Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:23, 25 February 2015

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• Rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
• Utilize a vast array of editing tools

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

Happy editing! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Tea Party Nation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Do not violate the external links policy which can be seen at WP:ELNO. Do not add external links which are search aggregates. All external links should be unchanging pages about the topic, not pages with shifting content depending on what is found. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Owners

You appear to be correct. MilesMoney (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Elena Kagan

Not sure why it bothers you to have exactly two other ELs in Kagan's page. judgepedia and WP are not related. Nor is particularly useful to cute 3 ELs to 1. --DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My talk page

Please stay off my talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "selectively edit" the thread. I refused to let you add to it. I've semi-protected the page, which I shouldn't have to do for one disruptive IP, but I don't feel like taking you to WP:ANI for something so stupid. However, if you resume after the semi-protection expires, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, well. This is how an "Admin" behaves: He posts an incorrect assumption in our discussion at his Talk page, I respond, He deletes my response. Clearly, cutting off my reply implies his was the correct interpretation and no other Admins were involved. (See Talk:Elena Kagan for more details on this nasty little Admin vendetta, and his odd claims about what he has and hasn't done, what he was and wasn't concerned about, and his repeated claims to "not understand" and "you're not making sense", same as he did here. VERY odd, but I've seen other Admins make such claims in conversations with others. Perhaps their standard way to attempt to derail conversations?) Still, he has the right to edit his own Talk page. So, I post "(Note: Bbb23 deleted my reply to this.) 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)" and his friend deletes it. I revert, Bbb23 deletes it. I finally delete the entire conversation with an edit note requesting all or none of the conversation remain posted, but not an edited version. He restores his edited version, and threatens an ANI. Wow. So incredibly determined to protect his fellow Admins (Arthur Rubin, Binksternet and Plastikspork). So, here's the conversation in full:
Judgepedia
The template, with all its parameters and all its uses, was DELETED - see discussion - based on a similar deletion aka stare decisis. Those links can be found at Judgepedia, but the "consensus" at Misplaced Pages was that NONE of them belong here. There was no discussion about individual parameters on the template's Talk page. That's how things are done now, apparently. If you have a problem with that, you can ask the Admin why he dud what he did, then request a review, and so forth and so on. Shouldn't take you more than a year or so to get through it all. Good luck. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. Your earlier edit summary mentions {{JudgeLinks}}, which was deleted per the discussion you link to. But you weren't removing that template. You removed two external links, both of which simply pointed to websites. Now, you're talking here about Judgepedia, which has not been deleted, and you're not removing it anyway. I can't logically connect anything you say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you're having problems. The templates were used to provide broader web resources. They were deleted because the consensus was to NOT provide ANY such links in EL. Readers who want such information are therefore now being directed off-site. Judgepedia is the offsite resource for SCOTUS judges, and includes all those sorts of links in their EL. Another example of an offsite resource used in this way, which you may be more familiar with, is DMOZ: see Point 3 in WP:EL which explains the reasoning. In this particular case of SCOTUS judges, DMOZ provides much less than Judgepedia. Such offsite resources are intended to be replacements, and (other than official sites) not have overlaps in listings as that defeats the purpose. Those two links I deleted are in the Judgepedia article's EL, and therefore shouldn't be repeated in the Misplaced Pages article's EL. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand now where you're coming from, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the two external links you removed must be removed just because the Judgepedia article, which is very long, supposedly has them in it (I didn't verify it). You've been reverted again by yet another editor. The Kagan article EL section is very short. I don't see any need to remove those two ELs based on your rationale. I suggest you take it to the article talk page if you wish to push the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"the Judgepedia article, which is very long, supposedly has them in it (I didn't verify it)." HAHAHA. I clearly said it was in the EL. You stated the articke is "very long", so you obviously went there. You had time to post a reply, and check to see if my change was reverted, but scrolling down to that EL section would take too long? Really? That's your excuse? HAHAHA. Look. Everyone knows you Admins will do and say absolutely anythingp to support other Admins, no matter what. Congratulations on publicly proving my point. Now you can go tell those sick puppies they owe you one. What a racket. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can see this conversation has stopped being constructive, but, just so you know, the only administrator involved in the Kagan article dispute is me. The other two editors reverting you aren't admins, so it's not clear whom I'm supporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that your CYA attempt to avoid answering my question about how you managed to go to an article but not see it? I was obviously referring to the Admins involved in deleting all those links from all those templates - but you go ahead and pretend you're too dense to understand anything. As I said, you're publicly proving my point. Keep it up.. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 continues to scrub articles about Supreme Court Justices: Scalia and Sotomayor. First he supported the removal of the Misplaced Pages template, now he's erased Judgepedia, which has even more extensive External links for further reading. Why does he have a problem with providing extensive non-partisan information to Misplaced Pages readers? I'd ask him, but he's threatened me if I post on his Talk page again. An Admin, refusing to let an encyclopedia be a reference work. Sure is a lot of that going on around here this year. 71.23.178.214 (talk)

