This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luna Santin (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 23 October 2006 (→[]: clarify time). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:25, 23 October 2006 by Luna Santin (talk | contribs) (→[]: clarify time)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
I took your help box
and put it on my home page. Thanks and I hope you dont mind.Jasper23 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey NBGPWS
I know you must be upset by the happenings on the ACLU page. What can I say? I cant blame you? However, now is the time to let the dust settle. Further antagonism on the talk page can only lead more conflict. We further our own goals by acting in a civil and polite manner. From now on, lets try to respond to commentary and not create our own. I think this will help us in trying to improve the ACLU page. Stepping back helps us prevail in the long run. We should prove beyond all doubt that we are the responsible party in this matter. Jasper23 03:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I will see how Scribner responds. He already refused to address the bogus 9.5 Million dollar claim, but added it back into the article. He also keeps repeatedly deleting my well sourced and documented 'religious liberties' section. He also has accused you and me of being sock puppets. I'm having a hard time AGF in light of his actions. NBGPWS 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I totally understand. I would be mad too but I came in right in the middle of your edit war. Lets be respectfull civil and kind, but lets also never give up. Eventually people will take notice and we will be able to make the article less pov. In wikipedia, how you say something is more important than what you say and as important as what you do. Let the other editors be mad at themselves. Also, imagine if I was your sockpuppet. This would be the weirdest conversation. Jasper23 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I only got here a couple days ago. Scribner immediately started any 'war' that exists. He thinks he owns this article. NBGPWS 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand. Let's let it go for tonight. We can take another stab at it tomorrow. What do you think? Jasper23 04:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I won't edit anymore tonight unless he reverts the article. I'll won't add to the talk page except to counter any false charges either. Hopefully, he'll cool down, especially after he finds out that his paranoia about sockpuppety was unfounded. Nite! NBGPWS 04:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I plan on doing. Yeah, that sockpuppet thing is pretty funny. Jasper23 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Archives
I've fixed your archiving for you, and given you the above archive box. It makes everything easier. Ryūlóng 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, sir or maam! You're a scholar and a gentleperson! NBGPWS 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
AGF
Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Tbeatty 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Civility warning
|
Please stop your disruptive behaviour, or you may be blocked for a longer period. We invite you to contribute constructively, but will not tolerate your continuous personal attacks. —Xyrael / 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages.
The above unsigned template was added by Ruthfulbarbarity NBGPWS 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Tips for me
PLEASE LEAVE ALL MESSAGES IN SECTION ABOVE - THANKS
|
PLEASE LEAVE ALL MESSAGES IN SECTION ABOVE HELP BOX - THANKS
Notice to Ruthfulbarbarity
NOTICE TO USER: Ruthfulbarbarity In light of our past history, I may consider any and all personal posts from you on this page an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me, thus possibly constituting vandalism and spam. You may post unmodified Wiki policy Templates. Any comments or inappropriate warning templates may be removed at my discretion.
'Talk page vandalism'
Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion... NBGPWS 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleting other's comments
'Talk page vandalism'
Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion...--Tbeatty 01:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate NBGPWS 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Bush as Hitler
You have recently re-created the article Bush as Hitler, which was deleted in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ooops too late! It's a valid topic. Check the link for dozens of citable refs. NBGPWS 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Philip Gronowski 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It was unintentional. People were deleting the article without notifying me. I'll take it to the deletion board before recreating it again though! NBGPWS 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please realize that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to post your personal opinions, nor those of other people. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not my opinion! It's a valid wordwide phenomena! Check out the link please Bush = Hitler NBGPWS 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you had in mind with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bush as Hitler - but it is not the way things are done. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Did I put in the right place in the Oct 22 deletion log? Maybe a different title would help. NBGPWS 05:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the article has been speedy deleted Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions and blocked from recreation, that page serves no purpose, since there is no article for anyone to look at and discuss. Pages in that section are only for AfD deletions Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion --ArmadilloFromHell 05:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Where can I discuss the proposed/deleted article? Please visit this link and then tell me that it's not a valid phenomenon! Bush as Hitler Thanks NBGPWS 05:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys - read THIS:
- Overturn see how it fares at AfD, but G1 is clear that even partisan screeds aren't speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- However copyright violations are, and this was almost nothing but a quote. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please undelete my article! Thanks NBGPWS 08:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
How about having an article 'people compared to hitler' as its hardly an allegation unique to Pres. Bush. Damburger 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- People compared to hitler would get fast deleted for the same reason that Bush as Hitler would, unsubstantiated opinions and flaimbait. Any article for "people compared to hitler" should quite simply re-direct to hitler himself. Piuro 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think Hitler comparisons are notable enough for mention, but too trivial for the article on Hitler himself (I have the feeling theres some more important issues that should focus on...). It wouldn't be partisan because a large portion of the people compared to Hitler have also compared their political opponents to Hitler. Its a classic cheapshot, which should also be mentioned. Damburger 00:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Like you said, it is a classic cheapshot. Almost nobody who is compared to Hitler warrants the comparison, and even then, it is nothing more then unsubstantiated opinion. Now were someone a neo-nazi on a crusade against the Jews, then I might see a reason for a mention in a comparison article, but if we're going to break wiki down to covering articles of who petty insults are directed at then things are just going to get silly. Piuro 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
DRV
The consensus on DRV supports the actions of me and other administrators who deleted your article. Is there anything else we can assist with? I'd be more than willing to help explain further if there's still any confusion about the 'why' of it. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes - Please suggest a neutral way of naming this important topic so it doesn't get deleted. As the link proves, it's a documented wordwide phenomenon. After more thought, I agree it shouldn't just be limited to Bush. Some on the right are fond of calling Senator Clinton "Hitlery", and some compared President Clinton to Hitler.
- There is a Wiki page on PETA's holocaust comparsion. This is even more important. PETA's Holocaust Ads Thanks NBGPWS 03:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
User:GabrielF/911TMCruft
I'd strongly encourage you to take your thoughts to WP:MFD instead of edit warring; probably better for everyone involved. Luna Santin 04:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've blocked you for 24 hours, for 3rr violations related to this dispute. Please reconsider disruptive, WP:POINT sorts of things in the future. Thanks. Luna Santin 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Article of strong interest to you
- The Byron Insert A new article for your consideration. "The Byron Insert is a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved. One man lies on his stomach with his legs spread, while the other man lies belly-down on top of the first man with his head near the first man's buttocks and his genitals resting on either the left or right shoulder of the first man. This second man then takes a godemiche, more commonly known as a dildo, and inserts it into the first man's anus. As this is going on, the first man turns his head to the side and licks the second man's testicles.The Byron Insert's name comes from the famous British poet, Lord Byron. While famous for his poetry, he was also famous for his allegations of sodomy. While the origin of this sexual technique is not fully known, it has been demonstrated in a few newer pornographies. It is also known as the B.A.V., which stands for Backwards Anal Victim." Who here wants to take this on? NBGPWS 03:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you have not edited the article or voted for it's keep or deletion yet claim it's importance yet you spam it to others who are clearly not interested. You can take The Byron Insert on yourself with whomever else you choose. Others have noted that the article contains mostly Original Research. --Tbeatty 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 |
In case you don't know, you've been listed on WP:AN/3RR for over an hour. I would consider being more civil; it seems to mention on WP:3RR that although users do not own their own subpages, their user space is "theirs" for project-related purposes only, and users can thus decide against other users over what content can go in their own user space. Tuxide 07:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |