Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:05, 11 May 2005

Welcome!

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Misplaced Pages:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Misplaced Pages:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice Job

I appreciate your comment toward NCdave at Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Edit_War. That guy has been very annoying recently and it appears you've been the first to so sharply point out his blatant fascination with pushing POV in the Terri Schiavo article. Also, I suggest you create a user page. You can steal my layout if you like. Throw some comments on my talk page if you need help. AngryParsley 21:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Howdy Howdy

Cool name and excellent work on the Terri Schiavo page. Thanks! --AStanhope 04:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte Ross Image for Deletion

I have responded to your question at WP:IFD. Mike H 06:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Firebug! good job on Terri Schiavo. Word of advice: you probably should create a userpage, lest everyone think you're a clueless noob. :) Warmest regards --Neutrality 04:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Doki Doki Panic

Nice screenshots of Doki Doki Panic, but if it isn't too much trouble could you take them again, but set your emulator not to smooth the shots. It looks like you had it set to "Eagle 2x" or whatever, but I think it would be more historically accurate if you made the screenshots look blocky, like the original games. Thanks! --Carl 09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job, thanks a heap! --Carl 08:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon

Hi there! If you have an opinion on me, here's the page to say it on: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon.

If not, excuse the intrusion. Chamaeleon 14:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

I am a Misplaced Pages administrator and I have been trying to keep the Nation of Islam article factually correct, allow room for controversial items of substance to be presented, and make sure that the fact that they are controversial is also presented. I have reviewed the "edit war" you have going with several other contributors to the article.

Please read my comments and findings regarding the current edit war on the page Talk:Nation of Islam. That will be the best place for you to make your case for the changes you keep trying to make in the work of others. If you have more facts and sources, please bring them to the talk page and let's see if we can resolve the apparent dispute. You can leave comments on my talk page at User Talk:Vaoverland if you don't want to leave them on the article talk page for whatever reason. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 19:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

Firebug, if you move or redirect this page again without consensus, you may be blocked for vandalism. Please play by the rules. SlimVirgin 04:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Which rules am I accused of violating? I am editing in accordance with the instructions given on Misplaced Pages:Be bold in updating pages. Quote: "If someone writes an inferior, merely humorous article, article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's a total waste of time, replace it..." This is an extremely marginal article; it's already been up for VfD at least twice, and I'm seriously considering a third nomination. It bothers me that convicted POV-pusher RK seems to have the upper hand in this situation. Firebug 05:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fathers' rights

You went and put an NPOV tag on the article, you really ought to leave a message on the talk page as to why you are disputing it's neutrality. --Spinboy 06:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Spinboy 06:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No reverts were done, hence there is no reason for the 3RR tag. A justification of the NPOV insertion has been placed on the talk page. Firebug 07:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template

Hi friend! How do you create a navigational template?? Allagappan.gnu 09:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

VfD user page

Hi there! On Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Sam Spade/Detective agency you voted 'keep' because you thought VfD is not appropriate for user pages. However, other users have pointed out that it actually is, by deletion policy. You may want to reconsider your vote on that grounds. Yours, Radiant_* 14:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

IFD Vote

Hi Firebug, I notice you alluded to the potential for vandalism of the autofellatio photo. Well, the redirect bug has now been fixed, and the vandalism seems to have withered away as a result. (See, for example, my sandbox for an example of a redirecting page that doesn't redirect anymore because of the bugfix). From what I understand, you can't redirect to an image anymore, especially between wikis. Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 22:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Not notable

Please do not create templates for VfD voting, and in general, don't do something just to make a point. We're closing any loophole which allows this sort of thing, and creating this template was an unwelcome disruption. You should do the right thing and tag it for speedy deletion so your fellow editors don't have to waste any more time on this. Doing this would be a sign of good faith; making it sit on WP:TFD for five days before its inevitable deletion would be a bad sign. -- Netoholic @ 14:26, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Voting via templates is improper. As you've seen, anyone can change that template and affect multiple votes. Please do not be confrontational about this. Use simple text comments for voting. See Misplaced Pages talk:Survey guidelines#Voting via templates for evidence that there is no support for using templates in votes, with the idea that such votes won't be counted because they could have been altered. -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

