Misplaced Pages

User talk:Moogwrench: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:10, 3 September 2011 editMoogwrench (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,032 edits added MiszaBot← Previous edit Revision as of 17:21, 3 September 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 34 thread(s) (older than 31d) to User talk:Moogwrench/Archive 1.Next edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
{{archive box | auto=yes }} {{archive box | auto=yes }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
| algo = old(31d)
|maxarchivesize = 70K
| archive = User talk:Moogwrench/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1 |counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
| maxarchivesize = 70K
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|algo = old(31d)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = User talk:Moogwrench/Archive %(counter)d
| minthreadsleft = 4
}} }}
==Birnbaum article==
Hi - hope you don't mind I threw in a few things on your new article. ] (]) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
:No, thanks alot! I need all the help I can get! ] (]) 05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

==Your recent edits==
] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion{{#if:|, such as on ]}}, you should ] by typing four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to refer me to edit warring when you have changed the edits back just as often as I have. Hypocrite. No wonder you support the coup and the golpistas. (] (]) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

== edits to ] ==

Thanks for your work. Just a comment: For right now, I think that most edits to the umbrella "constitutional crisis" article should be focused on trimming. Substantive additions should probably go to the sub-articles (at least, they should go there first; and hopefully, only there, as they can be included in trimmed summaries on the umbrella page). ] (]) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

==Reflinks toolserver==
When creating or editing articles where templates arent in use may I suggest using the . I suggest that you don't just take the results given verbatim, but make corrections to clean them up. The results need some manual help; sometimes author names and dates don't get added, and links to publishers are to the website which is not really useful, so link to the wiki article if one exists, sometimes the title is way too long including parent section names that can be removed, etc.

I also found and use an edit counter on my page which shows the main articles edited etc. and graphs them, Just passing on what other people have told me] (]) 15:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

==Election Returns==
There is no error in the AFP report. Hagamos Democracia conducted exit polls which agree with the lower figure.

The the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so. Since this was an arbitrary figure that cant stand up to scrutiny they will have to use a similar basis to earlier elections.

In 2005 the TSE website said 2,190,398 people voted, from an electoral roll of 3,976,550 voters. According to Hagamos Democracia, 2,162,000 voted in 2009 from an electoral roll of 4.6 million. That's approximately 28,000 fewer people voting than voted in 2005, while the electoral roll increased by some 600,000 persons. The size of the electoral roll was supplied to Hagamos Democracia by the TSE prior to the election, and was the same number supplied to the press.

The initial 60% was disengeous to say the least, knowing the attention span of international audiences.] (]) 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:Its simple maths TSE changed what it was a % of by adjusting arbitrarily the figure.
:Hagamos Democracia was accredited by the TSE as election observers. They are an NGO, funded by various governments, including the United States.

:Their methodology was to select a sample of 1173 mesas electorales from around the country based on criteria like their history of participation in previous elections and other criteria. In each of these mesas electorales, they established an observer who was present the whole time, from the time the polling place opened until it closed, and did not visit other mesas electorales as many election observers do. After the polling place closed, their election observer sent them the statistics from that mesa, including the tallied vote counts, and participation from the official "actas" that the TSE has reported to it to tally. Their observers also send in their own statistics gathered from their observations during the day.
:Hagamos Democracia told Tiempo that the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so.
:The TSE has obviously decided to abandon its arbitrary electoral roll (which dissapears 600,000 voters?).] (]) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
::I know the count isnt finished but its now 85/90% complete. I dont know why there not updating their wensite. If you note that on it they show the Hagamos Democracia % which are in line with theirprojections and note that all the figures agree with the exception of participation. The cpmfidence level on that is 99+% with a 1% margin of error. Whether it has anything to with the 6.5% spoiled vote rate or not I dont know. Final results may take weeks so well just have to wait and see.] (]) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

==Law Library of Congress report==
Why dont you put details of the report now that its in HTML into the Honduran Coup d'etat article as counter balance and I'll add details of the specific weaknesses of the report into the critism. section.

