Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:36, 10 October 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Dethme0w, 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Red Director 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. An article you recently created, Green box (Phreaking), may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's Right for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Nenyedi • 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Green Box

Hello, I wanted to let you know that your article is being considered for speedy deletion because it is a very short article providing little or no context. Since you said that you are still working on improving it, here are some suggestions for stopping the deletion process. First, you need to add the {{hangon}} tag above the speedy deletion tag, but do not remove the speedy deletion tag itself. Then, on the article talk page, you will need to give your reasoning, such as that you are improving the article (or you already have). Here are some quick suggestions for improving the article:

• Add more information and history, such as how the technique works and who created it etc.
• Back up the information with Reliable Sources.

Unfortunately, right now, the article does not meet the guidelines for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, but I do not doubt that you can improve the article.

One last point, your message here was a bit snippy in my opinion, so please see WP:CIV for some guidelines about positively interacting with other wikipedians in the future.

If you have any questions, please feel free to update your note on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nenyedi • 00:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not use a bot, I tag all articles by hand. Nenyedi • 00:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

phenomenon of pyramids

It is other thing. --Shatilov Konstantin 08:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not understood the reasons on which my offer of article you have not arranged this time?--Shatilov Konstantin 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Please see the comment that I left on my talk page, in response to your comment you left me. If you wish to talk more about this, then please leave the conversation on my talk page. Thank you. 166.129.50.28 03:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your actions

Hello. You keep reverting an edit i'm making claiming its vandalism. Please see my talk page user:NAACATS and read my response. I am not trying to vandalize a page, but I am trying to correct an article that does not meet wiki standards. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who may be reading this, blanking an established page with 63 references and redirecting it to a page about an organization which espouses a strong POV is NOT the correct way to correct an article which one perceives to not meet wiki standards. A lot of different users contributed to Health effects of tobacco smoking and disagreement with them does not give one the right to undo all their work. -- Dethme0w 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work on patrolling new pages! I like to congradulate people when they get to speedying them before me ;) -Domthedude001 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No prob!

I was keeping an eye on that particular user anyway. Cheers! --Endless Dan 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the hacker spirit...

Check this out... I've had a few unremarkable vandalism hits on my userpage, but some anonymous git stuck this sneaky flame here on my talk page... you have to mouse over the words to see the hidden message! Anyone got any more cool/subversive wikipedia hacks?

== hey man ==

hey man good job keeping wikipedia free of spam --75.100.7.138 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Dethme0w 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion:

Excuse me just because my username is Fabrice Wilmann my real name is actually Stephen Sacrouge. I only chose that username becuase of his inspring work. And Fabrice Wilmann told me that he already has a contract with Bloomsbury. They've read his novel and think that it will be highly marketable after some minor corrections. So i beg u to put the article back on the site please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice Wilmann (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Fabrice Willman in . If I did, I'd take it all back. Sorry it didn't work out the way you wanted. -- Dethme0w 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits to Conservapedia

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Reverting your heavily-POV laden edits isn't attacking you. And, learn to sign your talk page posts. Dethme0w 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Labeling edits as vandalism when they are clearly not is a personal attack Joaquín Martínez 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it means you injected a lot of POV into an article which is something (a) that is against policy and (b) that you have been blocked for in the past. You know what the policy is, you know that you're adding very strong, in fact vitriolic POV into the article, and you know that you are going to be called on it. All of this knowledge of what you are doing kind of tends to indicate vandalism, and that is why I clicked "Rollback Vandal" in Twinkle. Dethme0w 02:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you need to reread your own policies, from WP:Vandalism, vandalism is:

(adnausaeum removed for the betterment of mankind)

Out of the two lists my edits could only possibly fall into three categories, however I would disagree with two of them: NPOV violation - I am removing POV from the article by ensuring CP is correctly quoted and that an alternative viewpoint is offered to the liberally biased criticism of the project Stubbornness - if standing up for the truth and acting as a barrier to the liberal smears rampant on the project makes me stubborn then so be it, but history will judge me as being forced to engage in edit wars against other stubborn editors who refused to consider anything other than their liberal delusions It is clear that my edits were not vandalism, and in labeling them as such you made a clear personal attack against me for which I demand an apology. Joaquín Martínez 03:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Labeling an edit as vandalism when it is clearly not is a personal attack. How much clearer can I make it? Joaquín Martínez 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Demand, eh. What if that apology is not forthcoming? I will not apologize for attempting to maintain the integrity of this encyclopedia, which if you'd read WP:NOT you'd find is NOT a soapbox (and you're soapboxing a lot here). Dethme0w 04:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you blinded by your liberal delusions? I am not asking for an apology for the reversions of my edits, obviously someone has to maintain the integrity of this liberal soapbox you call an encyclopedia. I am asking for an apology for the personal attack you made against me in labeling my edits as vandalism when by your own policies they were clearly not Joaquín Martínez 05:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have liberal delusions. I could demand an apology for your calling me delusional (or liberal for that matter; it's clear from that that you know nothing about me and that you really don't want to) but I'm not Joaquin Martinez so I won't be doing that. Nor do I find myself inclined to offer an apology that is demanded of me. At times like this (i.e. when faced with an intractible binary-thinker) a big part of me wants to offer my opponent in debate a big hot steaming mug of STFU but that would violate WP:CIVIL so ixnay there. Bottom line: I consider your edits vandalism. I consider you a recidivist vandal and troll. You may even be a strawpuppet, so comically rigid are your positions. These are my opinions and I'm not apologizing for them. Looks like that's all I got for you today. Bye. Dethme0w 05:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)