Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 20 July 2007

• User talk:Dman727/archive1 Created March 15. 2007

Cisco

please define "recent history". according to Google Finance, their annual net income and operating income are down from 2005 --Zr2d2 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats proably true but its not a loss..just less income than the prior year. The edit you made indicated a loss. The only loss they have experienced was in FY 2001. Dman727 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Underground

Hey, look at that! We managed to cooperate! I agree it improves flow. Can I convince you to engage in talk on the question of my "censor opposing views" citation?--68.54.18.57 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Buckhead's "Assertions"

As I mentioned on the Free Republic discussion page, I will allow you and others some time to discuss matters a little bit more, but unless someone can come up with a fact-based reason not to, some sort of a disclaimer regarding the contents of Buckhead's original post will have be added back. I have no interest in that wiki at all beyond this one issue, and I don't want to get into a revert war. I just want to keep the encyclopedia honest and up-to-date. I'm open to suggestions for a compromise, but it can't be left as is since it's highly misleading, to say the least. -BC aka Callmebc 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page. All you need a RS that addresses Buckhead. A general document on the state of word processing in the 70s amounts to WP:OR due to WP:SYN concerns. Dman727 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, no -- your logic is a bit faulty. If person A claims that proportional printing was extremely rare in the 70's, if done at all; but authoritative source B shows that proportional printing was actually a common feature then; then this amounts to a defacto discrediting of person A's claims. There is no logical way to get around this, meaning that WP:OR and WP:SYS have no applicability here. I'll keep any further discussions on the FR discussion page. I'll compromise to some extent, but I really can't let things stand as is. -BC aka Callmebc 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not my logic. Its Misplaced Pages logic and rules. I think it should be included, but WP:SYN doesn't allow it. This is the last time I'll respond here. Lets discuss the issue in one place..the talk page of the article thanks!. Dman727 21:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

thougths on a reverstion

im sorry but saying your reverting it because of the talk page, while there is still an active discussion doesn't seem all that good. please put it backCharred Feathers 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I cannot do that. I believe the edits were positive and taken to remove elements contrary to wiki policy (see talk page). Putting back in what I believe to be WP:OR and bias cannot be justified by active discussion imo. See you at the talk page!. Dman727 08:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

outsider...

im not american, so i have none of the o so typical objections to what some would call defaming america. i is only interested in truth.Charred Feathers 08:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand yoour point. Remember though, everyone has biases. Being a non-American does not free you from biases. Yours are just rooted in a non-american culture, while mine are rooted in the culture I hail from. Thats all ok. We're just human beings. Our goal at wiki is to write these articles as free as possible from these biases. Dman727 08:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

seems more and more like that might be an unreachable goal, like the greeks looking for perfection....Charred Feathers 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• CF I thought you were from Canada --Rebent
• Also, to say that because you are not an american, you have no problem going against us is illogical. There are many people who are not americans who still benefit from our country, and there are many people who are americans who try to defame it. --Rebent

havnt seen any discussion to say what was said in that version.

thereafore i removed hte change, cause its not neitral, its more or less trying to softly remove the point of hte article in my eyes.Charred Feathers 07:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

sankies

for being nice enough to warn me.Charred Feathers 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding prods to articles created by User:Zach3 3

Hi!, I replaced the proposed deletion templates with {{db-bio}} because the articles were obviously about non-notable people and should be deleted on sight. See Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion for more info. Also, you should consider warning the user to stop vandalizing by using one of these templates here: Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Thanks! -- _Hdt83 07:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Is there an e-mail address where you can be reached?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (see article history). Dman727 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just curious, but did you receive an e-mail from Morton Devonshire asking you to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so but I'll check. In any event I've been involved with that article and have it on my watch list, so I knew about the AFD within the first couple 'votes'(I generally wait a bit before adding my comments as I like to see other comments first). Dman727 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I have no problem with you weighing in about the status of this article obviously, I'm just trying to establish if e-mail canvassing is going on for this AfD (one person has already says it was) as this is a real problem and very much goes against the WP:CANVASS policy regarding votestacking. If you did receive an e-mail about this, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Mapes article

It's your right to revert what you think is a silly rant. Thanks for not reverting the latest change, from "disgraced journalist" to "former journalist", and in the book section. Although I am a supporter of Mapes and I believe Bush disregarded his Guard obligations, I believed the article was biased and opened Misplaced Pages up to a libel suit.

So I take it we can leave the article as is, with the NPOV changes?

"Former journalist" is the better NPOV term. When I looked at the diffs I thought that you (I assume it was you), were actually putting it in as "disgraced journalist" In other words, I looked at the diffs backwards. Once I realized that I had undid what was a better edit, I reverted myself. Dman727 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. We did our good deed for the day, making the article more NPOV. You don't have to run out and help an old lady across the street. Unless you want to, of course - Edward G. Nilges

Cindy Sheehan page Vandalism

Hello, looks like that user CPRDave has been warned about vandalism on previous occasions. Why wouldnt he be blocked from wikipedia for vandalising the Cindy Sheehan page? That was some serious vandalism he did...my few cents.

I agree he should be. He's been warned a few times. I'm not an admin so I cannot do it though. Dman727 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit waring against consensus

Since you said you didn't see any consensus on talk, I'll point out the section for you: ] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except Tbetty, who didn't provide any good reasons. This section was the end product of all these editors working together, tailored to the various conditions they requested for me to abide by. In addition to this clear talk page consensus, various other editors have supported it in edit summaries, restoring it, once it started to be taken out by the likes of yourself, Mongo, and Tbeatty. Since this section is well sourced, a product of a majority of editors from different POV's, and supported by a majority of editors working on the article, your removing it is unacceptable edit warring, and will be opposed. If you have specific objections to the content, please discuss this on the talk page instead. I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have here or on talk, and if there is a new consensus to remove or making any changes, then we can do so. Until then, you are advised to stop being disruptive to this article.Giovanni33 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)