February 2014

• • • • • See [http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ronz#Official_links for the other half of the conversation. *****

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Misplaced Pages uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The official links for an organization, in that organization's own article, are ALWAYS appropriate. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No they are not always appropriate. Please familiarize yourself with WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I bolded the relevant parts of the Guidelines on your Talk page, along with a full explanation of why these links follow the Guidelines. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section - Ronz discussion

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages. It is considered spamming and Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Misplaced Pages will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

It appears you are trying to use "Further reading" sections to spam Ballotpedia and generally trying to work around general consensus on external links. I believe there's clear consensus at WP:RSN. Shall we take it to WP:ELN and see if it belongs at all? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly am not. It appears you refuse to read the Guidelines. I will follow proper channels. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you continuing to add Ballotpedia links or not? --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Meters discussion

Accusing me of partisan editing here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dennis_Daugaard&diff=595590455&oldid=595540570 on Dennis Daugaard is a pretty clear case of violating WP:AGF. Since I have no significant history of editing political articles (for any party of any country) it's also obvious that you made no attempt to determine if there was any possibility that that was true before making the accusatiuon. I simply removed a link that seemed to me to violate WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. If you disagree then lets discuss it on the Talk page. Meters (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet discussion

Please see the discussion I started at Template_talk:CongLinks#CongLinks is not 'Further reading'. Your actions will have to be reverted. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jackie Speier. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

MY REPLY TO BINKSTERNET ON HIS TALK PAGE, WARNING 1: Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jackie Speier. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

MY REPLY TO BINKSTERNET ON HIS TALK PAGE, WARNING 2: Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Dianne Feinstein. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I reverted your edit to the version of Bbb23's, not mine. You then reverted AGAIN to your own version. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Further reading sections

You don't appear to understand how to use "Further reading" sections, nor the consensus concerning them. Please stop adding them.

If it would help, we could start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Further reading. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP 71.23.178.214. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NB 1: As one can see, Ronz then arranged for a block, by admin Arthur Rubin, to prevent any discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:71.23.178.214#Further_reading_sections Rubin was, and is, blocked from all Tea Party-related articles because of his ongoing bias. Unfortunately, that left the above "workaround" available to him. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there something that needs to be discussed? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 2: Ronz immediately deleted a version of the NB above from his Talk page in in this section - as one does when desperately trying to conceal one's role. As I expected, which is why I double-posted it here, jftr. The later phony "consensus", rammed through by Thargor Orlando (despite any actual consensus) took place at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Change to further reading guideline. Draw your own conclusions on the goal and motivation. Reminder: Template:NGOLinks, Template:JudgeLinks, Template:GovLinks, Template:CongLinks. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your battleground approach is not going to help you at Misplaced Pages. If you blame everyone else for your troubles then you are bound to run into more friction here. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 3: Yet another threat following continued harassment at and , despite the clear Misplaced Pages Guideline, supported by years of consensus, at EL:MAYBE. Can Arthur Rubin and the rest of the gang be far behind? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ELMAYBE suggest linking DMOZ as a stop-gap measure during discussion, not as an intentionally permanent link. There is no discussion underway about external links at those articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 4: Not true. I highlighted the relevant phrase of WP:ELMAYBE to demonstrate the gang's usual cherry-picking technique re Guidelines.

