Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:40, 4 July 2006

Okay, here's the thing

You have removed legitimate warnings from your talk page over and over. Some of them may have been from users who have been blocked, but others were from good users, and some were from admins. You can't say (and I quote) So i (sic) called a few people names... big deal... and expect no one to care. I'm putting all of your warning back. If you remove them, regardless of when or why, I will report you to the Administrator's Noticeboard.

Civility

May I ask that you please refrain from calling people idiots in edit summaries? Such is a breach of the civility rules here. Having said that, I propose a debate, the premise of the affirmative being: There have been more than ten wrongful executions each year in the U.S. over the past decade. Do you accept the challenge? --James S. 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Solar 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This edit was completely out of line. Please respect other users and refrain from personal attacks. --Fang Aili 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User page attacks

Please see WP:POINT attacking someones user page is considered vandalism and is likely to result in a block of your editting priveleges. If you have a dispute with someone please see dispute resolution. --pgk 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to User:Nrcprm2026

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:Nrcprm2026, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing warnings

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Royboycrashfan 20:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of warnings and block notice

As noted previously this is considered vandalism and may result in the extension of your block and the loss of ability to edit your talk page. Seeing some of your other comments please also see {{WP:CIVIL]] and {{WP:NPA]] -pgk 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for twenty-four hours for disruptive personal attacks. Tom Harrison 01:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Criticism Section

Please stop blanking this section. There is legitimate criticism of the conservative ideology, and it belongs in the article. Please work with the editors to make the section more fair and accurate instead of just removing it entirely. Thank you. I have reverted your blanking again but I will not do so a third time. If you elect to continue with the blanking, you may be subject to administrative consequences. Bjsiders 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. The edit I refer to is here. IrishGuy 04:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop

Stop removing information! --Striver 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Warnings

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Pilotguy 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

MY TALK PAGE POLICY

I respond to all comments. Afterwards, I delete these entries in a few days. I do not like clutter and I think keeping unimportant information is a waste of space. There is very little interesting content in a user's talk page. Reviewing a person's talk page is, therefore, a fruitless venture. I eventaully delete all entries and keep a clean page. This is my personal preference and it is supported by wiki policy (see ). Some people claim that the talk page is required to see a block log, but all editors have access to see how many times a person has been blocked. I find keeping unimportant information is a worthless endeavor. Thank you. ER MD 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Breath

I knew you were going to bring that up, so allow me to explain: warning places accidently or without merit may be taken out-warnings put there for a reason are not supposed to be removed, ever. If you continue, you will be blocked again. The warnings you put on my page had not reason to be there. I can contribute without a username and it's obviously not against policy. And the 3RR rule doesn't apply when dealing with vandalism, which your removing of warnings constitues as. So calm down and stop removing warnings. 69.145.123.171 Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:22 (UTC)

And again, the inital warnings for "stopping" were invalid so removing them as according to what you are saying is valid, so i don't think you understand the initial reasons. Thank you. 162.119.232.101 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, they were not. They were valid and should stay here. This is the last time I'm going to tell you. Stop removing warnings from your talk page. --69.145.123.171 00:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Which ones was i proven wrong in with the exception of calling people idiots (which there are more than a fair share of)? I'll admit that I went over the line with Nrcprm2026--but he is now banned from wikipedia. I still can't believe that you have nothing better to do than to be so obsessed with my talk page. Do something constuctive. 162.119.232.101 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

user talk page policy

Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you can create an archive and move the comments there.

Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose.

I recognize that vandalism warnings need to stay if they are valid. If you look at my edits in the past, you will see that I have operated in good faith and developed a few articles. Given that this is the case, why not go directly to on the claim of vandalism. I think I will be vindicated. ER MD 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a warning for incivility. This was a warning for personal attacks. This was for personal attacks. This was a warning for personal attacks. This was for user attacks. This and this were for userpage vandalism. This was a friendly reminder for blanking pages. Don't play dumb. You know what you've been doing and you are not allowed to remove messages. --69.145.123.171 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The first link was in reference to a guy who was eventually banned. see user nrcprm2026. James kept on adding crap and then proposed a debate to prove his point based on statistics. I simply argued that the point was never proven (that the U.S. has executed an innocent person). He wanted to prove it using statistics. Read the link that you provided. Obviously, you can't prove anything using statistics since each idividual case can be looked at. Statistics are only good when using large numbers and to give gross approximations. He was an not to smart since his POV edits eventually got him banned. the 2nd to 6th links that you mention deals with the same issue since he perpetually wanted to debate on my talk page... Go read his edits.. he got into about 5 edit wars. I eventually got pissed off and edited his user page to draw attention to the fact that he was making POV edits. Eventually people took notice and he lost an arbcom on depleted uranium and on capital punishment since he was a POV pusher. I did lose my cool with that case. The only other incident was the criticism sections on conservatism and on american conservatism. Look at each article now... there are balanced criticisms on american conservatism... bu conservatism has a way to go since there philosophy is different for different cultures. Rick norwood has been heavily editing those articles as he is a liberal and is trying to push his ideas. I am not on american liberalism pushing negativism, i am simply making sure that the criticism do not go overboard and reach into a soapbox.Look at eh resolution to "bit'o advice"...its a consensus between norwood and I on the contents and format for the section--indicating that I am willing to have criticsm so long as it is fairly presented. Recently, with reaganomics, I removed a huge section that was original research, had a POV encyclopedic position and had no references. Irish guy got upset and revert--obviously he did not read the section---its POV and unsourced. The main areas of contention with reaganomics is not the growth rate---its the amount of debt that was created (an estimated 2.1 trillion in 2004 dollars if i recall correctly). The section that opposes the "reaganomics" section tries to state that the growth during that period of time did not occur due to fiscal or monetary policy which is simply not true and not an accepted position. If that was the case then gov. policy would never affect the economy. In reality, the shift to monetary policy signaled the death of fiscal policy as a means to affect growth. This is the reason why the fed is so influential in our society. Fiscal policy actually does not differ between conservatives and liberals--they both spend excess. In fact, clinton had one of the lowest rates of deficit spending (an aside)...maybe because of a conservative congress...

Anyways, i never played "dumb" as you claim. I stated in a previous entry that I did have 3 blocks because of the POV of nrcprm2026 (who has since been banned) and a few other disputes about contents. So i called a few people names... big deal... The content that I have written speaks for itself. If Irish guy wants to defend POV and is Striver wants to continue to sanitize islamic issues and put unencylcopedic stuff into articles, I only hope that there are some other people out there with common sense. Because editors who simply do reverts without reading content are not doing any benefit to wikipedia. 162.119.232.101 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And the two warnings I put up were for blanking content. You did it here and then after it was reverted, you did it again a few minutes later . You cannot simply blank content you disagree with. Not in articles and not on your talk page. IrishGuy 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the section and tell me it is not POV. I will laugh if you say it is balanced. 162.119.232.101 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)