| Revision as of 23:15, 23 January 2010 editLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,604 edits →Your editing privileges have been suspended for 12 hours: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:28, 23 January 2010 edit undoK (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,767 edits Consider my participation in this project concluded.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User talk:Kenosis/Header}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 3 | |||
| |algo = old(120d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Kenosis/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == Joe Wilson discussion == | |||
| Kenosis, I want to let you know I have just posted a ] of my position on the Carter question, and answers your last question to me about why I brought up Donna Edwards in discussion. In fact, the more research I did, the more I became convinced that Carter was probably misquoted, and the "racism" charge is a serious BLP issue. I'm looking forward to your response, thanks. --] (]) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you know what happened over the past hour with the discussion on Joe Wilson? I was wondering if you saw it. I know I added a comment and it seems like it is gone and it's not even in the history or anything. Really weird. Was there some kind of Misplaced Pages revert? ] (]) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Were you referring to ? If not, possibly you'd hit "preview" or had an edit conflict when you submitted it. It's happened to me before. If such was the case, I'd just resubmit it. ... ] (]) 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ya I dunno I must have just hit preview. ] (]) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Science == | |||
| Kenosis, I posted a defense of the addition to the first sentence of the science article on the ] page. Please discuss, thanks. ] (]) 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring, ] == | |||
| Try not to encourage edit wars by violating ]. Editors submitting good-faith edits tend to undo when reverts are done without any explanation in the summary or in the discussion. ] (]) 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :So I'm being accused of encouraging QuilaBird's brief binge of edit warring at ]? In fact, three other users had already rejected Quilabird's assertions on ], and two had already given valid reasons for reverting your preferred interpretation of the facts of Shepard's murder. Which after two others had already reverted you with valid reasons for doing so, should require no further explanation by the time I came in and reverted. In other words, by the time I got involved you were already edit warring. I believe I've since said my piece on the talk page and in the edit summary of my next revert of your additional attempt to unilaterally overrule consensus at that article (). I do appreciate that you then desisted from making yet additional reverts yourself, leaving instead your opinion on the talk page. ... ] (]) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop == | |||
| As you participated in the recent ] election, or in one of two ] that relate to the use of ] for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the ]. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.<br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, <br/> | |||
| ] (]) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0005 --> | |||
| == November 2009 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you ] while interacting with other editors, which you did not on ]. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> ''I changed it from "Anitfederalism" to "Anti-Federalism", because that is how it's written elsewhere in the article. Thank you for adding the source.'' ] (]) 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You're referring to , right? As a WP user with over 20,000 edits to date, before I decide whether and how to analyze and possibly address your apparent ] here, I would appreciate reading what evidence you care to offer in support of your statement to me that: ''"... '''we''''' ''must insist that you ] while interacting with other editors, which you did not on ]"''. ... ] (]) 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be more specific, I am referring to your edit summary for that edit. It started with "''Believe it or not''". There was no need for that sarcasm. I had made the change I described above, because the rest of the article says "Anti-Federalism". You then changed it back and added a source clarifying that you were using the spelling used by that source. That's fine, I just didn't appreciate the tone of the edit summary sarcastically suggesting your intent was obvious. ] (]) 22:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, your interpretation happens to be totally incorrect. The "believe it or not" in the edit summary was referring to the unusual practice—by the authors of the 1992 book from which the passage is quoted—of capitalizing "antifederalism" and thereby implying that it's a proper noun-- which by today's basic grammatical rules it is not. It's a common noun that describes a political position, not a formal organization, and capitalizing it is at the very least an obsolete rendering of the word. In other words, I believe the authors are mistaken in capitalizing the word, having written the book in the 1990s, not the 1790s or 1890s when such a use of capitalization might have been regarded as more acceptable than it is today. The lack of a hyphen is a separate issue of course, and it can be rendered either way with equal legitimacy, the unhyphenated form being gradually replaced with more and more instances of the hyphenated form AFAICT. However, being as it was in a quotation, I returned it to the way the authors had it. So believe it or not, that's what the "believe it or not" was referring-- to the choice of the authors which I found unusual and very arguably obsolete. ... ] (]) 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will assume good faith and drop the matter. ] (]) 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I too; no biggie. ... ] (]) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9 == | |||
| You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. | |||
| There is a planning discussion taking place ] for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. ] (]) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0007 --> | |||
| == You deserve an award == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Your tireless and selfless work to improve the ] during this last month, putting the interests of the encyclopedia ahead of personal and partisan interests, reflects your integrity and is both difficult and rare. ] (]) 14:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thanks, SB, especially considering the great deal of work you've put in there yourself. Though, I imagine there's still some work to do there. Among other things, I think the Virginia Declaration of Rights will need to be mentioned again (it was removed as part of the "state ratification debate" section) since it is generally viewed as a precedent to the Bill of Rights. Hopefully it will not then open the door to become a forum for POVs about every other arguable precedent to the Second. In general, I agree it's improved overall, which I attribute mostly to an interactive, cooperative effort. ... ] (]) 03:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding ] == | |||
| *''You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or ].'' | |||
| *'''Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see ]) for ].''' | |||
| ] (]) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0012 --> | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. ] (]) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Haven't seen you in a while - hope things are well with you. ] (]) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Moving people's comments is pretty off == | |||
| There have been more than enough protests about moving other people's comments for you to be aware of the effect it has. ] (]) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| There is an issue being discussed at ] in which you may be involved.--] (]) 21:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, Thanks for the heads-up. ... ] (]) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Your editing privileges have been suspended for 12 hours == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''time'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} for {{#if:|'''reason'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|] (]) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> Per my rationale , you reverted edits that were not vandalism in violation of the Global Warming Probation. The sanction is for 12 hours. ] (]) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||