| Revision as of 01:43, 24 July 2006 editIdeogram (talk | contribs)11,726 edits 3RR again← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:44, 24 July 2006 edit undoMSTCrow (talk | contribs)2,779 edits Removed vandalism.Next edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| ::I see you keep it up. I'm quite serious. Stop now before I block you. Especially never use the <nowiki>{{blatantvandal}}</nowiki> tag without really knowing what you're doing; it's intended for ''extreme'' or ''obscene'' ''vandalism'', not for content disputes. Neither Calton nor Rattboy are vandals. ] | ] 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC). | ::I see you keep it up. I'm quite serious. Stop now before I block you. Especially never use the <nowiki>{{blatantvandal}}</nowiki> tag without really knowing what you're doing; it's intended for ''extreme'' or ''obscene'' ''vandalism'', not for content disputes. Neither Calton nor Rattboy are vandals. ] | ] 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC). | ||
| :::You are mistaken. Calton has been blanking sections of NPR, which is a clear act of vandalism according to the rules. The rules state "vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia," as well as "it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with." Then it goes on to say "if you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page using the system below. Check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism; there may be multiple vandal edits, sometimes from several different IPs. Also, check the vandal's other contributions — you will often find more malicious edits." You may disagree with the current vandalism policy, but it is inappropriate to threaten other users with bans for not following the rules as you would like them to be. See ] - ] 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | :::You are mistaken. Calton has been blanking sections of NPR, which is a clear act of vandalism according to the rules. The rules state "vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia," as well as "it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with." Then it goes on to say "if you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page using the system below. Check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism; there may be multiple vandal edits, sometimes from several different IPs. Also, check the vandal's other contributions — you will often find more malicious edits." You may disagree with the current vandalism policy, but it is inappropriate to threaten other users with bans for not following the rules as you would like them to be. See ] - ] 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR again == | |||
| You are in danger of violating the ] on {{{1|a page}}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be ] from further editing. <!-- Template:3RR4 --> --] 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:44, 24 July 2006
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than (7) days are automatically archived to (User talk:MSTCrow/Archive/Archive 03). Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Welcome to my current sovereign talk page. Please do not edit or delete other people's posts. Disruptive or vandalistic posts will be removed. All posts left in objectively good faith will remain as a matter of record (I won't get into circular debates with users who believe that any speech possibly known to man is permissible, per AGF).
Remember to stay cool
Concerning this edit of yours, I'd like to remind you that threatening someone with a block in that tone of voice won't get things anywhere even if you did feel that his edits were a personal attack. I will also speak to Sdeodeo concerning his edits, but I ask that you assume good faith of one another and recognize that you both want to help people get through dispute resolution. Thank you. Cowman109 23:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- It clearly wasn't in good faith or following WP, so it certainly wasn't a case where there was a question of whether the other user was behaving in an ethical fashion or not. Some users just aren't on Misplaced Pages to contribute.
- I can see where you're coming from, but looking at Sdeodeo's contribs, he has indeed contributed to Misplaced Pages and has mediated several medcab cases. While you and he may have not gotten along for some reason, going as far to say that he isn't here to build a Misplaced Pages isn't going to help. Perhaps it's best to just recognize that you two have had your differences and agree to leave eachother alone? Cowman109 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am purely defensive, if he ceases attacking and attempting to slander me on project pages, he would of course have nothing to worry about.
Mediation recommendation
I see you jumped into Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-29 Schizophrenia to help mediate the issue there. As a friendly suggestion, you may want to clearly provoke a response by asking those involved a question - you can't expect them to know what to say, they need to be asked a question first such as whether they will accept you as a mediator or not :). Also I recommend using the talk page of the article in question to work things out so the issue is available to a wider audience. Please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators for some helpful information, and by all means don't be afraid to ask for help should any trouble arise. Thanks! Cowman109 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you need help, I am brainy when it comes to psychology. If I may be of assistance, do not hestitate to ask. Good luck. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Peppered Moth mediation
User:Michael Johnson has suggested ending the mediation. Do you agree? I haven't heard from you in quite a while. Rick Norwood 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- What was the current status of the mediation? - MSTCrow 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since I did not hear from you in quite a while, I closed the case. Rick Norwood 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
your opinion please
I'd appreciate your opinion on matters in the Discussion of article "Dissident Voice". Thank you. Ste4k 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Transhumanism userbox
Thought you might be interested in the Template I have placed in my user area as per the [[Misplaced Pages:German
An automated message from Werdnabot
Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna648 for assistance. Werdnabot /T\ 09:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Check your Wiki settings
You might want to check your password and change it if necessary. Someone's been leaving bizarre messages in your name.--RattBoy 13:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your comments are designed only to provoke, and will be ignored. - MSTCrow 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- ¡I guess they weren't ignored, as you responded to them!
- So you're admitting that the bizarre post was your edit, ¿yes? Well, then, pay attention: your attempts to intimidate me with threats will not work. You are not the owner of Misplaced Pages, and you have no power beyond that of a simple editor. As an editor, your interests will best be served in the long run if you use references and information as your tools, not baseless attacks and intimidation. Thank you for understanding.--RattBoy 22:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Civility
Please be civil
Please don't tell lies by inference. At least try. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- (rv - noooo, he's removing propaganda thinly disguised as sources) is uncivil behavior.
- Nooo, it's an accurate description of what he was doing, as opposed to your inaccurate -- to be charitable -- description. But given the undisguised propaganda you keep trying to insert, not to mention the fake vandalism warnings and the fake civility notices, I'm not in any way inclined to be charitable, especially to one who insists on insulting my -- and everyone else's -- intelligence. Attempting to bully people using policies you neither understand nor follow yourself gets you zero slack from me. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil
Planting vandalism templates on experienced editors recommending them to use the sandbox and take a look at the welcome page to learn how to contribute is extremely rude. Please think twice before you use these templates on anybody. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
- The standard progression in vandalism tags starts with that one. If you wish for the tag to be worded differently, that is not something I have control over. - MSTCrow 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see you keep it up. I'm quite serious. Stop now before I block you. Especially never use the {{blatantvandal}} tag without really knowing what you're doing; it's intended for extreme or obscene vandalism, not for content disputes. Neither Calton nor Rattboy are vandals. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
- You are mistaken. Calton has been blanking sections of NPR, which is a clear act of vandalism according to the rules. The rules state "vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia," as well as "it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with." Then it goes on to say "if you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page using the system below. Check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism; there may be multiple vandal edits, sometimes from several different IPs. Also, check the vandal's other contributions — you will often find more malicious edits." You may disagree with the current vandalism policy, but it is inappropriate to threaten other users with bans for not following the rules as you would like them to be. See WP:Vandalism - MSTCrow 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see you keep it up. I'm quite serious. Stop now before I block you. Especially never use the {{blatantvandal}} tag without really knowing what you're doing; it's intended for extreme or obscene vandalism, not for content disputes. Neither Calton nor Rattboy are vandals. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC).