Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:43, 2 November 2011

Talk to me here. If you're abusive, your words of "wisdom" will be deleted mercilessly with no response. If you're really abusive, I'll leave it up and you'll be reported to the appropriate authority. If you're nice, I hope we can get a lot of work done together, and maybe have some fun too. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the warm welcomes from ALS, WD and JMHN below. Especially JMHN. I love you too man. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh... I hope I'm not being abusive...

I just came here to welcome you, the comment above took me aback a little. Um, here you go.

Welcome!

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow, 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 and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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! A little insignificant 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not abuse!

How's your battle with the professional disinfo agents coming on the Franklin Scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. <-- It's a nice pretty sign. It is Misplaced Pages's way of saying pretty please. But yes, welcome!

Thanks! ~~~~

- Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My dear Mr or M/s Phoenix and Winslow

Apparently, according to some, you are a bad, bad editor, all of whose edits are sh*tty in some way or another. ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Never abused yet"? Have you read WP:ANI lately? He's the proverbial messenger-who-was-shot.

64/Phoenix, live long and prosper. I've proposed a solution at WP:ANI that may be acceptable for all concerned. Please review and comment. Thanks .... 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see a phoenix rising from 64's ashes -- can any allusions be drawn from Winslow? (Guess I'll Google the name. BRB.)

Have come back with nothing. (Other than the supposed meaning of the original place name, related to that given- or surname, in Anglo Saxon as a hill belonging to a friend. )↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a clue: "Phoenix" and "Winslow" are the names of municipalities in the state of Arizona. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Winslow Motor Hotel is the closest motel to where I live (which I'd preface "not for nothing" except for the fact it is. Nothing, that is.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your little acorn

Regarding this edit maybe you'd do better with a polite request on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' talk page or the article talk page, because carrying out a dialog by successive edit summaries doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Personally, I'm confused as to why it's a POV issue at all. Saying that an attorney claims she needs more time, or reporting that authorities carried away computers when exercising a search warrant, doesn't seem to be a big slant either way. In the long run what matters is whether they find and prove something, not the form and extent of evidence gathered in one particular search. Anyway, I think your overall series of edits improves the article so thanks for the good work! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not edit others comments.

Don't edit other people's comments. I have reviewed the edits you removed and determined that they were fine. Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Battleships

I've noticed your name on my watchlist quite a bit lately, welcome. You may not be aware of the current project underway to raise every article on modern battleships to featured status: WP:OMT is the shortcut. Your comments that have been left at Talk:USS Tennessee (BB-43) may receive more eyes and reception at the talk page of the project instead. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

On the matter of aircraft carriers, I have plans to get all those up to FA as well. The working code name for this project is Operation Valkyrie's Wrath, with the carier work codenamed Valkyrie's Ride and the carrier's plane complements codenamed Operation Valkyrie's Flight. Thought you might like to know. The reason that I have not announced any plans for carriers yet is because I do not want to overwhelm people and would like to incorporate lessons learned from OMT before initiating plans for OVW. 129.108.67.47 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note 129, and hope you'll take up the conversation here since I'm not sure you have a User Talk page. Aircraft carriers are the ultimate weapon in control of the ocean. Battleships are really, really cool though and they had their day. And I mentioned on MBK's page that there are even some destroyers that deserve a lot more attention than they have received. The final battle of USS Borie, for example, was really hard-fought at close quarters and would be of interest to readers. I agree that we should wait until the BB project is done, and apply its lessons to the CV project. One comparatively new problem that we'll have to tackle, that won't have precedent from the BB project, is a consistent way of handling articles about carrier-based aircraft squadrons and air groups. This should be discussed separately during the BB project so that when the BB project is finished, we can hit the ground running with a complete plan in place. Please give that some thought and get back to me with your reaction, Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He does, he is a logged-out TomStar81 (talk · contribs) on extended wikibreak, the lead coordinator of the Military History WikiProject as well as the brainchild of OMT. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Approve of some Obama edits

I'm surprised, but I actually think you made a couple good edits on the Obama article. The "consensus of economists" thing was way too fluffy and partisan, and your rewording is much better. Also, mentioning the specific 48% approval was done without adding words, so I'm happy with that. I'm not sure it needs the exact date in November when the poll happened, but that seems harmless. Good job. LotLE×talk 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of USS Borie (DD-215)

Hello! Your submission of USS Borie (DD-215) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Following some of your additions and some I made this morning, I've now approved this for DYK. Harrias (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for USS Borie (DD-215)

On November 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Borie (DD-215), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template removal

I've noticed that you are removing some templates. Please do not remove {{'}}, it was developed to fix an issue with italics in ship names where it appears. (see its documentation: Template:'/doc) -MBK₀₀₄ 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is just how we do things here, I don't profess to know why as well, but to change methods requires discussion. They will probably know why at WT:SHIPS, so until then please just use the template. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin quote

How is it "commentary and criticism" if the only thing that's said about it is who it's by and where it's from? And no, this isn't for the article talk page, since I was trying to correct your misunderstanding of policy. It's about your behaviour, not the article. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, I understand the policy. Kindly restrict your discussion of the article to that article's Talk page. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. If you understand the policy, why are you not abiding by it? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am. If you have a problem with the way in which I'm abiding by it, there's already a lively discussion of this edit on the article Talk page, and you're welcome to participate there. Not here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, you're running up against the WP:3RR. Just a friendly reminder. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

GA nominations

If you're serious about nominating the Enterprise, Tennessee and Borie articles for GA why haven't you followed the complete procedure as laid out in WP:GAN? Nobody doubts that you could fully cite these if you have the proper sources at hand, but you've only done some editing on Borie since you nominated all three of them, but not enough to bring it up to B-class, and neither of the others qualify for B-class, much less GA, in their current state. I really don't understand why you feel it's so important to have a quick GA review when you're setting yourself up for somebody giving them a quick fail as any editor can pick any article out of the queue for review at any time; it all depends on how interested an editor is in the topic of the article. And, FYI, the standard for citing is at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Academy/When to cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I have removed all three from GAN because as Sturmvogel points out, they are all eligible to be quick-failed, and that is what I have done, although I have not done a review to make this fail on-the-record. My advice is to thoroughly read the instructions for nominating an article as well as the academy article linked for you above. Then just try one, Borie is the closest, Tennessee and Enterprise would require quite a bit of work to be in a position to where they would not be a quick-fail. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TomStar81 (Talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DYK for RightNetwork

On April 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RightNetwork, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of RightNetwork

Hello Phoenix and Winslow, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, RightNetwork, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:72.228.177.92. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:72.228.177.92. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 72.228.177.92 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

youth

Does anyone NOT have a misspent youth???? :D Thelmadatter (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that if I had devoted my youth to some noble and constructive cause, and I had achieved my goals, it wouldn't have been misspent. "I gotta smoke either more of it or less of it, I can't quite figure out which one ..." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

About SPA-accounts

From Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account:

• Common Misuses of the Label SPA "Established editors focusing on a single topic: If a user has a substantial and diversified history of edits, the user is not considered an SPA, even if he or she has recently focused on a single topic. In determining what counts as a substantial history of diversified edits, it may be important to consider the ratio of the number of past multi-subject edits to the number of new single subject edits."

• Handling and advice; Decision-making tags "Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Review the "Identifying SPAs" section, and make sure the tag is not an example of a common misuse of the term. Please keep in mind that the tag will probably be taken as an insult or an accusation. Use with consideration."

Hope that clarifies that.TMCk (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In response:

• 100% of Ceemow's hundreds of edits have been to the article mainspace and Talk pages for ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, the biographies of the two authors of those videos, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, and their employer and publisher, Andrew Breitbart—the only exceptions are his own User Talk page and the User Talk page of two other editors, where he continues to talk about this single, narrow topic. Pardon me, but this is a textbook example of WP:SPA. I've seen the tag applied before on far weaker evidence. Look at his contributions. See for yourself: Ceemow contrib history It isn't even 99.99%—it's 100%.

