Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 9 July 2007 (→WP:V). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Barry Friedman. I have been unfairly blocked - with many of my valid edits reverted. Please reinstate (unblock) me. Further details are on my talk page (User talk: Barry Friedman). I hope that arbitration is not necessary to solve this "dispute." I am not involved with Ron Liebman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.108.35 (talk • contribs) 11:15, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

He left a request on my page. I responded as best I could. See what you think, when you get a chance. :) -Ebyabe 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - The IP user is at Queens College, City University of New York. The IPs used by the vandals are mostly from New York City public library open access terminals. In my judgement, this is vanishingly unlikely not to be the vandal, and you should ignore the request... Georgewilliamherbert 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Fred Saberhagen

Why is this page protected? I don't see any unresolved disputes on the talk page. (Resolved ones, yes.) --Chronodm 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dilli Raman Regmi

Thanks for the message in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nepal page. He was a freedom fighter but was sidelined later after his "clash" with B.P. Koirala. I think we need to expand the article. More information can be found in the site of a trust maned after him here. Thanks.--Eukesh 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

As we don't want wheel-warring on policy pages, I've raised this issue at AIV. Could you remove the protection tag from the top of the policy page? Tim Vickers 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, somebody already did it. Thanks. Tim Vickers 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

I object to your unprotection of WP:V. There is no consensus for these changes, and the page was protected precisely to allow things to cool down, as a small number of editors have been stirring things up recently, and policies pages must be stable. It's important to discuss issues like this with the protecting admin, when you see that someone has protected for two weeks, and yet one side is requesting unprotection after a couple of days. SlimVirgin 23:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a small group of editors agitating to add material that would fundamentally alter the policy. They've engaged in all kinds of unpleasant tactics, including personal attacks and starting forest fires in an effort to wear people down. The page was protected for two weeks precisely to give people a break and to stabilize it. You should not have unprotected without checking with the protecting admin. That is why we have that rule, so that admins who don't know the background don't rush in and undo things. SlimVirgin 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)