Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 4 May 2008

Archives

Dec 2006 - April 2008

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of emo artists

Might I respectfully suggest that you be a little less combative when responding on this AFD to comments with which you don't agree? Stifle (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No you may not, i stated facts about policy and nothing more. --neonwhite user page talk 22:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hi neon white, why are you going to this page again when that fact has been there for well over 3 months, please do not edit it again. thank you.

I have not edited the page since the afd was closed. Check the history. --neonwhite user page talk 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chantal Claret's page - Why are you all of a sudden choosing to contest facts that have already been established on the page months ago that you had already accepted? why are you all of a sudden choosing to "watch dog" this page again, please leave it alone once and for all, nothing has changed about it, so please leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.130.194 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The facts haven't been 'established' they have been unsourced for sometime if that's what you mean and any editor can remove unsourced text from an article especially one about a living person. Please remain civil. Do not try to inform other editors what pages they can and can't edit. Any editor can edit any page. --neonwhite user page talk 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But why are you choosing NOW to suddenly "EDIT" as you call it this page again hen you so politely left it alone for three months with the same things listed that you are trying to remove? what got into you again? that you have to bully this page once again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.130.194 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it was done recently is irrelevant. There is no rules on when you can and can't edit a page as there are no rules regarding who can edit a page. --neonwhite user page talk 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

YES, but WHY are you all of a sudden choosing to POLICE this page when you so kindly left it alone for so long the way it was, now you are attacking it again with your self proclaimed "rules". Can't you leave it the way it was a few months ago after you butchered it to begin with? Just leave it alone and go pick on something else. Please. what is your personal issue with this page? You are the ONLY person who has a problem with it the way it was and everyone else is trying to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.110.99 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeated any editor can edit any page that needs work. I did not invent wikipedia policy. I was not involved in it whatsoever. The page needs cleaning up so it will be done. --neonwhite user page talk 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 You are not answering the the question with why you are OBSESSED with watchdogging this specific page and all of a sudden decided to come back to it after so kindly leaving it alone for months.  Please own up to your true intentions they seem malicious almost and uncalled for, not very wikipedia like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.51.253 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Diana/Institute of Peace/Consensus?

I'm writing here because I really don't want to inflame the issue at the AN/I discussion but, would still like clarification. I'm wondering why you feel that consensus wasn't reached and/or why you feel that I was claiming a false consensus and being uncivil. Most (if not all) of my edit history and comments at places like AN/I have been very civil and I try to encourage others to do the same so if I've created some kind of problem I'd like to know so that I can try and correct whatever behaviour you feel is wrong. Thank you very much. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs more discussion, you can't announce a consensus after only a small discussion during the last few days. There are obviously still parties that are not in agreement so i don't see a consensus on how this info should be presented. Comments about civility weren't specifically aimed at any particular editor just a general reminder that the preferred action should be discuss these things on the talk and involve all, remembering that consensus can be challenged and refined at any time. You post suggested that you'd accepted a decision and were unwilling to entertaining any change to that. I apologise if have read your comments wrongly. --neonwhite user page talk 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came across that way. I tried to look at all the evidence in multiple sets of discussions and yeah I suppose I came to a determination that consensus had been reached based on there only being 1 user that disagreed. (majority rule sort of thing). I think it was the "declaring a false" consensus thing that through me off. I'm still a bit raw at this and took it a bit personally. For that I apologise. Not sure what is actually going to happen at this point with the new stuff I found yesterday before I left the computer and this being the first page on my watchlist needing attention I haven't looked anywhere else yet. Thank you for your honest opinions and willingness to discuss things in a meaningful and civil way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon & Jasynnash2, If you could do the write-up (thin content) about the institute and being mentioned in the legacy section with the link to the new article, then it is fine, I will involve with the new article. The info currently available about the institute is only sufficient it is meged with the Diana article. Otherwise as Neon mentioned on the ANI discussion, the chances of the new article being survived on a afd debate is questionable at this stage.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say a merge would be the most likely result of an afd. I can't really find much info on it. --neonwhite user page talk 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not going to turn this user's talkpage into a battleground but, my comment to Neon is for neon to respond to. If it means you will work constructively on improving wikipedia as a whole than I will try to add something to the legacy section. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana "thing"

Hi, I went ahead and added a bit into the legacy section as agreed with Bermudatriangle. I've tried to make sure it isn't as "spammy" as before and not copyvio like the last bit talking about the Institute appears to have been (see edit summaries). I'm still not 100% convinced it belongs but, want the matter to come to a close. Could you have a look and let me have your opinion. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Added more details (Legacy section) Diana, Princess of Wales

I have added some more details with reference as the article "(Sri Lanka)Princess Diana Institue of Peace" was speedily deleted. I am expecting your input there.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it need that many citations? As long as everyone agrees with the content it should work. --neonwhite user page talk 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced into a few citations.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)