Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 06:45, 26 February 2012 (Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Islam. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Jwbaumann, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers, and some key policies and guidelines:

..dave souza, talk 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits made on September 2, 2007 (UTC) to Intelligent Design

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Intelligent Design. Please always observe our core policies. GSlicer (t • c) 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that sections of Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy that apply directly to intelligent design related articles are:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

Hope you find that helpful, .. dave souza, talk 07:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield

A tag has been placed on Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008 edits

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to political positions of Barack Obama. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. · jersyko talk 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Jihad. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything I submitted regarding Jihad was factual, relevant, and well sourced. It is outrageous that you do not consider the Umdat al-Salik to be an authoritative source on Islamic jurisprudence. Even the Misplaced Pages entries for the Umdat al-Salik and for Shafi`i, which pages have both been fairly stable and non-controversial entries for several years, put this source in a most high position. Please explain why this source does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards for citation.Jwbaumann (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no response has been offered in 3 months time, I will consider this criticism to be unfounded and retracted. I will continue to provide relevant, factual, and well sourced edits in the future. Jwbaumann (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

I see from this page you have already been warned several times to avoid putting personal commentary into articles. I see it has not stopped you. This is your final warning - if you do it again, you will be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My addition indicated that the big bang, speciation, and dinosaur behavior were neither observable nor repeatable. Is this factually incorrect? Is it irrelevant to a discussion of the nature of science? Or does it not fit comfortably with the POV that evolution theory is truth? I fail to see how a relevant, factual statement is a violation of the TOS. Please explain.Jwbaumann (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The absence of any response tells me that this criticism was meritless. I will continue to offer relevant, factual edits as opportunities arise.Jwbaumann (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did at Barack Obama. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. DKqwerty (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What in the hell are you talking about? The point of my edit was that there ARE no official references to Obama's birth location. Note that the above criticism is both unfounded and unsigned. Jwbaumann (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) And boom, now the above is signed.Jwbaumann (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I am blocking you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You are welcome to appeal the block, which is your chance to see if another admin thinks it is fair. A whole series of editors and admins have given you warning above about adding obvious personal opinion into articles but you persist . I have gone through several pages of your edits and you come close to qualifying for an indefinite block as a Vandal only account. Please consider the objections people make and listen. You will become a better editor when you do so. --BozMo talk 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. The "disruptive edit" you refer to is possibly the most perfect example of the obvious and I believe deliberate bias in Misplaced Pages. Please don't remove the link, so that it may stand as a clear example of how useless Misplaced Pages is. I do not believe any rational or honest person could consider the edit you reference to be disruptive. I personally find it to be excellent, even reviewing it now 6 weeks later. So thank you for so clearly demonstrating that Misplaced Pages is a dishonest, agenda driven load of horse manure. It's really embarrassing for Misplaced Pages to hold on to such thoroughly discredited, antiquated, silly ideas like global warming to the point where you won't even admit there is an alternative viewpoint, even as record cold strikes the northern hemisphere. You're just a bunch of scared, whiny intellectual fascists, and I stand by every edit I have made. Jwbaumann (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2012

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Islam. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Such a bold statement requires some very reliable sources which directly makes the claim you are trying to make. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)