Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 30 December 2006

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Your articles and edits are very helpful and appropriate; keep up the good work! Feel free to drop me a message at the "talk" link beside my name. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 00:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Wikiquote link

I hope I didn't come off as rude. I agree it's sort of a shame for the link to be buried at the end of the article. It might be interesting to put wikiquote links inside infobox templates. I'm not really sure what sort of reaction that proposal would garner. I also forgot to mention that I didn't understand the "pov pushing" either. Cheers, shotwell 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Implied powers

Your recent edit to Implied powers (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I converted implied powers into a redirect. That's the first time I tried such a thing, so it didn't work the first time.Ferrylodge 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

D.C. voting rights and D.C. Vote in the House

Hi Ferrylodge. You've done a fine job with your new article, but I would urge you to instead update the existing article, since they basically cover the same subject matter. --Tisco 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tisco. I thought carefully about whether or not to start a new article, and I think a new article is probably appropriate. If you look at the existing article you mention, it has a section 6 that briefly mentions a bunch of different proposals, without going into much detail. Therefore, Misplaced Pages includes other pages specific to each of those proposals (they are listed in the "See Also" section of the existing article you mention). So, I think the page I've created fills a big gap, and it complements the various other Misplaced Pages pages on specific proposals for DC representation (e.g. Retrocession (District of Columbia), District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, New Columbia). Also, please note that the Misplaced Pages page DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006 is now historical rather than current.Ferrylodge 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I am concerned about have too many pages, as the casual reader may not follow all the links. At the least, the page for DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006 (now little more than background for the current effort) should be merged into your new page, perhaps under its own subject heading. And use whatever means possible to emphasize to the casual reader that further detail is available on another page; this could include "seealso" tags, maybe even a sidebar (though I've never used one of those). Another merging project that currently needs to be done (since you evidently have the time and the motivation) is to merge New Columbia into D.C. Statehood (see discussion here). --Tisco 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a whole lot of time and motivation.  :-) However, I have merged the page for DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006 into the new page, under its own subject heading, and created a redirect. The lead section in the new page has lots of links to related details on other pages. I'll try and merge New Columbia into D.C. Statehood later today.Ferrylodge 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, New Columbia has now been merged into D.C. Statehood.Ferrylodge 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See Rehnquist talk page

Let's both try to avoid point of view issues. I don't want to antagonize, but you made a few assumptions that were incorrect in point of fact.Jimmuldrow 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll continue this discussion at the Rehnquist talk page.Ferrylodge 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

Regarding your recent edits to this article, you have now been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. In the future, discuss controversial changes, and do not attempt to end disputes by repeatedly reverting back to your preferred version of a page. --InShaneee 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would please look at the DISCUSSION PAGE, as I repeatedly requested that Severa do, you will see that I did discuss these changes, and that Severa refused to do so. Apparaently, InShaneeee, you refuse to do so as well.Ferrylodge 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The three revert rule is absolute, and you have no excuse for violating it. --InShaneee 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

InShanee, two questions. (1) What is a user to do when another user refuses to engage in discussion? (2) Is it not true that user Severa violated the three revert rule?Ferrylodge 21:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Anythingyouwant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=A user named Severa requested that I be blocked. The block request was inappropriate. I made some edits, and repeatedly requested discussion on the discussion page. Severa refused to engage in any discussion. The edits are made are fully explained at the discussion page, and they are entirely appropriate edits. Thanks. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=A user named Severa requested that I be blocked. The block request was inappropriate. I made some edits, and repeatedly requested discussion on the discussion page. Severa refused to engage in any discussion. The edits are made are fully explained at the discussion page, and they are entirely appropriate edits. Thanks. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=A user named Severa requested that I be blocked. The block request was inappropriate. I made some edits, and repeatedly requested discussion on the discussion page. Severa refused to engage in any discussion. The edits are made are fully explained at the discussion page, and they are entirely appropriate edits. Thanks. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I made no such request. I merely warned that the editor ought to consider 3RR in an edit summary. Ferrylodge has repeatedly attempted to add the content to Abortion, and, when politely advised that such content did not meet WP:SIZE and WP:BIAS, responded by repeated reversions and blanking a section of the article. I have also responded to Ferrylodge's Talk page discussion (unfortunately, I do take a bit of time to draft my replies), although Ferrylodge persisted in reverting his edits, although the previous version of the "Public opinion" section had been stable for months and no Talk page discussion had approved of his version. -Severa (!!!) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, my two questions are: (1) What is a user to do when another user refuses to engage in discussion? (2) Is it not true that user Severa violated the three revert rule? It's all well and good for Severa to begin Severa's discussion at the Discussion Page after Severa has already had me blocked, but the fact is that she gave no indication prior to blocking me that she had any interest in responding to my repeated requests for discussion. As for the edits themselves, I think people can easily judge for themselves who is biased and who is not.Ferrylodge 21:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not an admin. I did not — moreover, cannot — block you (and, were I an admin, I still couldn't block you, because admins cannot block users when themselves involved in the dispute). I also have not filed a 3RR/vandalism report against you (check my recent contributions). The block seems to have been InShaneee's choice, acting entirely independent of me.

2. I have replied to your discussion on the Talk page, and, thus, I do not understand on what basis you are claiming that I "refuse to engage in discussion."

3. Reverting vandalism, like content blanking, is exempt from 3RR. -Severa (!!!) 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Severa, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were an admin. I simply referred to the fact that you warned an editor to consider blocking me. Nor did I ever say that you had filed a vandalism report against me. Can we please stick to facts?

2. You have indeed replied to my discussion on the Talk page, and (as I have already explained) you did so after having me blocked, and after not indicating in the slightest way that you would respond to my repeated entreaties for discussion. Thus, I do not find credible your assertion that you cannot understand on what basis I have claimed that you "refuse to engage in discussion."

3. I did not commit any vandalism, and therefore your reversions are not exempt from 3RR. You had stated that "There is no neutral basis to claim US warrants more coverage than Canada, Australia, etc." Therefore, I merely pointed out that "There is no neutral basis to claim Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland, and US warrants more coverage than other countries." Ferrylodge 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock