| Revision as of 13:12, 6 September 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 48h) to User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 5.← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:58, 8 September 2012 edit undoRtmcrrctr (talk | contribs)76 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
| A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> ] (]) 09:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC) | A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> ] (]) 09:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Warning of Edit War Re Paul Ryan Article == | |||
| There is a controvertial sentence about Ryan's vice-presidential nomination speech being characterised as "lies". I and many good others objected to include this allegation (of "lies") because it came from highly-partisan sources, with a long and well-known history of anti-Republican bias. There was an extensive discussion in the Talk page, and no consensus was achieved. | |||
| My point was simple: Presumption of Innocence means that if no consensus is achieved for calling someone a liar, you don't call that person a liar. | |||
| Based on that principle, I insisted - and still do - that the sentence which implies that Ryan is a liar is removed. It is based solely - I repeat: solely - on criticism from both Leftie-leaning sources. Hillariously enough, one of the major offenders in this edit-war, ImStillStanding24/7, also gave as a RS nothing else than... Bill Clinton. His position seems to be that if people in the Left criticize a conservative, that must mean it is true. This is a sad joke. | |||
| In any case, when there is a controversy whether to include/exclude an allegation, I claim that the thing to do is to exclude it. Simple and Safe. Please investigate this matter further (there is plenty of material in the Talk page of Paul Ryan). You may wish to revisit your comments on my Talk page. It would be awfully nice of you if you deleted them (you can use strikethrough). Looking forward to your response. Cheers ] (]) 01:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:58, 8 September 2012
If you leave me a message here, I will answer here
 | This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Life is grand |
.svg){kind=small}
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.
List of American television programs by date
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 September 2012
- Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?
- Featured content: Misplaced Pages's Seven Days of Terror
Insert non-formatted text here== Stop your stalking of my posts == --Tuco_bad 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
- Your Tendentious attitude is very apparent. You continue to add controversial and poorly cited syntheses and original research that has been reverted by multiple editors on at least two pages.JOJ 16:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You have even stalked me on my edit of the film Grand Hotel, Bush Jr., etc, what is wrong with you that you follow my posts? --Tuco_bad 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you feel harrassed then please by all means make a report at ANI. I'm looking forward yo having your Edits looked at by a much larger audience.JOJ 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
File source problem with File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Warning of Edit War Re Paul Ryan Article
There is a controvertial sentence about Ryan's vice-presidential nomination speech being characterised as "lies". I and many good others objected to include this allegation (of "lies") because it came from highly-partisan sources, with a long and well-known history of anti-Republican bias. There was an extensive discussion in the Talk page, and no consensus was achieved. My point was simple: Presumption of Innocence means that if no consensus is achieved for calling someone a liar, you don't call that person a liar.
Based on that principle, I insisted - and still do - that the sentence which implies that Ryan is a liar is removed. It is based solely - I repeat: solely - on criticism from both Leftie-leaning sources. Hillariously enough, one of the major offenders in this edit-war, ImStillStanding24/7, also gave as a RS nothing else than... Bill Clinton. His position seems to be that if people in the Left criticize a conservative, that must mean it is true. This is a sad joke.
In any case, when there is a controversy whether to include/exclude an allegation, I claim that the thing to do is to exclude it. Simple and Safe. Please investigate this matter further (there is plenty of material in the Talk page of Paul Ryan). You may wish to revisit your comments on my Talk page. It would be awfully nice of you if you deleted them (you can use strikethrough). Looking forward to your response. Cheers Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Category: