Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 21 July 2005

Archives

• Archive 1 – 3 January 2005 - 20 April 2005
• Archive 2 – 21 April 2005 - 12 July 2005

Offensive usernames

You noted your support for blocking two offensive usernames at RfC; do we have to wait for further consensus to do so, or can they be blocked? If they can be blocked, would you mind to do it? I'm about six days away (hopefully) from getting the sacred mop; feel free to vote for me! (Shamless plug.) -- Essjay · Talk 11:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's probably best; I don't want you to make a decision on a block without being sure. When in doubt, wait it out. Way to be the cool head; keep up the good work! -- Essjay · Talk 12:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your page protection

Have worked hard to add meaningful content to the Ted Kenendy page. The group who have been taking down my info and links will not reason. The linked site, fatboy.cc happens to provide photos and text not found on any other websites. The photos of Pam Kelley are on no other pages. The letter about Joan Kennedy on the home page is also no where else. Just because the other guys who edit the page happen to love Ted Kennedy does not give them the right to color the page with their views. The site fatboy.cc is not an attack site, there is no profanity or threats there, in fact it is hosted by a Boston talk show host and Boston Herald writer, Howie Carr. Even if there is political satire on fatboy.cc, it is on topic and not obscene. Thanks for your help.

Thankyou for your helpful info

Thankyou very much for your useful information on my attempt to make the article ÉFF. However I did not fully understand it as I am new to Misplaced Pages. Please can you clarify what you mean and put the answer at User talk:195.188.51.4

British and Irish current events

I note you voted keep in the above page's VfD, and I was wondering if you'd consider helping to keep it updated. Thanks for your time, Steve block 21:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

Hi Thryduulf. You protected the Srebrenica article for editing. I think that some key background data about it didn't mentioned. That UN commander of Bosnia and Hercegovina claim that it was the revenge for the previous messacre against Serbs in this area. ICTY transcript : http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/040212ED.htm .

0 Q. General, your statement details attacks by Naser Oric,

11 particularly the Orthodox Christmas Eve attack. Did there come a time

12 when you had a conversation with Naser Oric with which -- during which you

13 confronted him with respect to what his policy was or what he did respect

14 to the prisoners that he obtained during his operations?

15 A. I met Naser Oric much later, in March, when I intervened directly

16 on the ground. The actions that you are referring to were one of the

17 reasons for the deterioration of the situation in the area, especially in

18 the month of January.

19 Naser Oric engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and

20 destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree

21 of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region, and this prompted

22 the region of Bratunac in particular - that is the entire Serb population

23 - to rebel against the very idea that through humanitarian aid one might

24 help the population that was present there.

25 Q. General --

Page 31966

1 A. Naser Oric, and I repeat, I met him only in March.

2 Q. If I could ask you, what if anything did Mr. Oric himself say to

3 you with respect to what he had been doing with prisoners during this time

4 period?

5 A. I think you will find this in other testimony, not just mine.

6 Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the

7 population itself. I think that he realised that those were the rules of

8 this horrific war, that he could not allow himself to take prisoners.

9 According to my recollection, he didn't even look for an excuse. It was

10 simply a statement: One can't be bothered with prisoners.

I think that some of these should be cite in the Srebrenica_massacre article. --Oldadamml 07:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I ask you to add NPOV dispute to the Srebrenica_massacre article. This can be done within the wikipedia protected page policy. --Oldadamml 08:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for protecting the article following my request. I hope we can come to an agreement on the talk page now. By the way, adding the NPOV dispute tag was probably a good move. The article is a mess following the constant edit warring. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for doing the administrational type duties re: the Vancouver Skybridge article/picture. Prudish indeed! Ha! If he'd only have looked at my edit history... Thanks again for doing your duties with the admin mop. Dismas 06:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Double standards

Just curious, it's ok for SPUI to call people Fucking idiots but not the other way around?

Also, SPUI has asked people not to revert.

Jennet 08:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

(It wasn't an edit summary where he called administrators Fucking Idiots). Otherwise, your reply sounds like a rationalization to me.

I see you've reverted me but left the above noted personal attack, your actions speak for themselves. Jennet 08:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you really are the king of rationalizations. Perhaps your mind is so open that your brain has fallen out?

Locking NPOV Dispute Tags

Thank you for your help in resolving the edit war in al-Qaeda. I wish that pages would never have to be locked, but where there is an obvious and specific NPOV dispute and editors keep taking off the NPOV dispute tag, what else can be done? Would you please take a look at terrorism to see if you think the same action needs to be taken there?

The way Smyth ignores any reference to the classic, singular definition of terrorism in favor of the subjective and confusing rhetorical description he has introduced, is IMO a definite NPOV dispute. Any attempt to suggest a compromise is subverted, and every time an NPOV dispute tag is added, Smyth erases it. I believe a dual-definition compromise can be worked out. I regretfully request that the article be locked with an NPOV tag until a new article is agreed upon for the purpose of motivating compromise. Thank you for your consideration. --Zephram Stark 15:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the info you left on my page. You are one of the people who keep this repository honest. --Zephram Stark 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you please revisit the discussion page and read the whole thing. There is actually only one who wants that tag to be there, and a whole lot of people who want it removed. Please unlock the page. TH 16:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several of us working on a settlement of the neutrality dispute, TH. I'm sure we would all appreciate your input. --Zephram Stark 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Protected template

Sorry for adding the {{protected}} template to articles that are not actually protected. I thought I could protect them myself by adding it. As you know by know, I asked for protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. By the way, thanks a lot for protecting the pages I asked protection for. I really appreciate it. Copperchair 00:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thomas

It was a mistake; I'd meant to copy-edit the new material (which was dreadful; for example, years were given in three different ways: !980, i980, and l980), but didn't have time. I seem to have rolled it back, when I actually meant to edit the new version. I don't know how it happened, but I've now replaced and copy-edited the new material. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Licences and licensing

Hi Thryduulf,

Although English is not my mother tongue, I like it very much, with a strong preference for British spellings and pronunciation, but I still feel compelled to point out that while "licence" (noun) is spelt (:o)) without an "s", "license" (verb) is not, and therefore there is no such thing as "licencing".

KissL 11:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

blocked

ok, no problem--Witkacy 07:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Wolverine Edit War

Hi, Thryduulf. Sorry to bother you, but since Steve Block mentioned you on SoM's Talk page, I'd like to ask you to sound off on the Wolverine issue. In addition to the content dispute (which others refer to as "trolling" or "vandalism"), there is a clearly uncivil edge to the exchanges between myself and my opponents, particularly ScifiterX, and unfortunately, Steve Block. While I take responsibility for violating the 3R rule (I obviously did not familiarize myself with it as much as I should have), if you look at the Talk pages for myself, ScifiterX, and the others, you see a series of insults, lies, and false accusations leveled at me, not to mention behavior on their part that they actually accuse me of. They have made very little effort to resolve this in a civil manner, and reading these discussion pages should illustrate this. In the newest development, user Netoholic has stated, quite politely, on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Nightscream page, that he doesn't see a problem with my additions, that editing would be preferable to blanket removal or edit wars, that the initiators of the RFC should reevaluate whether they've been accomodating, and opined that he finds info on super powers more interesting than storyline info. Whereas ScifiterX challenged me on the basis that he had friends agreeing with him, and I had no one "backing me up," now someone has come to agree with me at least partially, and in response, Steve Block has posted on SoM's page to say, "Some pillock is alleging we're in the wrong now." Since a pillock is a stupid or unintelligent person, may I ask why this name-calling is necessary on Steve's part? This is an indicator of the type of behavior on Steve's, SoM's, and ScifiterX's part that I've been dealing with. In addition to the content dispute, they are violating Misplaced Pages's rules regarding civility (and I wonder if doing so is as actionable as say, the 3R rule). I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks. Nightscream 7.20.05. 3:55am EST

Wolverine (comics)

Nightscream's comments above are pretty correct, I'm ashamed to say. There is definitely an edit war going on at Wolverine (comics), but I'm no longer convinced of who is to blame. And I no longer want to be involved, this needs a better person than me to sort it out. But the page needs protection and the issue needs to be solved. Nightscream is on one side and the other editors are on the other, and in trying to walk the middle I veered far too close to one side over the other. Steve block talk 08:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Steve, the fact that you are honest enough to admit what you have above is precisely why we need to remain in this matter, lest the only ones doing the talking will be ScifiterX and his supporters, who certainly appear less likely to display the type of objectivity and honesty needed to admit when they might be wrong. Me, I admit that I should've familiarized myself with rules like the 3R rule more closely, so there's plenty of mea culpa to go around. Your continued presence in the matter would be appreciated. :-) Nightscream 7.20.05. 10:35am EST

Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Alix of Hesse (maybe)

Just to say that, when I proposed moving the article back to Alix of Hesse, I genuinely did think it had been at that title previously. Deb 22:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia, again

Mike Garcia has been acting up again, this time on System of a Down, only a little while after your block. He refuses to cite a source for his information. 66.36.141.203 01:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)