Links to be considered

Shortcut: WP:ELMAYBE.

3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the Template:Dmoz template.

I see Muboshgu has again joined in at and . 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So there are two choices for using DMOZ: one is if it is the only external link. The other is if there is some dispute about external links, and DMOZ is placed temporarily. What you have done is add DMOZ to the other existing links—a third method. WP:ELMAYBE does not talk about that third method; in fact, it says "Long lists of links are not acceptable," a guideline which you have continually pushed against. The adding of DMOZ is yet another form of you trying to bring long lists of links to Misplaced Pages pages. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 5: Binksternet is now trying to entrap me into what is called a 3RR at and , as he could then request his old friend Arthur Rubin block me. Again. That explains the tag-teaming using his old friend Muboshgu for the second revert - funny how his 'friends' are always there when needed to play these games. His edit notes so far: 1. (DMOZ page has no encyclopedic content, only a list of other links) 2. (Revert... ELMAYBE allows DMOZ if it is the only external link, or as a temporary link if there is discussion underway about the links.) I see he's sticking to his bald-faced lie about what Guideline says. "The only external link" indeed - what sort of fools does he take everyone for? Again, the goal and motivation here is clear. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My goal is to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. What's your goal? Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there something that needs to be discussed?

My deletion of your comment to my talk page was followed by the question to you, as I don't see it as anything appropriate for a talk page without more explanation. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I never deleted the question you posted, but only added NB 2 below it. If your post above is your idea of "more explanation", fine. As this is a wiki, everyone can see the sequence of events, and those involved. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"I never deleted" No one said you did, nor implied anything of the sort.

So, is there something that needs to be discussed or otherwise explains the comment to my talk page? --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please gain consensus

Please gain consensus rather than edit-warring, or this will lead to yet another block. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ELN, or just drop the matter please. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and brought it up with the admin that blocked you last time here --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So you think this is going to be resolved by treating it as a personal conflict? Ever look at WP:BATTLE or WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your revert could be considered a response to the above. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't block you again, because you are spamming (per WP:CANVASS) clearly incorrect comments about Binksternet and me to multiple forums. I would advise taking it to WP:ANI. (Furthermore, your claim that I am Template:DMOZ amounts to WP:OUTING, whether or not correct.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - ANI

Your editing is being discussed here. Please consider joining the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And it was quickly dismissed. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was ignored. If you continue, we'll do it all again, and eventually you'll be blocked.

1st ANI 2nd ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was dismissed based on this. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Memorial Day

I honor what Thomas Jefferson said, and am sad that others do not, especially when I think of those who died to protect our democratic system.

"The most effectual means of preventing to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

"An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom."

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration."

"Though may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:211

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." .

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1821. ME 19:408

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages has an Admin, Arthur Rubin, who believes the opposite and is strongly supported by Binksternet and Ronz to create a "consensus". Together with Admin Plastikspork, they have "cleansed" thousands of articles: all U,S. and state Governors, Senators and Representatives, past, current, and candidates, Supreme Court Judges, and organizations which engage in political work. See the deletion discussions for NGOLinks, JudgeLinks, GovLinks and CongLinks. See the current Talk page for CongLinks. Arthur Rubin was and is topic-banned from editing all Tea Party movement articles. So, he's taken a different tack. See their months of nonstop bullying, ridicule, baiting and goading of myself and other editors, all in their mission to cleanse these articles of all useful information for the people they're charged with representing. Such things as complete voting records, all statements on the floors of Congress, all published writings, all campaign finance information. Such things they claim to be "not relevant:

