| Revision as of 04:08, 14 February 2009 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →race and stuff: c← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:22, 14 February 2009 edit undoKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →Viridae and John: sigh, + my situation regarding sameNext edit → | ||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
| == Viridae and John == | == Viridae and John == | ||
| Both have a history with me and are only trying to stir the pot. Though I do all I can to avoid them and others that I have long histories of dispute with, they don't seem to ever get the message that I have moved on...both are simply chiming in in their usual condescending manner and based on much to do about nothing, as is certainly evident in this case.--] 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | Both have a history with me and are only trying to stir the pot. Though I do all I can to avoid them and others that I have long histories of dispute with, they don't seem to ever get the message that I have moved on...both are simply chiming in in their usual condescending manner and based on much to do about nothing, as is certainly evident in this case.--] 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Oh well I seem to be getting into much the same situation with John, except I am the one trying to resolve things and he is treating even ''that'' in a condescending fashion - he recently said "if its so important to '''you''' to resolve this" (emphasis mine) - and I'm thinking to myself, what kind of jerk-off idiot wants to leave things unresolved with co-workers, which is what we are in a sense? So I'm not horribly optimistic but I am trying and hopeful. See also "to my talk page stalkers" two sections above this. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:22, 14 February 2009
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 2:48 am, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives
 Could use your eyes hereI think it's safe to assume you're not likely to have much of an opinion on this, but this has been going on for a month or so now and could use some monitoring: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#section_break. I'm not perceived to be neutral (though frankly I don't care much... this sort of thing is why we have redirects IMHO). --SB_Johnny | 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Quote miningSince you've neutrally contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. (That is, if you have the time... you seem to have a lot on your plate.) arimareiji (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC) thank you
Wikiversity project on Misplaced Pages and the 2008 US electionsHi KC. I started a second round of announcements for Misplaced Pages and the 2008 US elections, to folks who had commented on my talk page on Sarah Palin-related issues (see also, Sarah Palin resource). I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or ideas you have about some starting questions about the project as a whole. WV's been a bit calmer the last week or so, in a good way. --SB_Johnny | 11:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Flu
Sorry to read you are not feeling well so..Hi, sorry to read above that you aren't feeling well. I can totally understand you not being able to spend time here until you are feeling better. I would like your opinion on this and please feel free to take your time as it is in no way urgent. I came across an editor user:Naegele who seems to be advertising himself. He is adding entries about books and articles he's written to a variety of articles. Though these types of edits are concerning, it seems that he has also added an article about himself to Misplaced Pages. To me it reads a lot like an ad, ie: lots of links to books he's published. Anyways I thought I would bring this to the attentions of someone like you with more knowledge about whether things here are hokey or not. It just doesn't look right when I saw his contibutions and checked a few of them. Here is a sample of some of the difs I just looked at; an article he wrote, an article he wrote about himself, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it. You can check all of this out with his contibutions. This all seems over the top with WP:COI along with I'm sure other policy problems. When you feel up to it, would you mind taking a look. I could be very wrong here but to me something just doesn't look right here? Thanks, and feel better soon, --CrohnieGal 12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I too am sorry that you are not feeling well, and hope that you feel better. Second, I have read the comments of User:Crohnie above, and they need to be addressed, respectfully. The changes to the following pages were made to insure their accuracy, completeness and to reflect what actually happened in history: an article he wrote, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it, contibutions. Third, nowhere on the "Violence against women" page does it reflect that approximately 2 million women were raped by the Soviets at the end of WWII, in the largest mass rape in history. Fourth, nowhere on the "Violence" and "Mass murder" pages do they reflect the fact that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen; and that Mao Tse-tung was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960. These are colossal omissions; they are not merely minor oversights. Fifth, you or User:Crohnie might argue that I should provide the original sourcing for my article; however, with due respect for both of you, I do not have the time to go back and do so, because the files are in dead storage. I assure both of you that it is totally accurate, inter alia, because one group representing the victims contacted me and praised me for writing the article. Sixth, the changes to the Greenspan page involved another article of mine in the American Banker, which is also cited to give readers an accurate description of what has been happening as the economic tsunami takes its toll globally, which is the result of Greenspan's policies at the Fed that are producing economic chaos and hurting millions of people globally. Seventh, the page in my name is thoroughly sourced; and notwithstanding your comments, we have never been contacted by anyone from Wiki, ever, except with respect to (1) some minor edits that we agreed with, and (2) the requirement for better sourcing/backup to substantiate the entries at the page, which was accomplished by more than 20 footnotes. Thus, I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written. Thank you for your attention to this matter; and again, I hope you feel better. naegele (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Naegele Also, the deletion does not show up on either of the following pages: "Misplaced Pages:Deletion today" or "Misplaced Pages:Deletion yesterday," however, we assume that the page has been saved by you. naegele (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC) naegele (talk
Deletion review for Timothy D. NaegeleAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Timothy D. Naegele. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. naegele Re:Intelligent designI'm not sure where you got the idea I was even close to using my tools to do anything about the issue, but I can assure you that I have no intention of doing that- too many people are out for blood in these kind of "discussions", they would love to have me against the wall. This is a rather odd case- almost any other article on Misplaced Pages, myself and other involved admins could easily remove the images in an "admins enforcing policy" role. Here, because the regulars on the article rather like the images, and because they're used to fighting the good fight to keep rubbish out of the article, we find ourselves as one party in a "content dispute". Frankly, it's tiring, and I think other admins would be better off just stepping in and removing the images, rather than trying to act as referees. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And you're not talking about removing an album cover, so please stop with the false analogies. Take this off to the article talk page. I'm not in your edit war; you're arguing with the wrong party - and for what its worth, you are also not persuasive. KillerChihuahua 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Just saying hi
To my talk page stalkersSince he removed it with a snide accusation and failed to confirm that he won't pretend he knows my position about something I have said nothing about, I would appreciate it if you would all keep an eye out and let me know if he pretends he knows what I'm thinking again. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC) race and stuffYeah, I keep an eye on it - interesting blog entry and sounds like good research, thanks for passing it on. I will pass it on to others as right now I HAVE to focus on my own work. That said, I would kinda like to ask a favor of you. A few weeks ago I did a massive rewrite of Culture. In my view, that article started going bad years ago and just kept getting more and more messier, lots of redundancies, tangential material, mixing up different (but unidentified) points of view, and no depth. The article still needs to cover some as yet uncovered topics, but I really put enough time into it and have to refocus. My concern is that having written most of it it is all in my style. Would you have time to read and edit it? I do not mean copy-edit (I mean, there are probably typos, but that is not my main concern) - I mean seeing if any sentences should be reworded or rearranged, or even paragraphs or sections reorganized, for better style, clarity, and flow? It shouldn't matter if you have not done much research on the topic (but I think your interests are close enough that you are clearly well-informed). The point is, I know all the research, but a wikipedia article has to be accessible and intelligibel to a diverse audience. I realize this is a lot to ask, but I figured no harm in asking. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Viridae and JohnBoth have a history with me and are only trying to stir the pot. Though I do all I can to avoid them and others that I have long histories of dispute with, they don't seem to ever get the message that I have moved on...both are simply chiming in in their usual condescending manner and based on much to do about nothing, as is certainly evident in this case.--MONGO 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
|||||||