• I am absolutely, 100% sure that I am doing this for good reason. Once again, look at at his contributions. See for yourself: Ceemow contrib history Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a SPA-account but as you can see (from above) their edits don't "qualify" for that sort of tag.TMCk (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Please elaborate. Why don't Ceemow's edits "qualify"? It's clear to me that not only is he an SPA, he's POV-pushing. It's a POV that I happen to share to a certain extent, but this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia where we check our biases at the door. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would call an editor who is contributing for almost a year (even so on a narrow topic) an "established" editor. POV-pushing is (unfortunately) very common from a "variety of editors". If you think they're POV-pushing with a wp:COI you can bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard. Hope that helps.TMCk (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, you describe him as an "established editor focusing on a single topic." But please read the caveat that follows: "If a user has a substantial and diversified history of edits ..." He doesn't. It's the polar opposite of diversified. It's 100% (not even 99.99%, but 100%) on this extremely narrow topic. "it may be important to consider the ratio ..." I welcome such a comparison. The ratio is 100% to zero. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, P&W. I got your note inviting me to participate in this discussion, because TMCk "ran away" from it? I'm not sure I can add much more to the conversation. I noticed you were tagging all of Ceemow's contributions with a note stating his is a single-purpose account. I don't see the purpose in that tagging, and frankly, it looks to me like a form of attempted disparagement upon an editor. As noted above, there is nothing wrong with having a narrow editing purpose, as long as you are editing productively -- and Ceemow certainly qualifies in that regard. Disruptive SPAs, brand-new SPAs, and SPAs with a Conflict of Interest can be causes for concern, but Ceemow is none of those.

You two do realize you are arguing over the application of an essay, right? Not a policy; not even a guideline ... it's just an essay, and the tagging stipulations mentioned in it are not intended for editors like Ceemow. They were meant to address disruptive editors. Everyone involved in this discussion is already aware of Ceemow's edit history, but if you really feel the need to alert new arrivals to our discussion about Ceemow's editing interests, then you can drop a note on their talk pages saying, "Ceemow likes to edit ACORN-related articles." I make this suggestion because the method you are currently employing could possibly be construed as minor harassment of an editor, despite your best intentions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We are headed toward RfC. I'm not going to employ my amazing telepathic powers to determine who's responding to the RfC and reading the Talk page, before they make their usual single comment and go back to whatever they were working on before RfC, and post notices on all their User Talk pages. After all, I don't have any telepathic powers. You may not agree, but my time is valuable. I have a job, I have a family, and I have other WP articles I'm working on that need my attention. Regrettably, tagging Ceemow as an SPA is the cost-effective solution. The tagging stipulations mentioned in that essay are most certainly intended for editors like Ceemow. WP:SPA does not address disruptive and COI editors only. It also addresses POV-pushers. In my opinion, Ceemow is a POV-pusher: evidently believing that Mr. O'Keefe and his comrades embody the worst thing that has happened to America since the American Civil War, he's on a mission to post as much negative information about them as possible, in as many articles as possible, and demonstrate to the world that what they're doing is just wrong.

To a limited extent, I agree with him. But Mr. O'Keefe and his comrades are hardly the only practitioners. The mainstream media have been doing it for a very long time, at least 50 years; and the practice has generally been aimed at Republican politicians and operatives, rather than Democratic Party activists like ACORN. (For example.) These efforts haven't attracted Ceemow's attention for some reason. He seems eager to expose bias and dishonesty among conservatives such as Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Breitbart, but extremely reluctant to mention or even consider any possibility of bias or dishonesty among progressives such as Mr. Brown, or the several JournoList participants whose criticism has been imported into this article on a large scale. I have applied Occam's razor and determined that he's pushing a POV. In doing so, he does all progressives at Misplaced Pages a disservice.

I do not take this position lightly, Xeno, nor do I take it out of any sense of partisanship. Far from it. As I said, to a limited extent, I agree with him. I first noticed his edit history about a week ago, and his conduct on the article Talk page has thoroughly confirmed my suspicions. He's ranting. I'm tagging him because we're headed toward an RfC. There will be a lot of editors unfamiliar with the history, who will be looking at the Talk page. They deserve to be alerted to this fact (or what I perceive to be a fact—I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong, and look forward to any proof of that which you or Ceemow, or anyone else, may choose to offer.)

I'm going to explain all of this to Ceemow on his Talk page, as gently as I can. I'll inquire about his motives, and why he hasn't worked on articles involving other examples of gotcha journalism. And I'll explain that I do not intend to harass him. Fair enough? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Ceemow proclaim his COI, if any? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Ceemow know we are talking about him here so we can obtain his input? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello P&W. After reading the above, I think it's important to keep in mind that WP:SPA is an essay and not a policy. It says that a SPA tag may be used, but it does not say that it should or must be used. Intepretation is implied and editors may disagree on whether or not it's use is appropriate in any given case. You are certainly not breaking any rules simply by applying a SPA tag per se. However, it is clear that you are not a disinterested neutral party happening upon a debate and simply taking notice of another user. You've also stated that your time is valuable to you and you have other articles that need your attention, hence you are "regrettably" tagging Ceemow as a SPA as a cost-effective solution which some might see as being about achieving your own goals. Looking at the reverts, other editors here have taken issue with this and may see it as an attempt to sprinkle the talk page with comments on a fellow editor in an attempt to secure an advantage in the debate. While you have every right to persist in your opinion that the SPA label should be applied, editors who disagree have their own opinions as well and are certainly not wrong to revert the labels. A user who invests the time and effort and "edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Misplaced Pages's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight" regardless of whether or not their account could be construed as a single purpose account. An editor would not be unjustified in feeling that repeated labelling efforts in this fashion might constitute a pattern of offensive behavior for the purpose of adversely affecting and intimidating him in the argument, i.e., harassment, even if it's not your intention. If Ceemow actually agrees with you that he should wear SPA labels in all his comments, then that's a different story. Also, looking at the edit history from yesterday, we should all probably consider the disruptive effect (i.e., 3RR) if someone insists they are "right" in this regard. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

P&W, i have submitted this matter for Arbitration. There is no point making a big dog-n-pony show out of this, so I took the liberty of seeking Arbitration on the issue.

Also P&W, my record stands on its own; my edits have been thoroughly vetted, and are inserted with complete consideration for Wiki guidelines, as well as the sincere honesty of representing reliable and verifiable facts as they are recorded in RSs. I know a lot about the subject, and have only submitted reliable information (that has been checked against multiple RSs) for it.

Moreover, I have never engaged in sock-puppetry or any other dishonorable means to push a point, nor do I keep a roster of users who come to my rescue at a moment's notice, with full comprehension of my discussions. By contrast, the aggresive posture you have taken is harrasment, your own behavior has pushed POV and COI issues (not to mention poor conduct), and you have not checked your own submissions against RSs--, you should be careful about that last one especially. That's just evident from the boards history. So remember, now that this is a matter of arbitration, you dont have to play Colonel Klink on me any more. Ceemow (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"I know a lot about the subject." Would you please expand on that? You may have a WP:COI. No problem, just declare it, like I did. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello All, LAEC, in answer to your question, when I say “I know a lot about this subject,” I mean that I had developed an early fascination with it (because of the sensation it created), and have collected as many materials on it as I could. Contributing to and researching for this Wiki article has been part of that process. That’s why this, and articles related to it, suffuse my user account. I mean, I took O’keefe’s challenge literally, and actually read his transcripts, watched both his posted and unedited videos, and compared them all with other reliable information on the subject (it’s a very long and boring process, but I recommend it if you want to see a graphic demonstration of the real formal issues posed by this story.) I have also archived his own statements from BigGov.com regarding this event, and those of his colleagues as well, in addition to news reports and updates. So yeah, i have a catalogue of information on this topic ranging from several perspective. But that doesnt pose a COI.

