This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SCZenz (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 27 January 2007 (Reverted edits by THB (talk) to last version by Rockpocket). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:47, 27 January 2007 by SCZenz (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by THB (talk) to last version by Rockpocket)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Think Before Posting!
Please don't make posts that could be construed as harassment, personal attacks, or otherwise uncivil behavior.
 Archives |
Commonwealth vs. American English
Q:When are you guys gonna learn to spell ?
A:This grievance comes from those who aren't aware that British and American spellings sometimes differ.
We've been at the centre of some rancour, but we're not going to take offence or harbour any grievances. The catalogue of complaints won't colour this organisation's programme. It's a grey area anyway. And we don't want to labour the point.
Padding around signature
The added padding of bright color around your sig is kinda intrusive:( Could you re-consider? DMacks 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Using slang like "sig" and "kinda" is offensive. Could you reconsider? t h b 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"The added padding of bright color around your signature is very intrusive:( Could you re-consider?" DMacks 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I could, but I'm not going to. Sorry if you're offended, that was certainly not my intent, especially since I don't know you. t h b 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks
kindareddish browny to me, not offensive at all! 8-)--Light current 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Light current, it's actually the internet equivalent of Tyrian purple, one of my favorite colors, and certainly not one that I ever thought of as being "bright". Glad to see you haven't left in disgust like some of the other editors, Light current.
t h b 11:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just biding my time! 8-)--Light current 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Nurse uniform
The article as written in a load of unencylcopaedic ranting which does nothing to actually describe the cause - I realise I was quite bold, but what is there on the whole needs to go and a properly structured article needs putting in there, which is what I was trying to do. --John24601 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with most of your deletion. Removing the content from an article and leaving subtitles only is different from rewriting it. Feel free to rewrite it. t h b 11:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article as is serves little value, however: the content is unencyclopaedic and unreferenced and needs to go, which is why I removed it. If you read my edit summary you'd have seen that I was infact planning to come back and flesh it out over the next couple of days, and invited others also to add. The fact that there is nothing to replace unencylopaedic content immediately doesn't mean that that content can stay until something else is ready! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John24601 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
AS I said, I disagree with most of your deletion. t h b 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that, it would be useful if I could understand why you want it kept - I've given my reasons, what have you got to argue against them? You can't seriously say that the article isn't unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, biased original research, can you? --John24601 07:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You're putting words in my mouth that neither of us wants there. My primary objection is to the deletion of the description of the student uniform. That should stay until replaced even if imperfect. The rambling oppressed masses bs is obviously unencyclopaedic. If you filet a fish and throw away the soft tissue you're left with a skeleton, not a fish. t h b 12:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your signature
Just FYI the font tag has been deprecated as of HTML 4.0 transitional and I believe eliminated in the XHTML standard. With the effort to XHTML-ize stuff (did you notice the trailing slash in <br />?), you should change your signature from "font" to "span" since all of the data is in the style attibute anyway. Or whatever; I just noticed and decided to bring it to your attention (obviously) --froth 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Froth, is this any better? I'm afraid one's age shows after a point and must plead ignorance on this. t h b 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah you fixed what I was talking about. I wouldn't say better or worse, I was just being a little pedantic --froth 00:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Link Removal
I added the link on the Furniture article to the Dmoz.org directory on Furniture. You deleted the external link and I would like to know why? I am not sure if you are not aware of what Dmoz is what? Dmoz is not a commercial webiste at all, it is the first man-made durectory of web links. There are over 1,400 articles on Misplaced Pages that link to the Dmoz Directory. Please see Open Directory Project for more information about Dmoz and the Open Directory Project. Please make sure that know what you are deleting before making such hasteful edits on Misplaced Pages. Eric 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You added a link to a list of commercial links. I fail to see how that is different than adding commercial links. t h b 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fun Facts:
- Fun Facts:
- There are Dmoz links on over 1,400 Misplaced Pages articles
- Dmoz is a sister site to Misplaced Pages
- Dmoz is a non-commercial website (See Open Directory Project)
Eric 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you even look at the DMOZ page you linked to? It is inappropriate. Every link on that page is commercial. It's a list of furniture stores. I have nothing more to say about it. t h b 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I re-added dmoz link to the consumer information furniture cat, not the shopping cat. Two sidenotes: First, we are guided to use DMoz links, see WP:EL#Important_points_to_remember. In this case I agree that the shopping category was not the best possible Dmoz link, but in future consider doing search at dmoz.org and seeing if you can find better cat instead of just deleting it. (... as you did on Case management, but ...)
- Second, I came to your talk page because you altered a DMoz link that I placed on the Case management page. You narrowed the scope of the DMoz link to case management associations only, as opposed to the entire industry of case management. Why do you feel this was necessary? – 2*6 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, third. :) I see that you started the Case management article here. Cool. If you feel knowledgable in the field, think about becoming an editor of the Case_Management category at DMoz. I'm the named editor there now, but not because I'm very knowledgeable about it. I edit a lot of insurance categories, one of which is Managed_Care. That led me to the pre-existing Case_Management category, which needed some work. I cleaned it up some, but nothing beats having an expert focusing on it. – 2*6 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Regarding this post, I don't much appreciate your personal attacks. But more than that, I don't appreciate your behavior. The next time you waste everyone's time by playing the "you can't prove that was a joke about X" argument, when the implication of the joke was obvious, I'll block you. It looks more and more to me like you enjoy arguing and seeing what you can get away with for the hell of it; the remaining time for which this will be tolerated is growing short. -- SCZenz 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Go fuck yourself. You're being ignorant and putting words in my mouth to have an excuse to block me. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Now block me for telling the truth and telling you to go fuck yourself for your nasty threats. t h b 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. If you continue trolling, I suspect the times of your blocks will increase rapidly. -- SCZenz 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
t h b 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and you obviously missed the deletions that were made of the word "pussy" os you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you don't even bother to investigate when you're told you're wrong. Your behavior tells all. t h b 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and go ahead and block me some more for telling the truth again. t h b 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm Sounds familiar. But you've taken to blocking now have you SCZ?. Sorry I havent been following the proceedings. I agree that things like 'go fuck yourself' may be slightly inflammatory, but otherwise, why have you blocked THB?--Light current 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page, Light current. -- SCZenz 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Go read StuRat's page. Some !#@$ accused him of making a "fishy pussy" joke but he never used the word "pussy" at all, but the accuser did. I called him on it and he did half-way apologize. Then SCZenz called me a troll and accused me of bullshit that wasn't at all even close to true and threatened to block me--typical of that bunch of "administrators". t h b 00:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to change your approach
If you are here to fight, you'll find yourself unwelcome. This "you can't prove what I meant" act is wearing thin. Consider this another warning. Friday (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)