Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 26 February 2010

Welcome!

Hello, NickCT, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Soxwon (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Parting Shot re:FNC

I came out of retirement because when you first came on this article no one was paying attention to what you were saying and trying to do. I thought your point was valid, but you were being shushed away with "no consensus" and "we've discussed before" arguments without explaining the process behind those sentiments. You seem like you'll be good here, but I ask that if you don't understand something just ask. This jumping to conclusions and attributing of positions is the quickest way to label yourself as a contentious editor, and thus make it more difficult for you to find consensus with other editors. I won't be as active (and most of the time not active at all actually) here on Misplaced Pages in the future, but if you have any questions about process feel free to leave a note on my talk page. I can't promise I'd get back to you soon, but I will eventually get back to you. Ramsquire 16:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but . . .

I'm putting this on your talk page because it really doesn't change anything in the Fox News discussion. I'm the one who objected to the formulation that Fox "maintains a distinction between its news coverage and its editorial programming" because the word "maintains" as used here could mean "keeps" or "preserves" rather than "contends" or "asserts". I replaced it with "points to", probably not the best word choice. However once one says that Fox "maintains that there is a distinction between its news coverage and its editorial programming", then the former problem no longer exists because the particular meaning of "maintains" becomes obvious from the context. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent quote

I am quoting you on my userpage for your most excellent insight and response to Ramsquire. While I've always been aware of the underlying issue, you very perfectly crystallized and captured the essence of the thought. Thank you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Occupied territories

Please do not edit war over articles; when a change is contested, please seek consensus and compromise at the talkpage. You have not edited that article for more than a day, which would have been the block length if your AN3 report had been closed sooner, so I will not block you at this time. I have made a few suggestions on the talkpage, which you and the other editors there are free to take or leave at your pleasure. If you resume edit warring by inserting the same text without first receiving consensus at the talkpage, you may be blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

I have already pointed out to you why uncivil comments that you made on the talk page of occupied territory were counter productive, but as you are not listening, this is your last warning. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey PBS. As I said earlier, I appreciate your attempts to maintain decorum; however, User:Breein1007 is a blatant example of POV pusher who is unable to work in a productive manner with those who disagree with him. I reject the idea that people of this nature have to be treated with kid gloves and have to be given the respect deserved by those who tirelessly seek to bring unbiased knowledge to people through wikipedia. Yes PBS, it's nice when everyone is pleasant to each other, but do we take this ideal so far that we accept and coddle extremists? I say no.... NickCT (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the cool thing about Misplaced Pages (and life in general). You don't get to pick and chose when you follow the rules. Break them and face the consequences. It's nice how that works. Breein1007 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

LoL Breein1007 you little troll. Tell me, with all that time you spend patronizing adult websites pretending you have a girlfriend, how do you find the time to flame wiki talk pages? I think what I find most patheticly amusing about you, is that you get some kind of lift out of your trollishness. Ahhh... Breein1007... You have no idea what rules or consequences actually are. Keep cruising mate.... If you decide you want to grow up, give me a shout. I'll be happy to work with you. NickCT (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See this edit I hope that if Breein1007 removes his/her edit you will remove your reply and that can be an end to it. -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I invite Breein1007 to remove/redact any of my comments about him that he finds offensive. They are intended as messages to him, rather than posts about him. As he's read them, they've served their purpose. All the best PBS.... NickCT (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Z8

Sigh...... GedUK - While I'm very impressed by the blocking stats you have so prominently displayed on your user page, and wish you the best in improving your stats, I suggest you take more than a cursory review of peoples' posts before arbitrarily blocking people. Poor & officious blocking simply encourages sock puppetry and ankle biters. ~Best my limey friend NickCT (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Atheist

For the record, I call myself an atheist because I think the concept of a God or gods is utterly ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to say that a person can be an atheist, but still believe in the supernatural (ghosts and shit). To me, the distinction is meaningless because I don't believe in any of that nonsense, but I suppose we must concede that there are people out there with this affliction position. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'd have to say that some versions of Buddhism are "atheistic" (because they eschew deities), but I'm not sure I'd personally describe them as atheists. In the strictest sense, atheism is a rejection of deities rather than a rejection of religion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ELISA

There's a comment about some text you added at Talk:ELISA#Fluorogenic_and_Electrochemiluminescent_Substrates_reference. Adrian J. Hunter 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Biostar! That was a nice surprise. :-) Adrian J. Hunter 06:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 21:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCT for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Breein1007 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh* Poor Breein is angry that people are pointing out how deluded he is. It's ok Bree. Still love you mate. NickCT (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Blood libel

Why do I get the feeling that a long line of pro-Israeli/Jewish editors will come out to edit war and revert on that Palestinian-crossfire article? I guess Misplaced Pages works in that the higher number of votes win out? despite the view? Is there a rule against stacking the deck? What do you think?Soledad22 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

Soledad22 is an adult, and if she/he doesn't want me to comment on her/his Talk page, she/he can ask me to stop.

As far as calling other editors trolls, see m:What is a troll?, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't critize me for defending Sole from your vieled attacks. I think you might benifit more from reading the links you provided and trying to appreciate the spirit in which they are written.

