Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:34, 7 August 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear Bsharvy: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! — coelacan talk — 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon

Or we now have a workgroup for Portland too! Aboutmovies 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please stop. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Reinis 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit War

Firstly, you undid unrelated changes by me in different parts of the article, and secondly, I warned you after you used "Undo-war" as a summary. Reverts are not how you resolve a dispute. Please read the warning I gave you. Reinis 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm assuming good faith and not taking sides. You might want to see WP:DR about your disagreement with Gtadoc. I removed the one blatantly POV sentence from the lead.

On a related note, please use the <ref></ref> tags for footnotes to be consistent with the rest of the article. The regular links are bigger and chop the text up too much. Cheers! Reinis 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You very clear are taking sides, intentionally or not. You objected to a revert war, and then reverted to one of the versions under dispute. If I accidentally undid changes by you in a different part of the article, then you should merely restore those changes and leave the part in dispute alone. Of course reverts do not "solve" a dispute, but Gtadoc has announced he will not discuss with me, and he has dishonestly characterized my contributuions to to the Talk page, so he has shut the door on direct resolution. I have created a Request for comment section; otherwise, the last edit is the one that should be left, untile there is a resolution, and the last edit was from me.

3RR block

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This means that you have reverted an article four or more times in a 24-hour period. Here are the offending reverts: 1 2 3 4 You are welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages when 24 hours have elapsed.

Daniel Case 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Since you will be unable to post for the next 19 or so hours I want to make sure your concerns are still represented and considered in the meantime. I understand that issues like this can be difficult to discuss without being misunderstood, therefore it's natural to want one's side to be as thoroughly explained as possible. In my experience, this either leads to long well thought out posts which many readers ignore, or a long well intentioned mistake in wording that is read and misunderstood. Both are no win scenarios, and I suspect both are occurring in this edit war. Therefore I'd like to start with a concise summary of your view.

My question is; What is your opinion and why do you believe it? I'll tell you mine to give an idea what I mean.

I think the bombs were, morally or not, the best thing that could have happened to Japan given their failure to recognize defeat in the situation during Spring, 1945. If they had not been dropped, the war would have still been won but one thing would have been for sure, and another might have been different.

• 1st More people would have definitely have died for no reason but selfish stubbornness. The entire Japanese population would've suffer ed not only continued firebombing and invasion, but starvation as well.
• 2nd Nobody wanted the Soviet Union's "help", the Allies knew what Soviet participation in the invasion would've meant based on experience in Europe. In the end the USSR might have ended up with more than the Kuril islands, like Hokkaidō. I'm pretty sure Japan is better for keeping it.

Could you summarize your opinion? Anynobody 06:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)