Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 20 December 2006

G'day!

G'day there, Charles8854, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Good authors are always welcome on the project, and I hope you like the place and decide to stick around!

We've got a few pages you might find helpful, such as:

• Our "five pillars"
• The lowdown on editing
• A detailed tutorial
• Our house manual of style

It's all best summed up here: write from a neutral point of view, play nice with others, and don't let the rules get you down.

If you have any questions or need any help, my talkpage is always open for business, or you can see Misplaced Pages:Newcomers help page. Here's a tip to start you off: if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any messages you leave on talkpages (like this one) Misplaced Pages will automatically insert your name and the current date and time after your message. Cool, eh? Happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Late Thanks

G'day Mark. I apologize for my late response to your note here. I was pretty frustrated from my last encounter, & i did not check back. And it seems that my problems are persisting. I probably do need to learn the rules better. Thanks for the tips, i will review them further.

I did some more editing on the common-law main page, as well as on the common-law talk page. My comments on the common-law page have been removed.

I just discovered that it was a moderator who did it.

I will contact him.

Thanks,

Charles ...

Comments on talk pages

Charles, if you want to contribute on Talk:Common law or other Talk: pages, you may find it helpful to read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards to make it easier for others to read your contributions. --Russ (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk Pages & Article Edits

Ok, Russ. I now see that you were the one who deleted my edits.

And i do see that you have given me the courtesy of contacting me about these problems, instead of just leaving me totally alone, cold-turkey.

I guess i should thank you for that.

So, as i consult my crystal ball in search of answers as to Why you have deleted my posts, with no explanation what-so ever, it seems logical to me that you-all are insisting on my making my posts first into the "talk-pages, before moving them to the main common-law article page, yes?

Is that what is happening here?

Can you-all explain the problem here clearly & simply to me?

Do i need a secret skull & bones /illunmniati/masonic hand-shake to get into the club before anyone will give me the courtesy of a simple concise explanation of what the heck the problem is with just pushing that edit button and doing the edits that need to be done???

I hate anarchy.

With all due respect;

Charles ...

• "I hate anarchy." That may be the root of the problem, as Misplaced Pages is indeed fairly anarchic. As it says at the bottom of the editing screen, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." No secret handshakes; you can edit anything I write, and I can edit anything you write. Mercilessly. :)

As to your specific edits to Common law, I thought that one of them was pushing a point of view rather than factual information, and the other was at best a questionable interpretation of the historical record. If I have to pull out my old copy of Pollack and Maitland to provide citations for the development of the jury system, I guess I could, but it's generally up to the editor who wants to insert new information to provide references. --Russ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Russ Wrote>"... Misplaced Pages is indeed fairly anarchic". Perhaps you are among the anarchists who prefers to re-define the word anarchy. Is that true? Do you consider your-self an anarchist? If so, do you admit that the etomology of the word "anarchy" properly indicates chaos , confusion, & lawlessness? http://thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=anarchy ; shows "lawlessness" as a synonym; & most sources indicate chaos & lack of guiding principles. Do you admit that anarchists seek to re-define that words from its true greek roots? If so; are you among those? Also: http://en.wiktionary.org/anarchy ; seems to incline in my direction, indicating in its foot-note that anarchists have re-defined the term to suit their own purposes.
  • We probably are arguing semantics. More to the substance of the issues in question; are you seeking "Consensus"; or do you just take delight in destroying what other people seek to build? Do you agree that there are "Standards" of behavior which must be maintained in peaceful societies; or are you a "moral relativist", who thinks that guidelines of social-behavior are merely what-ever the brutes with the most power declare them to be?
  • The proposition that anyone can edit anything from anyone else does have useful potential; but it opens the door for a single malicious "vandal" to destroy everything. Misplaced Pages clearly has guide-lines against such 'Vandalism". I think you vandalized my editings of the common-law article; but because i am new, i seek consensus, again, & again; but not for-ever. I need you to throw me a few bones.
  • You said >"I thought that one of them was pushing a point of view rather than factual information, and the other was at best a questionable interpretation of the historical record. ... it's generally up to the editor who wants to insert new information to provide references."
  • Where on Misplaced Pages does it say that? Where is that rule written? Your vandalizing my edits; with zero explanation, places all of the burden on me. That is unfair. Explain specifically what you think is wrong with my edits, sir. Dig out your copy of hollock & maitlkand, or (prefered) talk with me more clearly. I need some answers, sir (anarchist?).
  • More specifically: Who are the "Stake-Holders" in this common-law article? Can wikipedia experts on fiction or disneyland come over her and skuttle the good work of any of us? If not, what mechanisms are in place to discourage that from happening? How do any of know that other editors are acting on "good faith"???
  • Are you available for phone discussion, so that consensus can be achieved more efficiently? My number is 503-668-5091; & i will make myself available at any time you prefer. Sincerely; Charles ... Charles8854 12:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

wikiality

try here for an incomplete and imperfect generalization of the idea i was trying to codify. Sorry the video doesn't work. /Blaxthos 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles8854's Record of "Objection to Removal by "Thirty-seven" of Charles8854's contribution to this Common-Law web-page" (as posted by myself in "Thirty-seven"'s personal talk page).

I further see that you have seen fit to Alter my latest contribution to Misplaced Pages's "Common-Law" web page. I see you only identify your self by the fictional name "Thirty-seven".

You have removed my contribution to this common-law web page without giving me the courtesy of discussing any possible errors in my research. You have left no feedback in the common-law "Talk Page"; you have left no feedback in my personal web page; and so far as i am aware, you have made no other good-faith efforts to communicate with me.

It appears to me that you have committed "Vandalism" against my contribution to Misplaced Pages's "Common-Law" web-page.

I have asked all others who are in any manner concerned with these issues, to involve themselves in this controversy, and to render public common-law judgement in their own words, concerning the merits of whether or not your editing removal of my text was "Justified", in this abrupt & un-discussed manner.

I will provide my personal phone number & email address, upon request, to you, if you evidence any good-faith efforts to resolve this controversy.

Wikipedai rules declare that we are to "Assume Good Faith" & that "No Personal Attacks" should be made. I see you made an attack against my personal work her by assertting that my work was "uncited", "unsourced", and composed with "poor writing", & a few other derogatory comments which attack my personal work through words the meaning of which i do not comprehend.

I am really up-set that you, who refuse to identify yourself with your real name, can come in here and gut my good work, without so much as any discussion at all of the merits of that gutting. I really do seek to resolve this controversy with you.

Please state clearly, & precisely, what you think is wrong with my contribution to the common-law web page.

Please do this in a timely manner, or put my editorial contribution back on that common-law web-page.

Sincerely,

Charles Bruce, Stewart Charles8854 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles8854 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Common_law#Gate_Keeping, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.. /Blaxthos 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you still refuse to address the merits of my accusations that you are prejudicially removing my posts. I see you threaten to block me from any more posts here at Misplaced Pages for my objections to your admitted by silence gate-keeping. I see you scoff at my admonition that the supreme being of the universe takes note of your abusive practices against the common people. Jesus/Yeshuah was crucified for his labeling of the abusers of the poor and the children of darkness as the serpents and off-spring of vipers which they were. Do what you will, child of darkness. Charles8854 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)