Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zer0faults (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 12 May 2006 (→Rapturous Fun). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Trouble With Vandalism?

I am having trouble with reverting an article on Newegg. The person keeps logging in from a non user account with just an IP and changing the article accusing Newegg of participating in Bait & Switch. I read the guidlines for warnings, but since the persons IP keeps changing it seems futile. The user is logging in from Oklahoma from what the IP lookup told me, however the IP is dynamic. If any guidance can be given on how to stop this, it will be greatly appreciated. I have been talking with a user on the discussion section and we have been asking the user to step forward and verify the claims or to atleast give a reference etc. Noone has come forward but the article is constantly reverted to add the unfounded Bait & Switch charges. --Zer0faults 12:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, if the problem gets really serious, you can turn to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection to request page protection. However, before that, please talk to the user concerned, or use one of the methods at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, which can usually put a stop to these matters. If you need any more help, please feel free to ask again. Cheers, Tangotango 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How to Use Strike-Through

Seeing that you changed your mind about your comments on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq poll, I thought you might want to know how to use this function of Misplaced Pages. Strike-through is considered the traditional way on Misplaced Pages to retract statements. More information can be found here: - Mr. Tibbs 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure the proper way to handle, thanks for the information. --Zer0faults 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Very Rude

Perhaps you can try to debate facts instead of attempting to bully people with your political opinions. Stop attempting to personally demean me to get across your uncited, unsupported personal opinion.--Zer0faults 14:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is consensus you are wrong, and it is not a political opinion we are discussing but how to present things neutrally. I find it rude that people like Rangeley revert 25 times on the same issue, even after they see there is a consensus against them, and the discussion page is flooded with the same stupid stuff over and over: "The US government said so, thus it is so", and "the Cold War is an analogy". Añoranza 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you cared to read the talk section you would see the concensus is filled with people who are presenting no facts. This is an encyclopedia, political bickering is not the goal. Even furthur, your problem with Rangeley does not warrant your rudeness toward me. Perhaps you should read the articles you attempt to use in your defense. --Zer0faults 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq

My view is that User:Nescio is the lynch pin on the info box issue. If his concerns are satisfied, I'd say the issue is resolved. Merecat 19:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rapturous Fun

I see Añoranza has come here too and talked to you. Frankly, I feel that at this time, there are too many 'Añoranza' like people on here to successfully reach any sort of agreement, atleast on any terms that are encyclopedic. He has resorted to trying to defame me, and has even gone so far as to say I am personally attacking others. As such things havent remotely happened, it should come as no surprise that such a person can also persist in his view on an issue like without anything logical behind it. The fact that all he gets out of what has been said is 'the cold war is an analogy' is dissapointing, but it appears to be the fact of life. Perhaps in a month or two, in the summer time, it would be wiser to pick the issue up again. Right now though, I dont think we have enough open minded people, who wont, in the words of Steven Colbert, still beleive on Wednesday what they beleived Monday, regardless of what happened Tuesday. When it is brought up again, we can lay it out on a silver platter rather then spread it out over a series of talk pages, and then in a series of responses in various sections of these pages. With a bit of organization, sort of like the facts you laid out in the latest section, I think it can actually get done. For now though, we can let them enjoy their little Mission Accomplished moment. Rangeley 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think I will have to agree with you, it is sad that I make a list of facts regarding why, and they cannot even make a list of facts supporting their reasoning. The saddest part is the Cold War anology is wrong. Bernard Baruch was the first person to use the term doing so once while making a speech, and the other time before the Senate on matters about the Soviets, he was the US representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission at the time. It was later used by the writer ... I thought this was suppose to be an encyclopedia not a popularity contest, its almost making me feel as though my time on wikipedia can be seen to be wasted. As an experiment perhaps I should have the name of a article changed by simple majority. Cant we call in a mediator or ask for admin decission? --Zer0faults 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)