RfC

You don't say which articles, or abuses, you're complaining about, but by all means go ahead and open an RfC. SlimVirgin 21:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please don't create and use templates like that. --SPUI (talk) 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template

I've moved Template:Not notable to your user space. I agree with all those who have said that you shouldn't be using it, but it certainly doesn't belong in the Misplaced Pages template space. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE: Template:Not notable

Based on your reasons to keep this template, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Voting_via_templates and WP:POINT. Thank you. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Please do not use templates for VfD voting. Yours, Radiant_* 12:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• There isn't a strict policy against this, but it's discouraged for two reasons. First, it needlessly increases server load. And second, it makes it easy for someone to change all your votes by changing the template. However, if you use {{subst:name_of_template}} the template is automatically copy/pasted rather than linked, and there won't be a problem. Radiant_* 00:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are correct that people often repeat arguments on VfD. That is unfortunate. There have been several attempts to make policy or at least consensus on such issues as notability, but most of them have failed. Regarding notability, we do have consensus on for instance Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines, and WP:FICT. That might help. Otherwise, yes, there are a lot of gray areas. Radiant_* 07:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Don't be so angry! What a fierce person you are. Next time you speak to someone new, try saying hello first.Grace Note 07:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I try to avoid biting the newbies, but you aren't a newbie, so that doesn't apply. Firebug 07:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nocontent

This template seems to largely duplicate Template:Nonsense, and is also not worded in a way that is supported by any WP:CSD guideline. Can you please explain why this templates is necessary? -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

• Criterion 1 for articles: "Very short articles with little or no context". This template is useful for articles that can't be called patent nonsense but are still candidates for speedy deletion for that reason. Firebug 00:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason you feel that using this instead of the more generic and flexible {{deletebecause}} ({{db}}) is preferable? We have deleted templates before for being far too specific when a flexible alternative is easily used instead. -- Netoholic @ 00:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

It saves keystrokes. Firebug 00:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then use {delete} and trust that the admin can see it has no context. I am going to nominate this for deletion, as I don't believe the extra template is needed, and I don't like instruction creep. -- Netoholic @ 00:48, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I'm growing frustrated with your obsession with deleting templates. I think Xiong's actions are WP:POINT, but your actions border on that as well. This template serves a useful purpose, and disk space is cheap. Firebug 00:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I respect you want to make things better, I see unchecked growth in the Template space as a danger. Please consider ways of reducing the overall breadth of templates, and instead make use of the existing ones or add more function to them. -- Netoholic @ 00:55, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I've been following this vote on TFD, and I was wondering - what about changing the template to use the exact text of the CSD criterion? It seems to me that "no substantive content" is broad and subjective. (I would gladly apply that tag to a lot of pages that I think are pointless, like List of sampled songs, which don't really qualify for speedy deletion.) "Very short article with little or no context" narrows it down some. FreplySpang (talk) 13:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD vote

As you can clearly tell from my contribution history, I do not have 2 edits, and I have no idea where you got that idea. I would appreciate a vote on good faith, and on the merits (or lack thereof) of the article. Thanks. Deletionist 03:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Your edit history clearly showed only 2 edits when I viewed it. Firebug 04:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) **You're looking at the edit history for my User page. That's different than my contributions. title=Special:Contributions&target=Deletionist Deletionist 04:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not ever again revert my writing without reading it first. I made major improvements to the article, the Stalin reference aside, and you deleted them. Don't do it. As for Stalin, do some Google searching on the old gent before telling me he wasn't a Stalinist. He was. Big deal, many people were at the time until his activities became widely known. It will continue to be included. If you call my valid edits vandalism in an edit summary again, I will take action against you as it is a lie. Read the definition of vandalism before throwing the word around. Goodbye. Dagen 03:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I'm editing from Cuba, would you report me to the secret police. I think a jail term for Misplaced Pages editing would be a slight over-reaction. Dagen 03:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the lead para of Fidel now, as long as you can accept the modified reference to the wealth he's amassed in office, we can avoid any further changes I think. It reads better I think, due to our collaboration. Dagen 03:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's quite good. A good blend of the two versions. Dagen 05:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages bias

Hello, TDC has been reverting me, so I was looking through his history and saw he was reverting you as well.

Anyhow, you started editing here recently. As I have been here for some time, and you seem to have found that there is a lot of right-wing bias on Misplaced Pages, perhaps my experience can help you avoid frustration.

First of all, if you are beginning to feel frustrated and annoyed by people like TDC, Dagen and so forth, this feeling of frustration will only grow with time. These people run Misplaced Pages, and even admins have been driven off (User:Secretlondon, User:172) not to mention countless users who have tried to rid the right wing bias of Misplaced Pages articles by applying the supposed NPOV standard that Misplaced Pages adheres to.

Anyhow, I have given up on Misplaced Pages ever having being anything what it is. It's not worth the time and effort to revert the TDC's and Dagen's again and again.

I suggest to you that if you write an original article, you submit it to a more sympathetic wiki. Of course, you can submit it to Misplaced Pages as well, but realize it will soon be ruined. A recent case in point for me, my No Gun Ri article. I wrote an article about the massacre of No Gun Ri and Zonath appears and tries to water the article down. Fine. But then he adds the words "in self defense" in a sentence. Which is completely untrue, the whole uproar over what the investigation uncovered is there were orders to shoot any and all civilians in certain areas. So a lie is inserted to rewrite history. I have to watch everything I write like a hawk and defend it from the Zonaths, the TDCs, the Dagens, the Adam Carrs and whatnot. It's just not worth it in my opinion.

So if you write a new article, please submit it to either the liberal wikis Demopedia or dKosopedia, or the anarchist-y wikis Anarchopedia or Infoshop's OpenWiki. If you want, you can submit it to Misplaced Pages as well, but if some bozo rewrites it on Misplaced Pages, it will still exist on a sympathetic wiki somewhere. This also will give some critical mass to wikis where one doesn't have to spend half of ones time delaing with reversions and ridiculous right wing bias.

While people like TDC and Dagen and so forth attack you, you are isolated and alone, because people who agree with you have already been driven off. Also, some admins will side with them and the admins friendly to people like you like 172 and Secretlondon were themselves driven off. So after a while you will just get frustrated and leave Misplaced Pages completely. Thus the balance of Misplaced Pages will shift slightly to the right, and since you will be quitting wikis altogether when you quit Misplaced Pages, Infoshop's OpenWiki/Demopedia/dKosopedia/Anarchopedia will not grow or get any critical mass.

It would be nice if one those wikis had the momentum of Misplaced Pages, but momentum only comes with momentum. I am putting articles up on those sites, which hopefully will draw users and build momentum. Perhaps at some point I will do a mass transfer of the articles I write to Misplaced Pages. It would take them months to destroy them with right wing bias. Ruy Lopez 05:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Islamic fascism