Delete (preferred), alternative is refocus and substitute, and mark the template substitute-only if kept. Some of the links are relevant for many congresspersons and candidates, and approach WP:ELYES unless already used as a reference. Among the documented tags:

congbio, congress: approaches "Official" and likely to have information which can and should be used

ballot: marginal; it is a quasi-wiki; not always relevant

fec: reliable, but not always relevant

govtrack, opencong, opensecrets, legistorm, followthemoney, ontheissues: generally reliable, usually not relevant

c-span, rose: Quasi-search results

imdb, nndb (sorry, that one's not documented), worldcat: Usually not relevant

bloomberg, guardian, nyt, wsj, washpro: much like a search result.

My second choice (after an outright delete) would be to substitute only the congbio, congress, and fec links, and then delete and repurpose the template to a substitute-only use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Note that at the time, the FEC link was to this sort of material, only useful in conjunction with the sources deleted. It was later changed to the current link, no thanks to any of them.) Sad. And very, very wrong.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales

But because of the actions of these very few people, we are not.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - misattributed to Edmund Burke, but true nonetheless

71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And now an additional "cleanser" is jumping in,

MrX 13:20, 29 May 2014 (16 minutes after revert) Michael Grimm (politician)

claiming a phony one-article "consensus" trumps the basic purpose of Misplaced Pages, Jimmy Wales, the Congress project consensus, over a decade of precedent, and WP:External links, Links to be considered

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the Template:Dmoz template.

The day before, MrX opined on FEC 990 forms for US registered charities: charity 990 forms. Hmm. See Template NGOLinks deletion discussion. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Posted on Ronz's Talk page:

Ronz, I have asked you and your "friends" numerous times, on numerous Talk pages, to explain why you insist things such as voting records, statements on the floor of Congress, campaign contribution, etc., etc., etc., are "not relevant" in articles about U.S. politicians. NOT ONCE have any of you provided a real response. All you do is smirk and bat the ball back over the net, demanding I convince YOU that such things are relevant. You think that's cute? It's not. This has gone on long enough. Time for you to explain yourselves and act like adults. If not, accept the consequences. You are NOT going to destroy Misplaced Pages as an educational resource for our readers. And if any of you are found to have been doing this "cleansing" for money...this isn't going to stop with Misplaced Pages. Is that clear? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not clear. WP:ELBURDEN, WP:BATTLE, WP:FOC, and WP:EW are clear. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No change then - still no real response, just toddler-like screaming of "No!" (Note: Ronz is so embarrassed he continues to delete my posts from his Talk page. Sad. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't appear to have any common ground as long as you continue to attack anyone that disagrees with you rather than cooperating with other editors and following our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on WT:External Links. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. Please stop insinuating that I and other editors are editing in collusion, conspiring to destroy Misplaced Pages, and editing in bad faith as you did

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here
5. here and
6. here

Please consider this a good faith warning that if you continue to make similar disruptive talk page comments you may be blocked from further editing. Please comment on content, not contributors. Thank you. - MrX 17:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

REPLY

• My good-faith answer is here. So far, crickets. Correlation is not causation, and birds of a feather do not necessarily make a flock. I simply listed Wikipedians who have been parroting the same talking points. Any collusion, true or not, is irrelevant to the damage your actions are causing. ASG is not a suicide pact. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As for your "content not contributors", i remind you of . Instead of discussing the actual content of the DMOZ category, you said "I have to agree that the EL to a DMOZ category page is not at all useful or encyclopedic for the reasons already stated, and because this is no longer 1995." 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Misplaced Pages is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Let.27s_plan_a_bigger_discussion --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: While playing the victim card, Ronz continues on his crusade to make Misplaced Pages as fluffy and fact-free as possible, insisting that facts about what makes a person notable are "not relevant". Recent examples: Mike Ross and Asa Hutchinson. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

