Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 15 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Benjiwolf, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I see that you have added material to the Melinda Messenger article, and have repeatedly re-inserted it after other editors have removed it. Could you please take a look at the Misplaced Pages policy on repeated reversion, before you go any further? -- The Anome 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please do not add nonsense or misleading information to articles, thanks/wangi 15:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC) It wasnt nonsense and it wasnt misleading...all my additions to the marine mammal pages come from scientific texts and articles and are thoroughly sourced. I wouldnt waste so much time editing these articles if this werent true...scientific terms may not make sense to everyone yet should be included and i create links on all terms i feel the lay person may not be familiar with, surely some of the info will be updated by specialists familiar with the specific animals yet its all pretty much in the right ballparkBenjiwolf 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=100666979 Thanks/wangi 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On Vandalism

well there is the case where people put in info they feel should be there...yet there are cases where people just tamper and meddle to make mischief...and of the later perhaps eventually the human population will grow to a level of maturity so that this no longer is much of a problem...for now i contemplate more aggressive moves to block those obviously just putting in pure and obvious vandalism and especially gibberish...i am thinking there should be a three day to one week period of registration before one can edit, esp. if ur first three edits get called vandalism or gibberish and u cant eloquently defend it...no more random users...u have to create a name and say a brief spiel on ur user page...make people invest a little time if they want to then edit...user name is in one color for the first month(red for watch out!)...then another after 3 months of contribution(yellow/orange?)...then another after one year of successful contribution(green)...i dont know...yet it is ridiculous some of this stuff people try and throw in...gibberish even...its wasting responsible peoples time...its a fine project creating a free encylopedia on the net...yet its difficult enough managing different peoples takes on the subjects, without even any gibberish and malicious or mischievous editting...wikipedia gets popped up right away in searches for many things...so its bound to have thousands of adolescents hitting it and then trying to make mischief...we need to fight back against these meddling kids (sometimes in adults bodies)..."benji moves to the right in wikipedia politics" we need to take more aggressive steps people!!!...do something jimmy wales!...create an internet scene!..."wikipedia is going to move to the right making it more difficult to edit unless people act more responsibly" Benjiwolf 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page at Lviv article

Benjiwolf, take a look at the Lviv talk page regarding the recent changes made to Lviv. --Riurik 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Funniculars

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Funniculars) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ::mikmt 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Funniculars. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

What the heck!!! This is a type of train...look it up on the net...i will access some pictures to add to the webpage...i actually was suprised when i was adding some info to a page on a swiss canton and when i added the word with a link so people would know what it was...that indeed there was no page defining funnicular...it is a cross between a train and a cable car that rides on the ground...i gave a preliminary definition yet will search for a better worded one on the net!!! so lay off Benjiwolf 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The way it was written read like nonsense. A google search for 'funnicular' yields 1620 results. Perhaps you meant Funicular?

Please try to spell it correctly before you try to define it! ;-) -- ChrisO 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

yes i meant funicular...yet i see it spelled funnicular all over the place...so perhaps someone should add a link for the alternate spelling...those funky funniculular funicularsBenjiwolf 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

and i see that my initial beginning definition as i began to create the page indeed matches up pretty much with the leading paragraph on the already created page for funiculars...Benjiwolf 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from my talk page

I merely sent you the welcome message. I had nothing to do with Funniculars getting slated for deletion. If you look at the above messages, you'll see a signature at the end for each individual. We are all separate people. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More

You can contact that user by editing User talk:Mikm, though that is probably a moot point now. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cruft

Hey Benjiwolf, thanks for your comments. I know my user page makes me look like a bit of an elitist. I guess I would rather see the school become "important" first before being added as an article. I think I have just seen too many "This is my school and the principal is ... and my friends are ..." articles that sent me off on that rant. But if fans are willing to do lots of research and come up with decent articles, great! Anyway, I'm off skiing in Switzerland tomorrow (that's why I have been reading up on it :-) -- sorry about reverting some of your changes by accident, usually you get a conflict editor but it didn't come up this time for some reason. Regards, Icemuon 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind offer to crash! I actually haven't got the faintest idea where exactly we're going, a friend who used to go there with his family every year booked everything... I just know it's near the Italian border and has plenty of snow at the moment. It sounds like a beautiful place, some village at 2000 m accessible only by gondola, I'm sure it'll be great! Take care, Icemuon 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on my talk page

