Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BigDaddy777 (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 2 October 2005 (→From Big Daddy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 (2005-09-28 18:32:28 UTC)

Jib Jab

Yeah, I suppose it would. Deleting copyvios is a different process than regular deletions, and one I have yet to have anything to do with. I guess the different policy is so a non-copyright version of the article can be created in the meantime, however, as this is impossible in this case, I guess there is no reason not to speedy it. It might be stretching the rules a bit, but it will save trouble for others. You talked me into it. -R. fiend 21:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was a stretch of the rules either, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. -R. fiend 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm back

I posted on the admin notification board conversation about me. Check it out and weigh in, if you'd like. Uriah923 04:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ecclesastical State Discusssion

I was curious when are we closing the discussion about the fate of the Ecclesastical State page? Can you let me know please? Thanks... Davidpdx 9/29/05 7:39 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I am headed out of town this weekend, I was just curious what was going to happen and hoping I'd know before I left. We'll see I guess Davidpdx 9/29/05 14:12 (UTC)

External Links

I understand that you remove incongruous links, but what criteria do you use to determine whether a link remains or not?

I am creating what I feel to be a truly useful and professional web site Bible Reviews that has information that I consider at least as valuable as that included in some of the other external links which are *not* removed by you.

Why do you remove links to web sites containing valuable information relating to the Misplaced Pages articles?

Why do you not remove links on these same pages to web sites containing vague, less-valuable information?

In other words, what do I have to do to make my web site worthy?

Thanks,

Jim Pettis

JimPettis@NetZero.com

9/29/05

Hey there

I think you've got a wonderful picture on your user page. It makes me smile whenever I come by :-) --HappyCamper 01:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Congrats! Your RFA bid was sucessful, and you will now be an admin. However we have a bug in the system that is keeping us from giving you sysop rights. (More details on the RFA talk page). Thank you for your patience. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 06:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiChristian

Hi there,

I notice that you are a Christian. Come and take a look at www.wikichiristian.org and consider contributing. It is still small and has very few users. I'm praying that God helps the site to grow and become a forum for Christians to write and read about all aspects of Christianity. It is not meant to be a copy of wikipedia. It is not meant to be purely an encyclopedia. For any given topic, it will hopefully contain a short summary of the topic followed by links to many sub-articles - some containing simple facts; some sharing experiences; some explaining a particular viewpoint and so on.

Take for example the article on grace. It has various "Definition and explanation" articles explaining the meaning of grace. It has a few "Articles / opinions" about grace. It has links for "Quotes' about grace and links to "Songs about grace". The site is also meant to be a resource site containing information about Christian texts, literature, art, music, radio, television and internet.

Take a look at the example article on the song Shout to the Lord. It has links to information about the song, lyrics and chords to the song and links for comments or opinions to be expressed about the song.

The site also intends to explain the history of important events in Christianity. Take a look at The Reformation section. This has links for "Overview" articles, "Opinion" articles, "Quotes" and "Travel" stories.

The site intends to be a reference about major (and minor) figures in the Bible, the early church and today. Take a look at John Stott. It contains "Overview" and "Opinion" articles. It contains texts of "Talks" given by John Stott and links to "Books" by John Stott.

In summary, I suppose, that my hope is that WikiChristian becomes a major reference point for Christians and non-Christians to go to find about any issue related to Christianity. I don't believe that this should be carbon-copy of wikipedia. It should resemble it in some ways, but in other ways, it should be quite different in structure and evolution. I realize that there are different views about different topics - and accordingly, there should always be the opportunity for a person to write his personal view under the "Opinion and articles" section of any given page.

I would love you to take a look at wikichristian and contribute. If you don't wish to contribute, would you consider visiting it's world wide directory of churches we are setting up and entering your church into the database. The point of the database is to state the location of a church with the service times and add a brief description of the church. You can take a look for example at: Church Directory -> Australia -> South Australia -> Adelaide -> St Matthew's Anglican Church

If you don't wish to contribute to WikiChristian, you could consider one of the other wikis related to Christianity that have been set up by other people. These include: Theopedia, Compass or OrthoxWiki.

Thanks

Graham Grove

Image:PetitPanSquash.jpg

Ugh. I can't remember where it came from. It must have come from a govrnment source, but just where, I don't know. Go ahead and delete it, I guess. User:Zoe| 00:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

From Big Daddy

Greetings,

You recently wrote me: "If you don't want to follow the policies, then you need to just leave" and "Please don't be a troublemaker." I have to say, although I'm heartened and encouraged that you took the time to write, those are some pretty strong insinuations.

But to be fair, were you insinuating I was a troublemaker who did not wish to follow policy? Because I would like you to amplify that a little bit.

Don't get me wrong, I think you approached me with a good heart. I just wonder if you understand what I have been put through in just 30 days. Now, I chose to jump right into the fire sort to speak, by editing the articles dedicated to people like Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and Karl Rove. But I feel that's where a conservative voice was needed most to correct that endemic POV that existed on those pages prior to my arrival and people are now trying to re-introduce.

If you think I'm joking, please go to the Ann Coulter talk page. Note that, although I wasn't involved whatsoever since this morning, Coulter-hating page vandals removed a carefully written nPOV piece, so that the section contains 100% Coulter-bashing and 0% Coulter-defense. This is nothing short of one-sided deletions vandalism. Not to mention a tag-team Quintuple revert. And on the last two reverts no explanation at all was given for reverting.

This is what I deal with on a daily basis. Today it was another user who suffered through this.

So, I will be very interested in your response. Quite frankly I'm a tad bit offended that you would lecture me on one policy which I'm innocent of violating (nPOV) yet clearly violate another policy (AGF) by your insinuations.

However, I'm willing to give you a chance. Do you see what's happening at the Coulter page an example of "a beautiful treaty that allows for consensus between left-wing, right-wing?" Because I sure don't. What I see are left wing POV warriors that needed no provokation ganging up on some conservative editor and willfully violating rules in order to smear a conservative commentator.

Maybe the problem is you haven't had to work on such controversial sites. But, again I don't know. I do know this:

Posters, without as much as a single rebuke from liberal administrators, have initiated a barrage of destructive and senseless personal attacks like this on me:

Hmm.. maybe he just likes to see his user name: "Big Daddy." I think a more accurate term would be "Little Baby." It suits him to a T. What a pathetic troll. Eleemosynary 08:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, Little Baby! There are also some "stalkers" right outside your door in white coats. They have a pleasant little room for you, with soft walls and nice bars on the window so you won't hurt yourself falling out. Go with them, and you can build pretty collages celebrating Karl Rove to your heart's content! LOL! Eleemosynary 08:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Proof positive! "Little Baby" lives in his own deluded universe, taking breaks from vandalizing Misplaced Pages only to travel to the drug store for hand lotion so he can better, um, "enjoy" his Ann Coulter picture collection. Duly noted! Eleemosynary 08:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

in just the past 24 hours. Again, not one word of rebuke in proportion to the crime other than perhaps a 'check out npa when you're not busy' wrist tap.

What I've enumerated is just a tiny sample of what I've endured. Are you one who would justify this as 'me bringing it upon myself'? These are factual examples. Other conservatives had had to deal with hateful vindictive liberal editors who nitpick their every move. Check out this as an example -

Remember, it's not me or the other conservative editors in here making anonymous quadruple reverts on multiple occasions to multiple articles or stalking a poster's every edit so at to make degrading & marginalizing personal attacks.

Are you sure I'm the one you should be warning about being a 'troublemaker'?

Take care. I look forward to your response. Big Daddy 02:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)