SantiLak (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

SantiLak (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

SantiLak (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

COI accusations

Please stop behavior like this . If you want to formally accuse me of COI, by all means, please go ahead. The appropriate place to do that is here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And here you have it, folks - proof positive is totally delusional. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not make negative statements like this (about other editors being delusional). Not only is that not you showing WP:GOODFAITH, but it can also be seen as an attack against another editor. I don't know the whole story here, but there is never a good reason to make a personal attack against another editor. Also, I redacted the name you placed on here. Unless Champaign Supernova posts her name on Misplaced Pages you should not refer to anyone by an IRL name. This is for several reasons: first there's the obvious issue that you may have the wrong person. What if you claim that she's a certain person and it's not? Then you've doxed a completely random person. The other obvious reason is that in some instances people see doxing as a personal attack and in many instances they're right. If you honestly think that someone has a conflict of interest the answer is NOT to "out" them on Misplaced Pages. (See WP:OUTING) This can actually lead to your IP getting blocked if it's believed that you are harassing someone. What you should do in this instance is to go to Misplaced Pages:CheckUser and report the individual to one of the checkusers, preferably via e-mail since doxing another person in this manner is not acceptable regardless of where you post it on Misplaced Pages. However at the same time you should also take into consideration that Champaign Supernova may not actually have a conflict of interest and it may just be that the two of you just want different things on Misplaced Pages. I have no opinion on that, but I do have to severely warn you that this sort of doxing, especially when combined with an insult, is not kosher on Misplaced Pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I certainly learned MY lesson! The next time any editor claims ownership of an article, bullies and threatens others, refuses to AGF, makes baseless accusations, then immediately runs off to make an official complaint - I will praise her intelligence, insight and acuity whike sending her a little kitten WikiLove message and beg her forgiveness for having the temerity for trying to discuss an article's issues in a grown-up, adult way on the article's Talk page. Will that do? Thank you ever so much for pointing me in the right direction! In future I will consider following the lead of Champaign Supernova in dealing with fellow editors I disagree with: immediately threaten to have them blocked. (I checked her edit history, and she has form for that.) And as you seem quite unaware, "Kelly" is a humorous, slang term referring to a "Kelly girl": a temp who smiles a lot but wreaks havoc by misinterpreting directions while she's convinced she's following them to the letter, regardless of whether or not they make sense. So much for your "outing" claim. Clue: "outing" would involve an actual name (unless one's first name is something like Cher or Beyonce), not some common first name. You used the slang terms of doxing and kosher and expected me to look them up if I didn't know them, but clearly you don't believe I deserve the same courtesy in return. So, you jumped to a remarkably odd conclusion. Am I supposed to send you a trout for that? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Huh. Do you have diffs for me "claiming ownership of an article," "bullying and threatening others," "refusing to AGF," and "making baseless actions." Also, where in my edit history do you see me having a "history of threatening to have users blocked?" Your explanation of why you weren't engaging in outing is incredibly sexist and offensive. If I understand your explanation, you weren't WP:OUTING, you were just engaged in a good, old-fashioned personal attack, with a heavy dose of sexism. Cut it out. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe you meant it as slang, but you have to understand that not everyone has tried to out a Misplaced Pages editor all at once. There have been instances of people doing it a little bit at a time, dropping a little nugget of information here and there. Since you are not here in person we have no way of knowing what you meant by using the name Kelly. Also, I do have to say that being overly sarcastic is not a good way to argue your side of the argument and defend yourself. IF what you are saying is true, the worst thing you can do is to react the way you have to any of the admins here on Misplaced Pages. That's not exactly giving me a good impression of you. The proper thing to do in this instance is to show proof of your claims. If Champaign Supernova is doing any of the things you claim she is, then give edit diffs. Just saying that she's doing these things are not enough: you have to show proof and while you don't have to fall all over yourself to be super nice to her, you should be WP:CIVIL to other editors on Misplaced Pages in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I posted a reference to my reply in your "CIO accusations" section above. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.