See Misplaced Pages:Vandalism for what to do and what not to do. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

jimbo wales talebanesque reference

i have commented on this on Talk:Jimmy Wales. please discuss with me there. barneca 17:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

polar bears & HIT

hey - per your note on my talk page - no problem! lotta people just drop stuff like that in with no source material or anything, and i just wanna make a good article. i'll put a formal ref tag in there one day. but thanks for the message! - Metanoid 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Canton of Berne

Hello, and thanks for your contributions to Canton of Berne. However, I'd like to ask you to stop adding images to it. As fine as they are - and I should know, I am Bernese - they just clutter up the page and make it hard to read, especially the ton of mountain pictures in the "Geography" section. And the alphorn players... I think they are not even Bernese ones. Please see also the image use policy in this regard. Unless you strenuously object, I'm going to queue out some images onto the talk page, as is suggested there. Best, Sandstein 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the same also applies to the other Switzerland-related articles you've recently been editing. Please stop it for now and let's discuss it here. Sandstein 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but you should have put it on my talk page, not on my user page. Please let's continue this discussion on Talk:Canton of Berne. Sandstein 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Banning threats against Ttguy

A few points re your recent message. "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ttguy"

• "This is your last warning." When was my first warning? Surely your message should read "This is you first and final warning"
• on a review Which commitee conducted this review?

• your blanking behaviors have been deemed partisan. Again who had made this determination and on what evidence? Can you please reference me with some examples of this behaviour. It is my believe that I have "blanked" out material that was not supported by references. Either there were no refernences made or the references cited did not suport the argument. If you can supply me with examples where this is not the case then I appologise and promise to be more careful in future.

• your blanking behaviors have caused harm to your positions and the industries you support. Care to provide evidence to back this claim?

• Correcty me if I am wrong but Wikipediea is supposed to be encyclopedic. This means that it should present facts and not point of view. In an encyclopedia, criticisms and negative stories should be based on fact not opinion. If it is a fact there should be a credible reference to backup the fact. I believe it is my duty to delete content that is not factual. This is not a debating society - it is an encylopedia.

Ttguy 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - Who are you? You don't appear in the list of administrators so I have my doubts about your ablitity to "Ban" me. Ttguy 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you ...129.132.239.8 that posted to my talk page 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)?

Lets look at some of the edits you are concerned about.

• court case about GM pollen blowing into a farmers land . As stated in the edit summary this was deleted because it did not belong in an article on Glyphosate. It belongs in an article on Roundup ready crops or genetically modifed food. The very existance of the link on the Glyphosate page is non NPOV. The link stated

"Supreme Court of Canada lawsuit involving a Canadian farmer who was sued for having Roundup Ready seeds growing on his land. The farmer claimed that the seeds had blown onto his land from the wind"

This link basically says "The big bad evil multinational sued a poor inocent farmer for pollen blowing on to his land". A. this case is not that simple and this is a facually incorrect reading of the case. and B. the article is on Glyphosate not on roundup ready crops, not on GM food, not on intelectual property rights and biotech. So I deleted it A because of irrlevance to the article and B because of lack of NPOV. If you want reinsert the link and use some NPOV text to introduce it then by all means do so. Improve the article - do not go around threating people who make edits that do not suit your POV. You might also look at GM Food article or Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser for a bit more detail on the facts in this case.

• . This is a controversal issue and the text as written was not NPOV. The link that existed in this section was a 9 year old article from at Iowa State University. No where in the article is the word superweed mentioned. The article talks about glyphosate resistant weeds not superweeds. The term superweed was invented by the GM naysayers to scare people. But a glyphosate resistant weed is not scary to anyone except farmers and the makers of glyphosate. Why - because farmers will have to use a different herbicide if they have glyphosate resistant weeds. The inclusion of the term superweed makes the article non-NPOV. If you can write something about glyphosate resistant weeds that is NPOV and does not use the term superweed then put it in. I deleted it because it was not NPOV because it used the term superweed.

BTW - where in "the literature" is the term superweed used? What "literature" are you talking about?

Ttguy 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my stop sign oh exhaulted one. I was so scared when you put a stop sign on my talk page. But I feel much better now you have decided I am OK. Ttguy 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Polar bears and garbage

May I ask why you removed my passage in polar bear detailing how they have been observed eating grease and motor oil? I spent two hours in the library combing through back issues of nature magazines to find the reference, after all. DS 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Benjiwolf might be suffering from delusions of grandure. He has been on the Wiki since all of 3 January 2007 and already he has been threating me with banning and laying down the NPOV law. I seriously think this guy is a menace. Ttguy 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

to "DS"...if something was removed i apologize...i restored two links to news articles concerning the polar bears and pollution that someone had removed, one a nice BBC article, which i had not noticed as they were summarized as minor edits and were removed by a brand new editor...i ended up pulling back an older version of the page...yet go ahead and restore if u havent yet...ill just write the links back in now...there likely were other additions that were removed as well when i pulled up that older page...i just wanted it up front so i could compare it to newer versions...Benjiwolf 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

to "Ttguy"...ur pathetic...just as u only write in one narrow area lobbying for GM food... u are a menace to urself and its time someone called out how u edit...branch out a little my friend...i thought u had a university education...and i have edited wiki long before Jan 7...and wikipedia isnt the only thing in life Ttguy...and even if id just written my first thing on wiki a week ago...id still have a right to edit...and look over ur contribs and see that u just write in one subject and act as a lobbiest when u do...and that write that on ur talk page to ask u about it...and u havnt really answered yet why it is u just edit on GE tech and GM food...ur comment here is a deflection...Benjiwolf 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Who in the deities name do you think you are. Like I have to justify to you my editing habits. You certianly have the right to edit. What you don't have the right to do it try and intimidate other editors by pretending that you have banning privlidges that you do not have. Looks like you might have to watch your own "blanking" behaviour my friend Ttguy 11:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

warnings arnt intimidation...they are a legitimate tool of wikipedia...i have been warned before on wikipedia...once as of just a spelling error and i was almost banned for a case of two different spellings that led to a misunderstanding...yet i dont consider it "intimidation" even if i disagree with the warning or why it was given...its a legitimate tool of other users when the have a comment...people can write whatever they want on wikipedia...if they put comments purely nasty or vulgar it can be blanked or removed.......and u dont have to justify anything...if u dont wish to respond to my comments u dont have to...u dont have to respond at all as to why u just write on GE tech and GM food...yet i have the right to ask u about it on ur talk page and make comments...u can do whatever u wish on wikipedia...and i have always added in my comments to ur page that i think u have made some good edits too and i even wish to see u further edit the GE tech and GM food articles...anyways...have a good day...Benjiwolf 11:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on Talk:Polar Bear

Hi. Please note that talk pages are not a soapbox, and more people may be willing to listen to what you have to say if you don't write an essay-length reply every time. Just a friendly suggestion. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Polar Bear is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

benjiwolf, i'm sure you mean well, but please read thru the latest comments on the talk page before editing more. despite what you may want them to be, polar bears are widely considered marine mammals, NOT land mammals. please stop changing my edits to that effect. additionally, we really do need citations to add info to the article. i appreciate your efforts, but an encyclopedia article is no good without verifiability. thanks. - Metanoid 21:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in Polar Bear. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