:Sure, or we could switch roles. ;-) I think that there is valid criticism of the LLoC report, but I did add noting the which gave the power to Congress to interpret the constitution in Article 205(10) ''after'' the against the Congress's logic vis-a-vis Article 218(9) and 205(1). So I think the critics of the LLoC report might be out on a limb, depending on an older ruling, instead of the newer, ratified change to the Constitution which established a right on the part of the Congress to interpret the Constitution. ] (]) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

== Try it again and we go to ANI ==

Only post where you're allowed. -- ] 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:Don't post in the middle of my posts, and don't insert posts into the middle of threads where they're not allowed.
:You may not insert a post in between a post and its reply by adding another colon, and you mayn't insert your posts into the posts of other posters, ever. -- ] 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::Um, your last edit to that was at ''after'' my original at 3:03, and so I again at 3:17. Why did you move it? ] (]) 04:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Are you kidding me? You really don't understand it, or are you playing dumb? Lo0ok at ALL the time and date stamps. You trieed to slip in a post, in the middle of a thread, in between a post and its reply. -- ] 04:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let review those stamps:

3:03 I respond to your 2:59 comment <BR>
3:05 '''you change''' your 2:59 comment <BR>
3:17 I reply to your changed 3:05 comment <BR>

What is confusing and why I am I wrong to reply to a comment again after it was finished? (even though '''you didn't update the stamp''') ] (]) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:I made a minor change only to clarify a vague reference. It wasn't clear that "that", referred to, "your supposed newness." My minor edit didn't change the meaning of what I had written in any way -- because I had already ''written'' about your supposed newness (in that same post) when I wrote, "newbie you supposedly were." My edit was purely a minor grammatical one for enhanced readability.
:One thing you could have done might have been to have changed ''your'' reply, if you honestly thought I'd written something new. You're obviously familiar with strikeout formatting.
:However, I hadn't changed the meaning of anything I'd written in any way.
:Regardless, you may not insert a post in between a post with four colons, and a reply with five colons, just because you want to.
:It's just that simple.
:I'm not going to discuss it ad nauseum, especially if you're going to ]. I'd rather just go to AN/I. I'm ready.
:As far as I'm concerned, we can just move this discussion to AN/I. You can develop your defense there.
:I reserve the right to do that in response to your next reply, especially if you ignore that a six-colon reply doesn't get inserted in between a four-colon post and a five-colon reply.
:I consider you a thoroughly disruptive editor, and I'm not going to spend all day providing you with stimulation you can't or won't go out and get in the real world. -- ] 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::Well, do what you like. You stopped discussing it with me, and I suppose now an administrator can look at the situation. That is fine by me. ] (]) 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
==Now at AN==

Hello, Moogwrench. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 05:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For my own records, the link is for now, until it is archived. ] (]) 06:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

In a single sentence, was the entire dispute about whether the coup was part of the larger constitutional crisis or just a separate incident? -- ] (]) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:The ''current'' dispute was over whether the "coup" was ''part'' of a larger "constitutional crisis" or the ''totality'' of the "constitutional crisis." ] (]) 08:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::Good night for tonight, must sleep... ] (]) 08:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
== ] ==
I am concerned that ] has seriously screwed up the article. As the only other changes are a POV aout landing at a US air base (which also doubles as a US airbase) what do you Think?
PS Rico has retired from Misplaced Pages so youre now in discussion with yourself] (]) 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:What I was planning to do was a roll back to before his edits. Iyou make an edit after my roll back it cannot be undone. Then any changes made can be discussed on a point by point basis. Is that reasonable. The points hes raising are spurious IMHO and arbitrary. I dont think they merit individual changing at this stage and i consider them tantamount to vandalism of the article.] (]) 19:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::Can you please make an edit to lock the roll back I deleted some of your edits too.] (]) 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Im afraida mass revert wouldnt stand up to an rfc. Yhis guy has been here before under another name and hacked up the article. I recognise his style. Hit and run job. will just have to take apart hisedits in stages and rewording.] (]) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::Whats this africanised bee thing with a photoshoped picture?] (]) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

==Dubious content==
Our friend has also created three pages with very dubious content. Both of which breach BLP guidelines.
] ] and ]
::I think we need to get an admin to look at them and indeed all his posting. He seems to be a loose cannon. Its not just my viewpoint is it?] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Good idea hes an admin.] (]) 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::::I found the right place to report it ] and somebody there posted it to ] goodnight] (]) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

==Cast a cold eye==
Our friend is learning wiki lawyering fast for a newbie. see ANI ] (]) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
:Since we are politically polar opposites, but act with integrity, will you have a look and comment on any recent deletions or reversions thatI have made] (]) 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

== Rollback request ==

Rollback granted: you're right that the tool is not for reverting edits you disagree with nor to revert-war, and that the tool can be removed if misused (note that some admins don't even bother to warn editors about rollback errors). This all being said, rollback is very useful for reverting vandalism and spam, and does make things much easier. Have fun with your new tool! ] 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

