| Revision as of 00:37, 22 August 2005 editSleepnomore (talk | contribs)610 edits One more attempt← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:46, 22 August 2005 edit undoRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,117 edits Request for ArbitrationNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| I understand your idea here, but it really isn't acceptable. That isn't what the article talk pages are used for. I don't hold a real opinion on these pages other than the disputes are out of control. I did provide feedback which stated that I am in favor of keeping controversial material in there. The point is, you can't expect to be taken serious when you are arguing minor points and making waves where they aren't neccessary. Leave your arguments on a point by point basis and make them refute them. That's the only way you are going to win -- not with continued dispute over where the RfC's are announced. I'm not telling you to drop the RfC. That's up to you. I'm telling you to keep it to talk pages. I'm not a policeman of the sites, I'm simply trying to make this article work for everyone and we can't come to an agreement while this bickering goes on around article discussion. Common man. This really is pettty and you know it. Don't let them get to you and bring you to their level. = ] 00:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC) | I understand your idea here, but it really isn't acceptable. That isn't what the article talk pages are used for. I don't hold a real opinion on these pages other than the disputes are out of control. I did provide feedback which stated that I am in favor of keeping controversial material in there. The point is, you can't expect to be taken serious when you are arguing minor points and making waves where they aren't neccessary. Leave your arguments on a point by point basis and make them refute them. That's the only way you are going to win -- not with continued dispute over where the RfC's are announced. I'm not telling you to drop the RfC. That's up to you. I'm telling you to keep it to talk pages. I'm not a policeman of the sites, I'm simply trying to make this article work for everyone and we can't come to an agreement while this bickering goes on around article discussion. Common man. This really is pettty and you know it. Don't let them get to you and bring you to their level. = ] 00:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Request for Arbitration == | |||
| A ] has been filed. Please read it. ] 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:46, 22 August 2005
Hello, I'm ]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks!
Please refrain from making test edits in Misplaced Pages pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Tεxτurε 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Gamaliel 06:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy
"Surrogate father" doesn't necessarily mean biological father...maybe a different term should be used, but I think it only means to say that he was close to his nieces and nephews. Thus, I reverted your edit. --- Mike 04:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, "witnessed" the assassination is loose language, but I'm sure they meant "went through" rather than "saw personally"...you can change the phrasing to that if you think it's clearer. --- Mike 04:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to report a dispute over content as vandalism. If you wish other editors to become involved in a content discussion, please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Gamaliel 20:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect references to vandalism
Your attention is called to Gamaliel's statement on 6 August that it is incorrect to report a dispute over content as vandalism. It is similarly incorrect to indicate in an edit summary that deletion of material whose value is questioned is vandalism. Robert McClenon 15:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
It Helps to Create an Account
There have been some edits from this IP address that may be reasonable but may be unreasonable. I am not making a judgment.
If anyone has been editing from this address on a subject other than Edward Kennedy, it might be a good idea to create an account in case this address is blocked. Robert McClenon 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Three revert rule
Please adhere to the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule. The rule applies to users, not accounts or IP addresses, so using another IP address to make additional reverts is not permitted. Gamaliel 16:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Agiantman
Do not alter the statement of the dispute again. You are free to respond in your own section at length, but if you forge or alter the comments of others again you will be blocked for vandalism. Gamaliel 01:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Read and follow the format and instructions of the RfC. It is not your sandbox and you are not free to spew your rants all over it. You are free to write whatever you want if you stay within the perscribed format and put unrelated material on the talk page. It is not that difficult to understand. Just color inside the lines. Gamaliel 03:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Create a Signed-In Account
This IP address is apparently being used by an Internet troll. If anyone is using this IP address to make constructive edits to Misplaced Pages, they may consider creating a signed-in account so that they will not be blocked if the troll is disruptive. Robert McClenon 15:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Please See Request for Comments
A request for comments has been posted concerning a user of this address. Robert McClenon 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
To any other users of this address
If anyone is using this address who is not the subject of the conduct described in the RfC, please consider creating an account so as not to be blocked. Robert McClenon 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Did someone put User:Robert McClenon in charge while I was sleeping? Where is rule that says others can't login from the same IP address? Also the vote is overwhelming in the RfC, so why would anyone be blocked?--Agiantman 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Please Stop
I'm trying to tone down the rhetoric. Keeping RFCs on the page are not neccessary. Please use user talk pages for personal discussion and RfC announcements. I would like to keep the article talk page to discuss the article -- not users. Thanks for your help. You only strengthen your opinion by cooperating and helping out. Thanks in advance - Sleepnomore 22:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
One more attempt
I understand your idea here, but it really isn't acceptable. That isn't what the article talk pages are used for. I don't hold a real opinion on these pages other than the disputes are out of control. I did provide feedback which stated that I am in favor of keeping controversial material in there. The point is, you can't expect to be taken serious when you are arguing minor points and making waves where they aren't neccessary. Leave your arguments on a point by point basis and make them refute them. That's the only way you are going to win -- not with continued dispute over where the RfC's are announced. I'm not telling you to drop the RfC. That's up to you. I'm telling you to keep it to talk pages. I'm not a policeman of the sites, I'm simply trying to make this article work for everyone and we can't come to an agreement while this bickering goes on around article discussion. Common man. This really is pettty and you know it. Don't let them get to you and bring you to their level. = Sleepnomore 00:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
A Request for Arbitration has been filed. Please read it. Robert McClenon 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)