I agree with Metanoid. You mean well, but this isn't how we corroborate on Misplaced Pages. Please discuss your desired changes on the article's talk page. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

wait a second here...it was even i that removed an intro sentence describing the bears as land mammals...i have added many sentences along with likely half the scientific info on the polar page, and repeatedly described them as marine mammals...yet in the evolutionary section it is appropriate to note that they do in fact spend large amounts of time on land and that for all intents and purposes they technically really are a cross between a land mammal and a marine mammal...this is less true of perhaps sea otters...yet as to polar bears we do happen to class them as marine mammals many of us...as they are intimately tied to the ocean...their diet stems mainly from the ocean...yet in the evolution section when discussing their differences with brown bears it is appropriate to note them as somehow in between still and not fully marine as a cetacean would be...when u deal with evolution, people, u have to note that there are not always blacks and whites...these transitions are not instantaneous...creatures can be in phases in between...we class them as marine instead of land as they lean more towards this in several categories we deem important and for practicality...yet they do in fact spend the majority of their time in the air and not in liquid water...at some point in the future, particularly if the ice melts, (very slowly to give them thousands of years to adjust, barring radical mutations)...they could go fully either way...marine or land...and as to the 3 revert rule...i have come no where near that...that rule is for one day...ur barking up the wrong tree...the last insertion i made to the page was not at all controversial and in the interests of science...i agree a couple of sentences i had added before could be classed as original research...yet not the last insertion i made...Benjiwolf 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your section on polar bears because it was not referenced correctly and it was a load of drivel. I note that you put it back with a more complete reference. But it was still a load of drivel. I note that it lasted for 1hr and 16 mins until Snalwibma removed it. Presumably because he recognised it as a load of drivel too. If the reference means anything you don't have to go on and on about the qualifications of the authors etc etc. Very un-encylopedic. BTW for living creatures there is no such thing as an intermediate form since this implies that evolution is going somewhere. It is only after another species evolves from the polar bear sometime in the future can it be said that the polar bear is an intermediate form.Ttguy 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, just to be clear, in my last Talk entry i was responding to this quote by you: "yall even got me blocked wrongly for 1 RR to try and reinsert my explanation...in fact yall blocked the entire university here in zurich switzerland." to the best of my knowledge, "yall" means "you all," and in that entry you were, in fact, referring to not only Xiner but also to myself - and this did seem to suggest to me that you believed we were somehow working together to get you blocked. but i'm sorry for any misunderstanding, and i believe you when you say that you are too. i realize that you just want a decent article. - Metanoid 16:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR reported

Hi. Reluctantly I had to report you for 3RR. Please reconsider the way you interact with other editors. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked for 24h, then undid my mistake, because the edits provided are not over a period of 24h, and they're not all reversion of the same content. Apologies for that slip-up. However, Benji, I'd advise you to reach consensus for any changes you want to make to articles, or they'll just be reverted and you'll get yourself blocked for disruption. yandman 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 129.132.239.8 lifted, original block was undone immediately. Apologies for the trouble caused. Request handled by: yandman 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Glyphosate Editing

Why do you continually revert the Journal of pesticde reform reference back to a 1998 version of their fact sheet when there is a 2004 version available on line? Leave it alone. Sources must be verifiable and the 1998 J of pesticide reform article is not available on the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides web site. However, the 2004 version of the same document is available and is thus verifiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

if its gets reverted its accidental while restoring other referenced material...Benjiwolf 11:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Howabout you stop "restoring" and do some editing then. There are good and justifiable reasons for my edits. This page is controversial and each statement needs a reference to back it up. And the reference must be verifiable. This means primary references where possible. I have been finding primary references and you go and "restore" secondary references from potentially unreliable sources. Greenpeace is not a reliable source for scientific information. Greenpeace maybe able to point you in the direction of some reliable information but you need to look at the primary source to see if their interpretation is accurate. If there is a letter to the Lancet about glyphosate then an exact year, volume, author and page numbers should be able to be supplied.Ttguy 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Benjiwolf - If you look at the policy on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability you will note "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." So on this basis I will give you a few more days to supply the references needed to back up the Glyphosate claims and then I will be removing the unsourced claims.Ttguy 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf. It is not appreciated you reverting my Glyphosate edits with out comment as to why. Very cunning to call the edit "revert to TTGuy version XXX" ] which had the effect of undoing serveral of my intermedite edits with out justifying doing so. I am simply calling for verifiable reliable sources for the claims made in this article. See the policy on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. I ask you politely to comply with this. Otherwise I am going to report you as a disruptive editor Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing. I would also appreciate it if you would be a bit more Civil in your interaction with me Misplaced Pages:Civility. "you are pathetic" - a favourite phrase of yours is not very civil.

