| Revision as of 22:45, 6 May 2006 editZer0faults (talk | contribs)5,735 edits →How to Use <s>Strike-Through</s>← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:55, 8 May 2006 edit undoAñoranza (talk | contribs)1,398 edits →Very RudeNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :: Thank you, I wasn't sure the proper way to handle, thanks for the information. --] 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | :: Thank you, I wasn't sure the proper way to handle, thanks for the information. --] 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Very Rude == | |||
| Perhaps you can try to debate facts instead of attempting to bully people with your political opinions. Stop attempting to personally demean me to get across your uncited, unsupported personal opinion.--] 14:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is consensus you are wrong, and it is not a political opinion we are discussing but how to present things neutrally. I find it rude that people like Rangeley revert 25 times on the same issue, even after they see there is a consensus against them, and the discussion page is flooded with the same stupid stuff over and over: "The US government said so, thus it is so", and "the Cold War is an analogy". ] 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:55, 8 May 2006
Trouble With Vandalism?
I am having trouble with reverting an article on Newegg. The person keeps logging in from a non user account with just an IP and changing the article accusing Newegg of participating in Bait & Switch. I read the guidlines for warnings, but since the persons IP keeps changing it seems futile. The user is logging in from Oklahoma from what the IP lookup told me, however the IP is dynamic. If any guidance can be given on how to stop this, it will be greatly appreciated. I have been talking with a user on the discussion section and we have been asking the user to step forward and verify the claims or to atleast give a reference etc. Noone has come forward but the article is constantly reverted to add the unfounded Bait & Switch charges. --Zer0faults 12:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, if the problem gets really serious, you can turn to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection to request page protection. However, before that, please talk to the user concerned, or use one of the methods at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, which can usually put a stop to these matters. If you need any more help, please feel free to ask again. Cheers, Tangotango 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How to Use Strike-Through
Seeing that you changed your mind about your comments on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq poll, I thought you might want to know how to use this function of Misplaced Pages. Strike-through is considered the traditional way on Misplaced Pages to retract statements. More information can be found here: - Mr. Tibbs 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I wasn't sure the proper way to handle, thanks for the information. --Zer0faults 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Very Rude
Perhaps you can try to debate facts instead of attempting to bully people with your political opinions. Stop attempting to personally demean me to get across your uncited, unsupported personal opinion.--Zer0faults 14:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is consensus you are wrong, and it is not a political opinion we are discussing but how to present things neutrally. I find it rude that people like Rangeley revert 25 times on the same issue, even after they see there is a consensus against them, and the discussion page is flooded with the same stupid stuff over and over: "The US government said so, thus it is so", and "the Cold War is an analogy". Añoranza 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)