Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:39, 13 July 2005

WP:RM

For comments or votes to matter on a wikipedia:Requested move the votes and comments must be placed on the talk page of the page to be moved. Please move the votes and comments you placed on WP:RM onto the appropriate talk pages. Philip Baird Shearer 15:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot

Mel Etitis never protected Enviroknot's userpage: see . Ingoolemo  06:07, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I think you may find this useful: a mailing list post by David Gerard going into more detail regarding the results of his IP check on Enviroknot/ElKabong/KaintheScion. Cheers, Ingoolemo  21:23, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

De-Adminship

Further conversation there seemed out of place. The reason the last attempt at de-adminship went down in flames was the way it was being done. Long story, and it was spread over many pages, just trust me, it was bad. Also, while I do agree there is some merit to having a simple process for de-adminning, upon further review I'm not sure it would be worth the cost. All proposals so far would have resulted in a melee of abuse, hard feelings, and other unproductive edits. There doesn't seem to be a way to allow valid requests for de-adminship and not allow the invalid ones without appearing to be playing favorites. Allowing them all would be a mess and no one would get any work done. The problem is admins stick their necks out and even when following policy and acting in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, they are of course going to anger those they sanction. So there will always be people willing to harass any de-adminship process. The only legitimate process I see to avoid some of the problems would be to have a discussion every year on every admin to reapply. Those that get at least half supports would stay, those no would lose their admin rights. But that still faces the problem of getting harassed by editors who have been legitimately blocked and banned. Also, for those admins clearly following Misplaced Pages policy, they would certainly, and rightly be supported by other admins. That would lead to even greater cries of cronyism. If you have a magic system to avoid enough problems that it would be worth the cost let me know. - Taxman 17:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I left the response on my talk page for continuity

RFM?

Hi there! I have no clue why you and Mel Etitis seem to be at each other's throats (figuratively speaking), nor is it really any of my business, but maybe the two of you should consider mediation? Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace, I saw that you no longer agree to mediation. I hope I didn't drive you off. I believe in the Choir having many voices, even if we sing different parts. And I'd hate to lose someone who sings with compassion. Please let me know your concerns.--ghost 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)

I agree with Ghost, although I couldn't bring the lilting metaphoric entreaty that he does. I read elsewhere that you were concerned about certain partisans getting their way. I can assure you that while we can't do much about their spew, there are a serious handful of us who have been staunch protectionists of keeping the facts in the article (as NPOV as possible) and the conspiracy garbage out. I recall you were an effective partner in that endeavor and I wish you'd come back. So far as the mediation is concerned, I read between the lines (and perhaps inaccurately) that you didn't have confidence in aspects of the process (I needn't elaborate, particluarly if I misinterpreted your thoughts). That's alright; we could still use your input in the article itself and on the talk page. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Come on back, please. You'll be interested in my indictment for alleged 3RR violation. Duckecho (Talk) 03:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The INC page is getting much worse

Check out Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo. I'm at a loss about what to do about this matter.--Onlytofind 22:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your vote on my RfA

Hiya Grace Note, thanks for voting on my RfA! I'm sorry if I worded my explanation a little badly, so let me clarify: Everyking's opposition is to one of my proposals, which was to change the requests for admin procedure into a mentoring system. Everyking didn't like what he saw as a step away from democracy and voting (which I explained was incorrect on the RfA page, as my proposal involves discussion and feedback quite prominently). So the irony is you have opposed due to me not following Everyking's proposal, whereas the one thing Everyking thought I did not follow was his democracy view, which you just said you thought was evil! I hope this clears it up :) Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Hiya, if you're not watching my talk page this is just to let you know I replied. Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Hiya, I replied again. Would you prefer that I replied here? Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Tote the Ranks

Welcome to Tote the Ranks, conscientious objector! :)

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?

- Eleanor Roosevelt

"Cunt"

I would like to point out both that the date was 05:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC), and that I apologised to SqueakBox that same day. I'm guessing you also biased that out, huh? Not that I care, though. Happy editing. Kapil 4 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

i want to paddle you and pull down your pants and give it to you in the wanker

Encore

Ahh, Grace, how nostalgic tonight's performance is on Ahmadinejad.... And back on Earth, 61.129.44.201 (talk · contribs), previously warned on his talk page, has now broken 3RR. You don't happen to be an admin, do you? HKT 05:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Good night. HKT 06:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments...

thx 4 your remarks, grace n, but I did in fact try hard to talk to duck & get his reasons for strange editing behavior, which NO one had agreed to;

I appreciate your support for him, and yes, my POV is sometimes self-serving, but I msut also be accurate, as there is truth to many or all of my assertsions

I may not be retired and have twenty-forevers to edit, but I work with consensus, and try to get input -IF the other parties are willing; While I'm not perfect and you mean well, I think you didn't see the fine details of my answers in the 3RR page; I made numerous efforts, all for the better readibility (not pushing MY websites), so that is selfless, not selfish. We don't get paid, so you can understand how things get hard for editing for free -and add to that the LACK of screening for editors -especially on big articles, where vandals can whack an article like that - a recipe for trouble.

REad my detailed! complaint on the 3RR page, and then if you stil have questions, hit me up for a clarification. Take care, --GordonWattsDotCom 13:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that I think it's good that you suggested Duck not revert too much and get in trouble (but instead to ask other users who would be glad to make the edits/reverts) --I would think (and hope) that if my edits were good, you'd do the same for me; I was only trying to help improve the readibility of the page, not offend anybody; Thank you for your concern, but do know I tried my best as indicated by my contemprary comments at the time.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Due to the rudeness of your vote on this page, your vote was removed along with a statement that was clearly vandalism. You might want to re-make your vote with actual reasoning, rather than an inflamatory statement. Howabout1 15:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, why did you use an IP on my talk. Second, I didn't remove your vote. Third, why don't you try a real vote instead of insulting the proposal and not saying why you don't like it. So I think you should put the vote back yourself with a real reason. Howabout1 02:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wish to let you know that IP:210.84.240.148 has been signing comments using your name. I was wondering if this is you or someone else. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have two thing to say. In defence of Husnock, it is not rude to respond on your own talk page. I don't like it either, but a lot of users do it. Second, just a breach of the personal attack rule that you might want to know about. From the personal attack section of wikipedia:blocking policy "Derogatory humour only avoids being a personal attack if the subject agrees that it is funny." As Husnock and I don't find your statement funny, it could be considered a personal attack. Happy editing. Howabout1 14:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hammesfahr

Hammesfahr

I'm not sure where to leave this for you, so I'll leave it here and copy it to Grace Note's talk page.

I've read some of his comments about her, and I agree they seem unlikely, particularly in light of the autopsy report that half her brain seemed to be missing. However, it remains the case that he's a practising neurologist, that he has no charges of unprofessional conduct against him, that he examined her (unlike many of the doctors who have expressed views), and that he offered a dissenting opinion. Therefore, if the diagnoses of the other seven neurologists who examined her are to be mentioned in the introduction, then so must his, and without comment as to his credibility.

However, if you read my intro, I also added the brain size from the autopsy report. I did that in order to make it clear that any diagnosis of reversible minimal consciousness was unlikely to have been correct. In controversial articles like this, and particularly in the intros, the facts have to be allowed to speak for themselves in a subtle way. We can't just not mention people, or mention them but then add commentary that poisons the well.

Finally — and I stress I'm not defending Hammesfahr's diagnosis here — it's perhaps worth remembering that Hammesfahr practises alternative medicine, and such doctors are routinely dismissed as quacks, or accused of wrongdoing, by the medical community for political reasons. SlimVirgin 03:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)