Colleen Shipman

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Colleen Shipman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the article because it violated Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. While I agree with others that the article's subject is also not notable, the fact that this was a violation of BIO made the deletion urgent. Best,--Alabamaboy 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern but this is an article about a non-public crime victim. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons is rather strict to keep Misplaced Pages from being sued for libel. As the BIO page says, "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Because of that, I do not see a reason to unprotect the page. That said, I will bring this to the attention of other admins and if the consensus is to recreate the page then we'll do it. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've raised the issue here. As I said, if the consensus of admins is to undo my actions that's fine with me. You might want to make your case on that page. Best,--Alabamaboy 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, I added my thoughts to the admin discussion board that Alabamaboy pointed you to already. I would just like to add that describing Alabamaboy's deletion action as vandalism and leaving him a formal warnign was highly inappropriate. Even if you disagreed with his action, it was clearly well intended and in good faith. Good faith edits are never vandalism - please read our policy about this. Thanks, Gwernol 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to you adding garbage to my talk page

This (pasted below, and deleted from my talk page) was quite uncalled for. What on earth is your problem? Please discuss at Talk:Polar Bear. Snalwibma 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

this user is flagged and makes false edits

for contributing to untrue statements in the polar bear article...let history note that this user tries to deny that it is the ice shrinkage that has been contributing to the drastically shrinking weights of the polar bear...this user is not a polar bear expert as far as i know...this user seems to enjoy second guessing the polar bear experts...so just what is it then, snawlbima, that gives us such lower weights in the polar bear??? they have been vacationing to the tropics and fasting on fruit smoothies???...they decided to go on weight watchers diet products this last decade as they enjoy the commercials???...Benjiwolf 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on Polar Bear

Hi Benjiwolf. Your contributions are very welcome on Misplaced Pages, but please keep your comments short and concise. Please also note that humor can be misinterpreted and should be used only sparingly in text. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 19:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

im trying to keep them concise Xiner...yet thanks...and actually im trying to remove myself from wikipedia alltogether...i think my time best spent elsewhere and under Benjiwolf 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are still using the article's talk page as your soapbox, and reading bad faith into other editors' well-intentioned acts. If you don't stop, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Please stop now. Xiner (talk, email) 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I will note that your message on my talk page is yet another instance of your assuming bad faith. Please stop. I'd advise you to check the length of your messages against those of others. Xiner (talk, email) 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments, Benji, but you've accused other editors of many things, including doing "pathetic" things. Your message on my page says everyone uses WP as their soapbox, which is patently not true and shows a deep misunderstanding of what this website is all about. Xiner (talk, email) 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM

I am familiar with the type of things that get added to the GM articles and I am familiar with ttguys edits. He does a pretty good job of keeping things balanced and tidies up old, outdated and poorly sourced (things from obviously biased sources etc.; see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources). With the "controversy" over GM there are a lot of editors come along, add the latest thing they read on GM watch, regardless of the accuracy and then take off again. Also a a lot of material was removed from the GM food article recently when Ed Poor did a hatchet job on the article and removed all the controversial details to another article, an edit which had absolutely nothing to do with ttguy. Now your behavior is an issue, it is not your role as an editor to threaten another editor because you have editorial differences; discuss it on talk pages and stop making threats, see WP:CIVIL. --Peta 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• A dissection as you might do in high school and and a vivisection are totally different, the later uses living animals, which appears to be what Ms. Ho does. It's an emotive term but its not inaccurate. --Peta 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"vivisection" isnt an emotive term...its a rather tame scientific rendering of the happening...its a tame scientific term...and im not really sure what it is exactly that ms ho does..or did...ill take a look...yet ttguy put it in there as he doesnt like her teachings...i dont know exactly what she is teaching...yet thats why he put it in there: to try and smear her...i dont care one way or the other about her and have no idea who she is...just when reviewing his edits it looked like a smear edit to me because she happens to be anti-GE tech now or something...Benjiwolf 09:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