==Re Rollback==
Ive just installed twinkle, Where did yourequest rollback permission?] (]) 01:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

== Canvassing ==

Hi there Moogwrench, I'm not familiar with the dispute nor its subject so I'm not able to speak from an expert point of view on this matter, but I'm not sure canvassing is a huge thing to worry about in ''this case''. The editor who was contacted recently posted to the talk page of the dispute (), so I assume they are already aware of what's going on. That being said, if the editor who posted the message starts to contact users who aren't involved with the dispute to get support, my suggestion would be to talk to the editor to get them to stop, and if they persist, post to ] (you'll get better, faster, and more input if you post there rather than contact an individual admin for help on matters like that). Hope that helps. Best. ] 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

==Question==
I am unfamiliar with some american terms. In the UK and Ireland a news columnist is another term for a reporter. Opinion pieces are normally diferent. An editorial is always an opinion piece. From my understanding Primary sources such as court records are not useable in wp. Do you have any thoughts?] (]) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

==]==
]
This is an automated message from ]. I have performed a web search with the contents of ], and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.softcom.net/users/whiskeystill/SJhistory.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our ] for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on ]. ] (]) 16:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:For anybody's information, this bot ''is'' confused, because the text is derived from information taken directly from San Juan High School's website. ] (]) 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
::Did you write the text at the website, then? It appears that most of the "history" section of the article is copy-pasted from there. Sorry, but I've reported this at ] (see ]). ] (]) 23:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact remains that your text is strikingly similar to the text on that website. I've left the copyvio tag, but that doesn't mean the article must be deleted. I think what follows is the best advice for you regarding this article; it's from ].

<i>If you believe that the article is ''not'' a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

:*If you have permission from the author to release the text under the ] (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at ] and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, '''San Juan High School''', in your email. '''See ] for instructions.'''
:*If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted ''"under the ] (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0'', or that the material is ''released into the public domain'' leave a note at ] with a link to where we can find that note.
:*If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org ''or'' a postal message to the permitting re-use ''under the ] and ]'', and note that you have done so on ]. '''See ] for instructions.'''
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow ]. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see ].

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at ] saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.</i>

Thanks for your patience. ] (]) 02:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:No, you cannot do that. is very explicitly copyrighted by the San Juan Unified School District. You have to rewrite the "history" section in your own words, and you may cite the SJUSD page as a reference. You can take information from the page, but you cannot lift text from it. Actually, it looks like the softcom page is infringing copyright as well, but Misplaced Pages is exceptionally stringent in upholding its copyright policies. ] (]) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::You're welcome. And thank ''you'' for fixing that stupid font stuff on my talk page! That was starting to bug me... ] (]) 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== Please edit responsibly . . . ==

I think I've waited long enough for you to remove that tag. Please take care of this. ] (]) 08:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you. ] (]) 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
{{talkback|Moonriddengirl|San_Juan_High_School}}

==Happy Christmas==
I hope you have a great Christmas and wish you and your family all the best for 2010. Maybe it will be the year you will head south to H. I hope its warmer where you are than here where its now -5. Nollaig Shona Dhuit(Happy Xmas in Irish)] (]) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

==Honduran Constitutional Crisis==
Background
I do think that these need to be noted:
(1) political nature of the Supreme Court.
(2) political nature of the media and concentration of ownership.
(this was in it before and is mentioned in Human Rights invedstigations)
What do you think?
Would a table of Human rights violations be a useful addition?
I was amused that the "stone " article of the constitution was ammended to alllow Santos run for the Presidency.;)] (]) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

==New article patrolling==
I came across a bot assembled list on this page whch may be of interest.] (]) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion declined: ] ==
Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ], a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7.''' Thank you. ] (]) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

== Hi there ==

Hey there Moogwrench, just wanted to first say how much your recent changes patrolling is appreciated. I just wanted to clarify something for the future regarding reporting to AIV. While you are indeed correct that repeated vandalism does not reflect well the intentions of a Misplaced Pages editor, there are several ways to classify the disruption. When the vandal is an actual registered account of the English Misplaced Pages, it is considered a vandalism-only account. When the vandal is an IP address, this classification is incorrect and we have to be a bit more stringent regarding adequate warnings. Once again though, its very kind of you to devote your time, revert the vandalism, and bring such editors to our attention. See you around.] <font color="purple">]</font> 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

==Climate change articles==
Thanks for raising the question of the ICO's statement, I've commented on your ] with reasons for reviewing your wording. In case you hadn't noticed, ] applies to a range of articles including ], which is specifically placed under a ] restriction. The standard notice appears below. Glad to have your assistance in improving the article, ], ] 09:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed{{#if:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident|, ],}} is on ]. {{#if:Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation|A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at ].|}} {{#if:|{{{3}}}|Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.<br><br>''The above is a ]. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''}}<!-- Template:uw-probation -->

== Climategate Coup ==

Moogwrench, for a bit of fun I thought I'd see if the Kremlin green guard in Misplaced Pages were being kept busy enough to stop them doing any serious harm in the real world, when I spotted your comments about "Coup" - very good! But please don't try too hard to get the article changed, because it is one of the ways to flag up to members of the public that the content is going to be extremely biased.] (]) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

== Please consider signing our proposal. ==

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the ] and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them . The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --] (]) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

: PS - I know that you are arguing in favor of Climategate, which I have also done in the past, but in an effort to find a compromise position that both sides can live with please consider signing on to this proposal. We have a reasonable number of editors already on board so I am hoping we can get others such as yourself to come on board as well. Thanks for your consideration. --] (]) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

== CRU article name ==

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the ] article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name ]. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known ]. Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

== Hi, yourself... ==

...but I think I'll be going back on wikibreak now. Cheers. ] (]) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== Invitation ==

There is a larger article on the overall climategate issue ]. This is an invitation for you to contribute. ] (]) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

You seem to be beating a bit of a ] over there. ] is not decided by whoever is most willing to continue expending verbiage over an issue after all the points have been made. Continually raising the same points is ]. Additionally, is a touch on the rude side. Maintaining a collegial atmosphere will hopefully help that article develop peacefully. Regards, - ] <small>(])</small> 05:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:I am a little curious... what did you exactly find rude about suggesting that those that tire of discussion might enjoy a wikibreak? Note that the verbiage of the statement was not directed at any particular editor. I certainly feel refreshed after leaving Misplaced Pages for a few days or even a week, and I personally think that quite a few of the regulars on the ] page on both sides of any particular debate could probably use some time off the article and its talk. Also, I might be less inclined to raise similar points occasionally were it not for 2 things: there is a high volume of Interested People coming and going constantly AND the archive rate for the talk is every two days, meaning that it is very easy for someone who is not a ] to miss cogent arguments due to anything more than a very short break from the talk page of the article. Cordially, ] (]) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:: It is good advice (at least, I feel refreshed when I ignore the interminable arguments for a few days), but it is very easy for it to feel condescending even when well-intentioned. Sometimes it helps me to (completely in my head, of course) think of everyone else as drunk and on the verge of an irrational outburst and guaranteed to take every comment in the worst possible way. It is a depressingly accurate model at times.
:: At any rate, you make a very good point about the rapid archiving and need for input from more than just the usual suspects. The talkpage is over 60 kb with the two day archiving, but feel free to propose (in text or in boldness) bumping the frequency down a bit if you think it would help. - ] <small>(])</small> 21:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== Comments on talk page ==

Please stop commenting in the proposed move area and keep your comments separated. We are trying to measure consensus without editors distracting from the discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:I understand what you are trying to do, however, it does make continuity as far as post-specific replies rather hard to follow. Limiting the support/oppose section that way takes away from discussion and leads towards voting, not !voting. ] (]) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
::Actually, it improves discussion. Once you separate the supports and opposes, you can focus on discussing the finer points in the comments section. ] (]) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, I disagree but that's okay. ] (]) 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

==Hey==
Ive been very busy in the real world so havent had much time for wiki. I agree withwhat you say about the Zelaya drugs quote but feel it should be put in context with his exasparation with US policy. The article needs cleaning up to remove the partisan politics interjected now that the situation is cooling. Maybe still too soon for that.] (]) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:I think your idea of a sndbox is good. We need to identify the salient points and put them down as headers and transfer relevant content in whether we agree or not with such content. This really applies to all pages related to the Honduras fiasco/farce. How are your plans progressing for going thereto live? Reading aout it from Ireland would make me want to visit it. Mind you the politicans there of all shapes and hues are the same types of shits you find in any countryinthe world? Do you read German? If you do I'll send you a link to a sordid story thats presently rocking the Govt in Slovenia. If you close your eyes to the depravity of it it's quite amusing,] (]) 08:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

