Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:24, 6 February 2010

Archives 2005 VI XII 2006 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII 2007 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII 2008 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII 2009 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII 2010 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

The one exception

There appears an issue of WP:OWN at one of the articles. I don't think it will be resolved in the short term. Can we let it go for the moment. Passions are high and the last thing we need right now is another flare-up. Lets try concentrate on the 'histories' problem. Another ed. with a good handle on this has agreed to give his assistance. We have moved on a long way from when people thought this was a zero sum game. Lets try to keep that momentum going. RashersTierney (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The maps are unacceptable to me, I'm sorry. I only agreed to the compromise under the assumption that is would be implemented in exactly the way suggested and demonstrated (Turkish passport/Visa requirements for Turkish citizens). —what a crazy random happenstance 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New passport manual of style on talk:passport

I've tried to put a new passport manual of style on Talk:Passport. It provides guidelines for a "visa requirements" section of a passport page, giving guidance for cases where it would either be appropriate or inappropriate to include a map to illustrate the text. I made edits to Serbian passport in an attempt to be constructive and undo the revert war that is unproductively happening there. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie

Potrzebuje poparcia Cautious (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have utterly no idea of what you are speaking, I am sorry. Please clarify? —what a crazy random happenstance 13:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your canvassing complaint about Ozguroot

Hi Happenstance, I haven't looked into Ozguroot's conduct enough to say whether or not I agree it was inappropriate. However, I wanted to let you know I find it inappropriate and uncivil for you to call me a "partisan user," as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ozguroot canvassing again. If you've read my handful of comments, you will not detect an iota of partisanship in this matter. I'd appreciate if you would retract the remark as to me, and I'd think the same would apply to many if not all the other users you put on the same list. I came to your talkpage instead of putting this remark at ANI because I'm sure it was just a careless choice of words. Thanks—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have taken a side on Talk:Passport, you are therefore a party with a declared bias. I do not mean it in a pejorative sense. Partisan, noun, "Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause". You were notified of the discussion because you have chosen a side - you were selected on that basis alone. You were WP:CANVASSed. Ozguroot has WP:CANVASSed editors to completely overwhelm the dispute, and for the second time. I had chosen not to respond in kind but rather report it, because I, unlike him, hold ethics. In the interest of saving the discussion I have now responded in turn, and it makes my skin crawl. But I feel as though the apathy on ANI has left me with no choice, Avala has now declared on Talk:Passport what is basically a prelude to reneging on and undermining the compromise. My complaint on ANI has been ignored, my request for mediation likewise. I have completely lost faith in the dispute resolution process on Misplaced Pages, and, frankly, possibly the taste for editing altogether. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't loose faith because of perceived apathy on the part of others. In general, your approach has been exeplary. It is a pity that the discussion was moved from its initial home without letting individual eds. know. Once consensus for removal was demonstrated by an admin closing, most probably took Talk:Passport off their watch-list assuming the issue resolved. Contributors to the initial proposal, up to 'closure', are probably not aware that this is still being dragged out and challenged in such a personalised and confrontational manner. To redress the balance of the very obvious canvassing based on the perceived bias of editors, I think that all who have so far expressed any view on resolving the 'visa-free blocks' should be made aware of the continuing 'debate'. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have notified six of the editors that Ozguroot conveniently forgot (User talk:Funandtrvl, User talk:ArmadniGeneral, User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer, User talk:Spartaz, User talk:Hans Adler, User talk:TreasuryTag) with a completely partisan message explaining the situation, hopefully one or more of them will take up the cause. TreasuryTag has since removed the message from his talk and hasn't edited since, not sure what to think of that, either he's reading the debate in preparation for a heroic cause-saving entry into the discussion or he's preparing an ANI complaint against me for canvassing. Hopefully the former. Not that I am too worried, as it is, if it were the latter, he'd probably just be ignored on ANI as I was. It may be a good idea if you added your piece underneath what I have already posted, so I don't appear like the lone troublemaker certain editors are intent on demonising me into. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your scepticism is probably understandable given the circumstances. Re TreasuryTag, his/her deletion is nothing more than an indication that he/she has seen your post. I am hoping to move this beyond a 'binary' situation, but if I think an uninvolved ed. responds at other locations in a way I consider manifestly unfair to you, I will unequivically make my views known. RashersTierney (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)