as to ttguy a balancer??? no way...he only removes stuff from one position..he balances for one side...thats his right...and he has made some good edits...yet i can call him out for it or question him on it...hes made some really bad ones removing referenced material he just happens to not like...i added some things to the glyphosate page...a lot of it was just wrongly removed for being "allegedly unreferenced"...i add things pro-glyphosate...even gave monsanto references to their home page...he just selectively edited out the non pro-monsanto stuff...Benjiwolf 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers picture

Hey there! Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages guidelines on "Fair use" pictures (which include pictures from TV shows) say that the pictures cannot be used on any pages which begin with "User:" or "Misplaced Pages:", which includes Misplaced Pages:Reference Desk. Sorry about that. Laïka 15:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Un explained reversions on Glyphosate article

Please do not delete content from articles on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Glyphosate. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you..

It is not appreciated you reverting my Glyphosate edits with out comment as to why. Very cunning to call the edit "revert to TTGuy version XXX" ] which had the effect of undoing serveral of my intermedite edits with out justifying doing so. I am simply calling for verifiable reliable sources for the claims made in this article. See the policy on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. I ask you politely to comply with this. Otherwise I am going to report you as a disruptive editor Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing. I would also appreciate it if you would be a bit more Civil in your interaction with me Misplaced Pages:Civility. "you are pathetic" - a favourite phrase of yours is not very civil.

Your style

Please don't make treats, edit disruptively or make personal attacks, see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy; unsurprisingly people don't like to be called pathetic. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Asking for citations for controversial statements is a part of WP:CITE, and references need to be from reliable sources (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability), and for convtrovertial topics the best sources are primary sources not information that has gone through the filter of any organistaion with a POV whether that be Greenpeace or Monsanto. I think you and ttguy could work together constructively if you didn't approach him with such a combative attitude; I note from your talk page that your hostility is not just directed toward him either. Maybe you should take a wikibreak and cool down.--Peta 23:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: glyphosate page

Seems things have gotten hairy on the glyphosate page again... Thanks for letting me know, I'll come over and see if I can lend a hand in the next day or two. Hopefully we can get things in good shape, there is enough research out there to make for good unbiased information. Thanks for the heads up. Phidauex 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for Wendi Deng

You have been blocked for revert-warring and disruption on Fox News Channel article. Keep in mind to discuss changes on the talk page of the article before reverting other users. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

this is ridiculous...i have backed up everything in that article with news stories...i am just about to add a guardian report on the inheritance money handout...this is very very upsetting if factual information is blocked from wikipedia...this is very political this block...i can report on wendi deng and her connection to FOX news...i am very very upset about this block...what is the reason???...cant mention wendi deng...boooo! if you mention wendi deng???...i am ready to quit over this block...i have clearly referenced my material on that page...and i am going to tell everyone i ever meet wikipedia is a sham if you dont explain this block...a political farce encylopedia and when i tried to show that FOX news was connected to Wendi Deng and Rupert murdoch...which is factual and which it is...i was blocked from editing!...i received no warnings about 3 RRs and i was just blocked...and that is not according to wikipedia standards?...please explain just why you are blocking and how this is not a politically motivated block!!!...Benjiwolf 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: im suggesting a law suit from ABC news and CBS news as that page stated with no references that they both had a liberal bias...i changed that to saying murdoch believed they had a liberal bias...your looking at lawsuits for unreferenced braod accuisation statements about ABC news and CBS news...Benjiwolf 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)