With that said, I do recognize Sole was being a little loud with his critisms. I don't think it benifits you to try and be louder. Many thanks NickCT (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick has been warned several times in the past for personal attacks, Malik. He was also banned for it. Maybe you should consider acting like an admin and taking the appropriate actions when users who have been warned and banned in the past break the same rules over and over again? You've certainly shown that you know how to ban people in the past. What has changed? Breein1007 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Breein for another fine example of unhelpful comments, and yet another example of your awkward fascination with jeuvinile ankle biting. Breein, you are kindly invited to crawl back from whence you came and to cease from editing my user page. Many thanks. NickCT (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Breein1007. As I have in the past, I will continue to warn people before I block them (except in the most egregious circumstances). Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh? I wasn't making any attacks. I warned Soledad22 against edit-warring, and I facetiously thanked her/him for spamming my User page with the warning template. (Then you called me a troll.) Where is the attack in that? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I'm sure you appreciate that your "facetious thanks" was inflammatory. NickCT (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Inflammatory? Maybe I have a thicker skin than most, but I don't think so. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Sole seemed to think so, and I did as well. Perhaps we misinterpretted. And if you sincerly didn't intend to inflame, then I sincerely apologize for my troll comment. NickCT (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then, let's put this matter behind us. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Respectfully though, I'm a little surprised that you wouldn't recognize that posting a comment like "thank you for warning Soledad" on Soledad's user talk page could be considered inflammatory. I might point you towards wiki guidelines on User Talk Page Etiquitte. I'm sure you recognize Bree's comments above were inflammatory?

Regardless, I stand by what I said earlier. If your comment was sincerely in goodfaith, my good feelings towards you equally sincere. NickCT (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't realize Soledad hired you to be his lawyer. Breein1007 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, you apparently don't realize no one really cares for your opinion. NickCT (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good one! Sure showed me. Breein1007 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Please cry on your own talk page. NickCT (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What I do with my talk page is none of your business :) Breein1007 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Want a tissue? NickCT (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have some to spare? I wouldn't expect that. Breein1007 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Right....... Get beaten up allot in high school by any chance Breein? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

allot? Are you still in high school by any chance Nick? Your attempts to hurt my feelings online sure make it seem that way. Big man flexing behind his keyboard. Frightening. Breein1007 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Fast response. Little advice Breein. In order to get a life you have to step awway from the keyboard. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong, couldn't think of anything clever to say so you pulled the no life card? You're oh so predictable. It takes two to tango. Breein1007 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So predictable. Indeed. Breein, apologies for upsetting you with my "no life" comment. It was meant more as a friendly suggestion than an insult. Again, you're graciously invited to cease editing my talk page. NickCT (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The funniest part is that you've convinced yourself that you've upset me. Whatever it takes to satisfy yourself, mate. I can see that you'll do whatever it takes to get the last word. Breein1007 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The last word. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem

Everything to do with Palestine is subject to much debate. I'm used to it. I'm trying to avoid editing contentious articles directly (or at least sticking to one revert) since I've been blocked a number of times for edit-warring, but prolonged talk page discussion is usually safe and something I am used to. Thanks for your comments there too. Tiamut 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

In reply to your comment here - my point was that if you find yourself genuinely convinced that there are some editors who are obviously trying to use wikipedia to make a point and who show total lack of regard for NPOV, continuing to engage with them in personalized disputes at article talk pages is not the best approach. Misplaced Pages strives to be a serious and respected reference work, and we have mechanisms in place for ensuring that editors are focused on this goal. Gathering diffs and presenting a case takes time and effort, but ultimately convincing editors to either support our goal or direct their energies elsewhere is far more productive than complaining that someone is wrong on the internet. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah incident‎

I think it looks good. One suggestion: You might want to mention the sandbox on the article's Talk page to see if other editors think you've accurately summarized their arguments. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Steady as she goes

It is good to see new editors active on the Muhammad al-Durrah incident‎ page, I hope you will realize some things have to be taken one step at a time. For example, this Nahum Shahaf, whose investigation is a fulcrum for the conspiracy theory that has permeated the article. It's interesting that Shahaf's Wiki article makes no mention of his previous investigation, wherein he concluded that Yigal Amir had not killed Yitzhak Rabin. Also interesting is that the Shahaf article's statement that he is "specialized in ballistics and the technology of filming images" is sourced to comments made by Shahaf himself (the link is, anyway, dead). (The Age on the other hand, says Shahaf has "no forensic or ballistic qualifications".) So much for reliable sources.

I've watched in awe as some editors came in and laboured carefully and tirelessly to bring Muhammad al-Durrah back to life, leveraging Shahaf and a German B-documentary to extraordinary effect. For a variety of reasons, I resisted the temptation to get involved in an edit war with those editors (who have since slinked away, actually SlimVirgin is not the issue here, she is a good one). I was however impressed at how this effort progressed to its goal.

Anyway, I probably won't get involved in the article, but will be watching and available if you have questions, for now to you I say good luck and please remember to keep your cool and adhere to Wiki policy in your edits.

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi Nick. I already expressed my personal views concerning tags in a Featured Article. I think there was a consensus at one time—otherwise the article wouldn't have been promoted to Featured status—but consensus can change. I think I've been a little too close to the article to judge whether there's a new consensus, but there's obviously a healthy discussion. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Courtesy link. SlimVirgin 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)