Hi Firebug, am new here and want to write this article while I'm still thinking about it. Did you see the story on CNN about Aryan Nation and al Qaeda, quite interesting. Am just putting together some research on it all and will be finished soon. Thanks. Walkingeagles 05:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns regarding this issue, but the article that you have written so far has some concerns with regard to neutrality. It also duplicates the subject of an existing article, Islamofascism. You might want to discuss your material on the Talk page for that article. Also, keep in mind that Misplaced Pages has a policy stating that original research should not be used on Misplaced Pages. Please take this into consideration, but don't let it scare you off. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Firebug 05:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Will make sure it has no overlap with Islamofascism. I understand the concerns some have about that because it is either a new word or not a word at all! But presumably with Islamic fascism we can cover the subject matter without worrying about whether the term exists. And yes, I will gather research and make sure a good mix of sources, I assume referring to secondary sources online doesn't mean original research, it's not like I'll be interviewing Osama bin Laden or something like that. I doubt he his taking calls anyway LOL. Walkingeagles 05:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi sorry for being back again so quickly but is the reason why the material I wrote about Aryan Nation that people didn't believe it or it wasn't written correctly or what? I'm a bit surprised. Walkingeagles 06:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Your understanding of the sources policy is correct. It's OK to cite from books and articles. Indeed, using cites is encouraged. What is discouraged is the insertion of original theories and hypotheses. Please read the official policy for additional details. As for the deletion notice, it was posted because the nominator (Yuber) felt that it violated the Neutral Point of View policy. You have a right to discuss the issue at the relevant voting page if you feel that the article should be retained. It sometimes takes a while to get a feel for what material belongs on Misplaced Pages and what doesn't. Feel free to ask questions of experienced editors if you have any concerns. Firebug 06:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Racist

Hi Firebug. I noticed you're the creator of Template:Racist. While I firmly believe racism has no place on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, I'm not sure this template's the best way to deal with it, so I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment on it at Templates for deletion. sɪzlæk 01:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

UPX

You voted Keep on UPX. It's been kept, but the article is still very weak. Perhaps you could undertake to improve it? TIA, Mwanner 12:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RickK

Because you asked me to comment on the RfC, I have done so, though I still think it's all nonsense. RickK 23:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Pavel_Vozenilek

You asked Pavel if he wanted to be nominated for adminship, and he accepted, but you didn't go ahead with the nomination. Did it slip your mind? I'll support the nomination.-gadfium 02:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I performed the nomination. The only reason I hadn't done it sooner is that I wasn't certain whether Pavel's ambiguously worded followup to my question was an acceptance or not. Firebug 04:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, you are allowed to vote for a candidate you've nominated.-gadfium 01:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xiong

Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong's behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Xiong. Radiant_* 08:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Firebug. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

You did not provide a reason for this revert in your summary or on the talk page, as required by Misplaced Pages policy. In addition, you did not reply to the discussion over the two versions on the talk page explaining why the version you reverted to violates NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly DOES violate NPOV for Misplaced Pages to be deciding who is a serious researcher and who is not. That is endorsing a view or person as correct, right, true, or better. Any way you cut it, each of those things is against NPOV policy. I suggest you read it more carefully. It perhaps does not say what you think it says. — Cortonin | Talk 01:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cortonin, if you would reduce your reverts to the part which is about IPCC being "respective" or not, I am sure that we would reach an agreement soon. But insisting to insert huge amounts of quotes is not in accordance with the NPOV policy and thus makes a compromise unfortunately much harder. -- mkrohn 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you only object to portion, then only revert a portion. Mindless bulk reverts make converging on a consensus impossible. If you don't take issue with the respect issue, then don't revert that part. I have said, and will continue to say, that I think those quotes do need to be included, but in a more digested text format. If you could focus your edits on shrinking them into a more summarized and digestable format, rather than on just erasing everything in large quantities, then we would make progress. — Cortonin | Talk 12:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continued on Cortonins discussion page. -- mkrohn 13:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firebug sez "It doesn't violate NPOV to point out that some people are taken more seriously in the scientific community than others"...

Yeah, actually, it does. It is called "editorializing". This isn't done in encyclopedia articles. These articles are here to report facts, not the author's opinions. If you have any questions about this, I'll be happy to answer them. --JonGwynne 03:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My reading of WP:NPOV, specifically the Pseudoscience section of that page, does not bear out the assertions made by you and Cortonin. According to that section:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

The belief that human action is not a significant factor in climate change is clearly a minority view, and most scientists consider it pseudoscientific. Firebug 05:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, calling caution regarding global warming conclusions "pseudoscience" is quite a stretch of sane reasoning. You're talking about a conclusion based almost entirely on simulations. But this is hardly the most important issue. The important issue at hand is, "What is NPOV?" So lets check "What is the neutral point of view" to find out. — Cortonin | Talk 12:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Misplaced Pages's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Misplaced Pages understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

So as you can see, if you are endorsing a view as correct, you are violating NPOV. If you are stating, implying, insinuating, or subtly massaging the reader into believing that a particular view is correct, you are violating NPOV. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe a view is correct, or how much you think something is true, you are still violating NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 12:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NES cartridge megabits

Hey Firebug, I noticed you updated a few NES games with correct size information in regard to megabits. I think a lot of games have errors in this regard, and I'd like to try to fix them, but I don't know where to find out this info. I was wondering if you could help me out with this.

