sub-literate. If you insist on your own incompetence, so be it.
I have not given you any permission to change mine, nor use my signature.
Re your ideas, you seem to grasp the policy inadequately anyway, and are making baseless allegations. Your accusations do not hold water, unless there is sockpuppetry used in some vote.
- No, you are wrong. Voting with a sock puppet is a bannable offense; using sock puppets in general is discouraged and anti-social, as Misplaced Pages:Sock puppet makes clear. Whether or not you vote twice, editing the same article with two accounts, and not acknowledging that they are the same person, is sock puppetry. Given that you have been after Antares911 for his Bhinneka account, you can hardly be unaware of this.
As you Choess have used my name as signature somewhere, I have to revert your such action. Arrigo 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I will leave them, then, although I still consider them deceptive on your part. Your description is misleading, however; I did not "use your name as signature", I attributed the comments of 217.140.193.123 to you. I did not and will not make any edit which attributes my prose to your authorship. Choess 01:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)