P&W (and anyone else), I have removed our exchange yesterday from my talk page (it is accesible in my talk history, if necessary for dispute resolution.) It was just unseemly. However, I have posted a response to some of your questions on my talk page. As you know, I can be rather long winded (but complex and emotional topics such as this do sometimes require that), so I didnt want to load down your talk page with my statements. If it is a of any use to you, please see my talk page for my response. Toodles. Ceemow (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi, does this POV tag relate to the lack of information in the article about Attorney General Brown's politics vis-a-vis his investigation? Maybe best to tag just that section instead of the whole article. I hope we can keep the heat level on medium, not high burner... Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment -- Fox News

I started it under your RFC on the talk page. Thank you. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Deckers

Looking at your edits, it does seem like you have more than an outsider's knowledge of Deckers, and certainly a non-typical passion. Do you have a connection to the company? Toddst1 (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No connection, as I stated at Talk:Ugg boots. I have never received a dime from Deckers or its law firm or its marketing agency. I have never communicated at all with Deckers. I have, however, bought a pair of UGG boots for my wife, and she loves them. I like to research products before I buy them.

And in the past three weeks, I've done a lot more research. So it may seem that I have a bit more knowledge than the typical outsider. During those three weeks, I've acquired a certain passion, but it's the passion of someone who's being falsely accused, and observing what might be an effort by one or more Australian marketing agencies to influence Misplaced Pages editing. I've observed a lot of things that are just too convenient for the Australian manufacturers, and I suspect something is up. More (non-Aussie) eyes on this article would be a good thing. Thanks Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not Astralian, but my dog is. Toddst1 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, so's my ex-wife. Maybe that's where all of my passion and hostility are coming from! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not Australian and have nothing to do with the country. I originally arrived as a result of an RFC. So be careful about how you characterize "everyone" participating at an article. — e. ripley\ 11:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg Boots

Hi. I find that I have to request that you refactor this comment. Accusing other editors of acting for "knockoff brands or even counterfeiters" reads like a personal attack. - Bilby (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ugg Australia. Your comments are most welcome. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks, Phoenix and Winslow...

Good call on trying to bring some rational conclusion to these discussions we've been having... Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Image size

We differ in opinion on this one. If I can quote Misplaced Pages:ImageSize

" In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference."

Trust me on this one, the customary style is for a large pic in the infobox and thumb size for the rest - see for example T-34. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for your note. Please see my note about SourceWatch: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sourcewatch Thanks! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Hello! I hope you are enjoying this fine evening. I think what needs to be done to get any traction for our proposals is to start going through articles and editing out allegations "sourced" solely to these hyperpartisan sources. I'm game if you are. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your RfC Text Needs Attention

FYI, your RfC submission text in the RfC list requires attention. I'm confident that's not what you would have displayed as the subject of your RfC. Rgds JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to UGG Australia

Hi! just a quick comment - I noticed you've been fixing a lot of the links that used to go to Ugg boots in order to redirect them to UGG Australia. Mostly this is fine, as in many cases the articles are referring to the particular brand, however in a few cases you've accidentally changed links that were properly referring to the generic term. I've fixed the ones that appeared to be a problem, but it might be something worth watching out for as you go along. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hi

Talk:Type 94 Te-Ke Takabeg (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. Lionel (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rfc on WLRoss

If you open an Rfc (recommended) on WLRoss, I will jointly certify it as it pertains to his massive disruption at 9/11 articles. The Rfc can detail your experiences and then mine...the issues regarding his disruption of the article your dealing with him on are not familiar to me, but his pattern is the same, the POV pushing of conspiracy theories over the known evidence...there already are two arbcom cases that can used to put an end to his misuse of this website...something I think is long overdue...let me know when you have done a draft.--MONGO 00:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