== Revert? ==

You took out my para with but didn't say so in the edit summary. If this was an accident, can you undo it? If it was deliberate, please explain on the talk page ] (]) 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

: Aha. I see that *I* accidentally removed your text in my go. Sorry about that, not deliberate I assure you ] (]) 22:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

::No problem. My apologies for any lack of clarity in the edit summary which contributed to any confusion. Look forward to working with you in the future. Cordially, ] (]) 05:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::: Fine too ] (]) 07:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you make a revert, you're responsible for your edit. Please explain why you are (a) incorrectly imputing context to quotes, and (b) adding grammatical errors to the article. Thanks. ] (]) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:I support the BRD cycle, which is undermined by a person who just was just reverted after a BOLD edit reverting the revert. If you see an obvious grammatical/spelling error that doesn't change the meaning of the article, then ]. <small>(I won't report you to Climate Change sanctions enforcement)</small> Cordially, ] (]) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

::A revert conveys no special rights. You are responsible for your edits. Your edit introduced factual errors. Your edit introduced grammatical errors. That's ''your edit''. You own the changes you made.
::The BRD idea (which is, of course, nothing more than an essay) requires that you ''discuss'' things. The factual and grammatical errors were outlined on the article's talk page. There was a clear attempt at discussion. But you chose to ignore the discussion (as did Heyitspeter) and blindly revert. You can't invoke ] as cover if you aren't following it. Nope. Not an option. ] (]) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::There was a clear attempt at a discussion ''after'' the revert of the revert, not before. I disagree with your opinion regarding ]; the onus was on Dave to defend his bold edit, not HiP to defend his revert of Dave's edit. So when Dave reverted without discussion, I merely reverted to set things back to the way things were before Dave reverted the revert, so as to have him justify his edit, instead of merely reverting any opposition to it. Hopefully you understand, but not everything thinks the same way about these things. ] (]) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

==DYK for Robert Krentz==
{{tmbox
|tyle = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
}} ] (]) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! == == A barnstar for you! ==
Line 280: Line 32:


== Speedy deletion declined: ] == == Speedy deletion declined: ] ==

Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ], a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''academic journals not covered under A&.''' Thank you. ] (]) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ], a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''academic journals not covered under A&.''' Thank you. ] (]) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


Revision as of 17:21, 3 September 2011

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogwrench.
The Signpost
Volume 20Issue 1824 December 2024

Mister rf – cc-by-sa-4.0News and notesResponsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"What the VLOP – findings of an outside auditor for "responsibilization" of Misplaced Pages. Plus, new EU Commissioners for tech policy, WLE 2024 winners, and a few other bits of news from the Misplaced Pages world. Harrison Keely – CC4.0Op-edBeeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everythingA personal essay. Gerda Arendt – CC0OpinionGraham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subjectExplanations for what led to it and what it was like to undergo it. Bijay Chaurasia – CC BY-SA 4.0In the mediaDelhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF casePlus, the dangers of editing, Morrissey's page gets marred, COVID coverage critique, Kimchi consultation, kids' connectivity curtailed, centenarian Claudia, Christmas cramming, and more. Mihály Munkácsy – PDFrom the archivesWhere to draw the line in reporting?Who's news? Andrea Claire L. Adajar – CC BY-SA 4.0Recent research"Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over qualityAnd other new research findings. Schmidt Litho. Co./Boston Public Library – PDHumourBacklash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifiesGood faith edits REVERTED and accounts BLOCKED. Tucker Corp./Alden Jewell – PDGalleryA feast of holidays and carolsPeace on earth, goodwill to all! Spesh531 – CC0 1.0Traffic reportWas a long and dark DecemberWicked war, martial law, killing, death and an Indian movie with a new chess champ! Single-page edition ← Previous issue The Signpost is written by editors like you – join in! Home About Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
Congratulations! I have randomly chosen you for a Barnstar. I just wanted to try out the heart-icon-thingy that I just noticed at the top of the screen. Enjoy! Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Susan Powell.

Nomination of Disappearance of Susan Powell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Susan Powell is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Susan Powell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dmol (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Current Issues in Education

Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Current Issues in Education, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: academic journals not covered under A&. Thank you. Danger (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info regarding speedy delete decline. I wasn't too sure because it said it was student-run and I didn't know if it was of sufficient caliber for retention. Again, thanks for the helpful notice here. Moogwrench (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)