NES cartridge megabits

Hey Firebug, I noticed you updated a few NES games with correct size information in regard to megabits. I think a lot of games have errors in this regard, and I'd like to try to fix them, but I don't know where to find out this info. I was wondering if you could help me out with this. Andre (talk) 15:14, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Shitfuck article

I resent having my article called nonsense and vandalism. It was not nonsense, as it was written in plain English and was very much lending to comprehension. It was not vandalism as my intentions were entirely in good faith. I honestly desired to document a vernacular term and its origins. Given the numerous unsophisticated ways in which the article could have been written, I believe it's rather unfair that you would dismiss it in such a manner. But in the end, I really don't care enough to push the issue. I hope your satisfied.

Kind attention please

Recently one article Nehruvian-Stalinism was deleted as per VfD - almost the same materials have been placed in the article Jawaharlal Nehru by way of a subsection under this heading. In case, it is not conforming to wiki-policies, please do something. Thanks.--Bhadani 10:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It has been removed. Feel free to revert POV insertions like this if you see them, just keep the three-revert rule in mind. Firebug 17:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD nominations and other strange edits

I think for now the only thing that can be done is start an RfC. The user doesn't seem disruptive enough (yet) to warrant more drastic action. Jayjg 15:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Me

Do you actually believe you're being helpful or constructive? I ask you... please... take a break and leave me alone until you can discuss with my mentors. You're behavior is far worse than what I am accused of. So please, give things a rest. Go edit an article. -- Netoholic @ 01:24, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I have notified your mentors of your recent behavior. Your continued revert warring in the Misplaced Pages namespace is precisely the behavior that was objected to in your arbitration case. Firebug 01:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

152.163.100.137

I've blocked this ID for 48 hours, as I have two others he's been using. If you continues, I'll up the block time. Unfortunately, he's using AOL, so somebody may come along and unblock him. RickK 22:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've had to unblock User:205.188.116.203 because the block was interfering with a legitimate AOL User. I don't understand how AOL works in that logged in users are blocked when anon IDs are blocked, because I use AOL and I've never encountered the problem. RickK 22:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Kindly explain what edits you claim I've made - that are not themselves Yuber's nonsensical POV pushing - were POV.KaintheScion

I've seen enough abuses of Admin power over the years to wonder if you're not just yet another POV-pushing admin. But I'm assuming good faith on your part for now.

Also, just FYI, Yuber is guilty of four Reverts today (in violation of 3RR). I'm not reporting him on it but THAT is the reason I called him a Revert Monkey: his tendency to revert pages OVER and OVER and OVER protecting his own POV-laden edits.

Yuber and KaintheScion

Is there a way we can find a solution to the problem between the two users? I am on some pages (mainly Islamofascist) that both of these users requent, and things have gone to the pits. I am not going to start on who did what, but I think this edit war needs to end. Zscout370 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Rabid deletionism at TfD

Well, of course he dislikes templates in general; see Misplaced Pages:Avoid using meta-templates (all of which applies just as well to any template). But he's not alone; deletionists gravitate toward TfD. They are opposed, but not strongly. We might want to work toward improving the position of a more moderate stance.

Suggest we take the trouble to place {{tfdnotice}} (see documentation) where it will attract the attention of more moderate users -- such as on the talk pages of template creators. Bring enough voices to the table, and some will remain to moderate the TfD process as a whole. — Xiong熊talk* 10:05, 2005 May 11 (UTC)