RfC/U

I took the liberty of adding your RfC/U to the appropriate list. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList. Two points about the contents: RFC/Us cannot result in sanctions or topic bans so requesting them is not appropriate. Better would be something like, "request that he change his behavior". Second, you need to have a second certifier who has tried to resolved the same dispute. I don't see how the dispute at the Franklin article can be easily connected to a dispute regarding the 9/11 attacks. There's not even evidence of the existence of such a dispute. That evidence, and evidence connecting the two, should be added as soon as possible.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I just looked at the contribution history of user:WLRoss. In the past year and a half he appears to have made only three edits to 9/11 articles. Unless you can show that those edits were significant POV pushing you should probably remove that allegation.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow...I had to move my certification on the Rfc to "others"...I'm thinking the Fringe theories noticeboard as mentioned is the best route to take for this..if he flares up much more on 911 articles, we have a prior arbcom case that could be used to apply a sanction, but he isn't that active in editing the 911 pages himself lately...he mainly sticks to commenting at the talkpages...however, I currently live in Omaha, and was not familiar with the article you've been dealing with him on till you mentioned it to me...given some time, I could examine that article more and see what the deal is...I suspect as you say, he is trying to emphasize fringe issues more than policy and guidelines permit.--MONGO 02:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a deletion request on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/WLRoss due to the lack of a second certification. That does not mean that the views expressed by you and other editors are invalid, just that there has not been the minimum of two editors who've tried to resolve this particular dispute. If the editor's behavior continues to be problematic then I suggest you employ other methods of dispute resolution before starting another RfC/U.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper sources

I emailed you the copies of the actual newspaper headlines as specified...are they divergent from that website? I haven't done a side by side comparison. Even if they are identical, WLRoss and Apostle12 are in violation of the NPOV policies and this probably needs to go to arbcom to settle it..there is a prior case at arbcom...Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science...however that deals mainly with science related articles, not POV pushing fringe theories so much.--MONGO 22:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing other people's talk page comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. In this edit you altered a correctly indented comment so that it looked as if I was replying to another person instead of yourself. See for further information. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Franklin child prostitution ring allegations and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

This message is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has declined a request for arbitration relating to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, to which you were listed as a party. To read the comments made by individual arbitrators in relation to the request, see here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 20:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

USS Liberty "Incident"

Hi, could you please help me out with something on the USS Liberty incident page?

I find it quite disingenuos to call it a mere INCIDENT, when throughout the ENTIRE article, it is called an attack.
I fought in 3 wars for this beautiful country and find it rather insulting that Misplaced Pages would consider 171 of my fellow soldiers deaths just a mere INCIDENT.
Can you please change the word INCIDENT to ATTACK so that it holds some form of uniformity throughout the article? Thank you.
Respectfully, Staff Sergeant Daniel E. Benson, USMC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsMEEE69 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Franklin article

Per WP:NPA please delete your post. Wayne (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack. It's a calm, non-emotive statement of fact, Wayne. And the actions of multiple administrators, in deleting all of your violations of Misplaced Pages policy confirm that it is a fact. I doubt that at this late date, any action at all will be taken against either one of you for your persistent, multiple violations of Misplaced Pages policy, including WP:RS and WP:BLP. So what are you worried about? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not a "statement of fact" as those claims failed at three separate noticeboards due to a failure on your part to provide any evidence to support the claims. The deletion of everyones edits, including yours, does not support any claim regarding behaviour. Your comment was not in reply to anything on the article Talk page, is a clear violation of WP:NPA and is a continuation of your previous disruptive behaviour in smearing opponents. Per WP:NPA please delete your post. Wayne (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WLRoss that what you posted was not a "statement of fact." It was disingenous and offensive. Why you would, at this late date, continue with your obnoxious behavior is beyond me. Please remove the post. Apostle12 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your Disney like fantasy accusations.

"...facts that happen to be favorable to Deckers -- by two editors (Donama and TMCk) demonstrates their bias against Deckers." Where do you get that kind of bullshit from? Do you just suck it out of your fingers when you feel like it? No response expected or wanted. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Unfortunately, with this post, I feel you've stepped over the line with personal attacks, although you've been flirting with it for a while. As I can't consider myself neutral, I've raised the issue on WP:WQA in the hope of getting some uninvolved input. - Bilby (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugg Boot - self revert

P&W I notice that you have made a number of edits to the Ugg Boot article immediately after the protection was lifted this is despite the apparently productive discussions going on at the talk page. I suggest you self revert your edits and continue with the discussions to reach a consensus rather than reigniting the edit warring Gnangarra 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Ugg boots. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I don't care what personal issues you may have with Wayne, but it is not appropriate to pursue them on Misplaced Pages as you do here ]. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)