Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 17 April 2006 (Unprotected User talk:JohnnyCanuck: Protected long enough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has been briefly protected from editing by non-admins, see foot of the page for reasons. Bishonen | talk 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to add your messages below. Messages that are not stamped by registered users will be deleted My talk page has been vandalized in the past so I am starting a running count starting at zero of how many times it is vandalized. --JohnnyCanuck 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 0

Talk:Elliott Frankl

Regarding Talk:Elliott Frankl: Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "not blanking pages" was unclear? What part of using a standard warning template to notify a user over an obvious policy violation constitutes "vandalism" and "personal attack"?

You did not "remove a personal attack", you blanked the entire page. What's the problem with the entire page? --Calton | Talk 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and looking at the history of that page: don't forget WP:3RR. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Read Carefully

Let's try this again:

You did not "remove a personal attack", you blanked the entire page.

Now what part of that was unclear? The verbs? The subject? The objects? --Calton | Talk 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And your "Number of times this page has been vandalized: 2" message? Man, talk about breathtakingly dishonest. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole page is full of false info. from one user, read it and check the facts

One user? I counted nine editors, including yourself. Even assuming, mathematically, that "9" is within an order of magnitude of "1" and can be treated the same, perhaps you can tell me what was false about your:

Candidates should be deleted if thats all they are is candidates but this candidate deserves to be kept because of other impressive accomplishiments. the incumbents were rightfully deleted. If Frankl WASN'T a candidate he still deserves an article and I highly doubt if anyone would disagree. If he wasn't a candidate there wouldn't even be a debate here.

So you admit this is false info?

or

Frankl is notable for an article that was the concensus, it was deleted because of the false claims against the article

Oh, wait, that is false. I guess I'll mark that.

What about Eyeonvaughn's:

He is very prominent within the sports industry, served as Vice President of the Toronto Board of Trade (one of the largest boards in North America) as well as serving on numerous committees and boards at various levels of government

Also false, then?

Of course, I could go on about your flimsy rationale, but it's moot: any claimed right to remove material by others that you unilaterally deem to be false is a figment of your imagination.

Me, I think the real problem is that you did a Google search for "Elliott Frankl", and discovered that the #1 hit is for the (deleted and protected) Elliott Frankl - God knows someone could click on that "Discussion" tab. Even better is that the #2 hit is -- this page. No wonder you like to keep it blank. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Block warning

Don't remove warnings from this page. They're not vandalism; your removal of them is vandalism. Please see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Don't remove comments from Talk:Elliott Frankl again. Seriously. You will be blocked from editing if you do it again. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

"check facts"/You have been blocked

Please check the facts before you start making assumptions--JohnnyCanuck 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're the one making assuptions. Let me lay it out for you: remove personal attacks a) is not policy, but a disputed guideline (click on the link and see for yourself), b) refers to attacks against users not subjects (do you think an encyclopedia is forbidden from stating negative facts about its subjects..?), and c) there's no way the entire page could be called any kind of attack, no matter how you stretch it. What about Bearcat's admin messages? You deleted them too. You deleted the whole thing. And the History of your own userpage shows you have removed a lot of warnings from admins and other experienced users. (I only restored the last ones.) Btw, note that editing logged out won't help you look like two different users. It only makes you look as if you're trying to deceive. You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the WP:3RR rule on Talk:Elliott Frankl after being warned. Note that you can still edit this page. But if you remove the messages on it again, I will protect it so only admins can edit it (sorry, Calton). Bishonen | talk 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

The user blanked the page again, so I've protected it. I'm sorry for this, since it's the blocked user's only means of communication (JohnnyCanuck has not specified a valid e-mail address, so he can't e-mail admins). On the other hand, see my explicit warning above, plus the fact that he hasn't so far seemed to value the ability to post on the page while blocked; all he's done is blank warnings. Johnny, you still have one venue of communication: the mailing list. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC).