Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 10 November 2004 (PA 103 -- thanks for the input). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/archive1 – posts from August 2004 to start of November 2004

Say anything you want – I won't edit any comments but I may reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy.

Please note that I will usually reply here, not on your talk page.

Sysop

Are you a sysop yet? If not, do you want to be one? ] 12:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Replied on user talk:Dmn. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've nominated you. If you accept, good luck ] 20:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship#User:Violetriga

Breastfeeding

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. To return the compliment, Breastfeeding and Blackadder are both excellent (if somewhat different!) pieces of work, so well done.

I was only trying to reach an acceptable solution for all concerned on Talk:Breastfeeding. I don't think DanP is entirely happy yet, but there we are. (As it happens, I would oppose the automatic knee-jerk circumcision that has happened in the US for many years, but I can see that parents may still choose to circumcise for cultural, religious or medical reasons. However, unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I just can't how circumcision is relevant to breastfeeding other than the limited effect that is already mentioned.)

PS - good luck on WP:RFA. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I decided a while ago to abstain from voting on WP:RFA because I don't want to get involved in the politics, so please don't take the absence of my vote as censure because I think you will be an excellent admin - but just to say that it is usual for a nominee to formally accept the nomination there :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

That's why I was (attempting to) revert back. SethIlys said the information was on the wire, so I took that as evidence enough for the claims, which were made by reports on Israeli TV, citing French sources. I only noticed soon after the AP soon after rejected the claim. Sarge Baldy 17:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Nice one for being on the ball, or at least meaning to be (there are some reports of his death). I wasn't sure if you were going to revert it so I went to do it, but it seems that it didn't work when you did it - some sort of database error appeared instead. violet/riga (t) 17:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I seem to have a problem with looking at the source of old news articles. When I tried to edit the latest previous version I got a database error, didn't notice, and proceeded to save. I was trying to think of how to go about fixing that when I noticed you reverted the news properly. So it's a good thing you were around just then :) Sarge Baldy 17:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting me

Please butt out at Dedham, Massachusetts. The edit you are deleting is 100% accurate and 100% truthful and it's not POV. I have researched the topic thoroughly and have documented answers to all concerns on the Dedham talk page. Your repeated reverts are vandalism. You are indeed a vandal and a trouble maker. 216.153.214.94 20:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lots of people are reverting you. Stop putting it back until you've further discussed it. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Dedham, Massachusetts; Violet, you really are an idiot - you know nothing of the subject matter, yet you stoke a revert war. You have no idea if the edit you kept reverting is true or not. And, don't you dare tell me to "futher discuss" it - you reverted me multiple times with no discussion at all. 216.153.214.94 00:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violetriga, you might be interested to know that, in one of the arbitration proceedings against Rex, when his propensity to sling insults was raised as an issue, he responded to the Arbitration Committee as follows: "As my name shows, I have been here for lesss than a month and each week, my courtesy to others has grown. There is no rational basis to infer, suggest or anticipate that I will make rude comments about others." So presumably he means "you really are an idiot" in a good way.  :) JamesMLane 03:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please disregard JamesMLane's conjecture based assertion. His edits as of late indicate he's misunderstanding certain basic facts. Also, he continually refers to "Rex" for some weird reason. 216.153.214.94 05:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

Your particpation in the un-justified deletion (via non-discussed reverts) of a factually accurate, non-POV, historical fact from that page has contributed to causing that page to be "protected". Therefore, I am asking you to particpate in the dialog at Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts which the "protection" notice calls for. Either that, or please leave a message for Mirv and request that the page be unprotected. This message will be reposted here daily (approximately) until you acknowledge it on the Dedham, Massachusetts talk page. Thank you 216.153.214.94 03:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, unanimity being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Cecropia... =) violet/riga (t) 23:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congrats - deserved and all. And unanimous too! JFW | T@lk 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and thanks JFW! =) violet/riga (t) 23:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The vote was not unanimous! 216.153.214.94 04:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

since when is 35-0 not unanimous? --kizzle 05:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

My vote was deleted. and since you all claim to "know" that I am "Rex", then you can;t very well delete my votes as being anonymous, can you? 216.153.214.94 05:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, basically, what you're saying is "You should believe that I am Rex when that's convenient for me, and believe that I am not Rex at all other times." This is Exhibit A on why we know you're Rex; who else is so blatant and shameless about demanding rights while shirking responsibilities? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course, ignorant Feldspar misinterprets statements once again. The above statement merely points out that persons who accuse me of being "Rex" ought to consider all my edits as being from "Rex" - no picking and choosing. Of course, since Feldspar is so dumb(?) he incorrectly misinterprets that as an admission of me being "Rex". Feldspar, do you have "Rex-envy" or something? What is this weird "Rex" obsession that you have? 216.153.214.94 06:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Rex-envy"? What on God's green earth would ever induce me to envy such a pathetic control freak? No thanks. On the issue of consistency, there is no inconsistency between knowing that 216.153.214.94 is Rex and refusing to allow him Rex's privileges while he persists in the charade that he is not Rex. Suppose we had a defendant in a courtroom and all the evidence and all the eyewitnesses were placing him at the scene of the crime, and he was insisting that he was in a bar across town at the time. If he says "OK, I'm still saying I was across town in that bar when the robbery happened, but I want you to know that if I was in that convenience store holding it up, I saw the attorney for the prosecution there sniffing cocaine with his mistress! Therefore, if you don't believe I was in the bar, you must arrest him on drug charges!" is anyone going to take his claims seriously? Is anyone going to say "I don't believe his first story, therefore I must believe his second story, the one he himself claims isn't true because he's still insisting his first one is"?

In the same way, votes are supposed to go to those willing to vote responsibly. 216.153.214.94 is either an anon who doesn't get a vote, or he is Rex, unwilling to come forward and admit "Yeah, all this time that I was accusing everyone I didn't like of being sockpuppets, I was already operating one of my own, and every time I was calling people paranoid for believing the anon was secretly me, they were actually right and I was lying, but guess what? I'd like my vote now." Either way, there is no justification for treating the anon's vote as that of a responsible Wikipedian. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

35-0. Now that's a mandate. --kizzle 07:18, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

"Rex" is a bad loser. What part of 35-0 (or 34-1 if you get your way) don't you understand? JFW | T@lk 08:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, even if "silly 'anon' who can't remember from one post to the next whether he doesn't know who Rex is or knows Rex to be the shining champion of Misplaced Pages in exile" got his way, that'd make it 35-1, not 34-1. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004 in music (UK)

Your suggestions for the 2004 in music page look great, I've added some comments on the talk page. I think that this can be a good project, it's probably easiest if we start with this year then work backwards. As I've said there, I think a month-by-month structure would be best, as we can include

• details of single and album releases, and their success
• awards
• Controversial moments
• etc.

However, discussion of general issues throughout the year could probably use a different structure - we could create a section following the month-by-month review showing key issues and artists from the year that do not fit into the monthly structure? David 5000 14:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PA 103 -- thanks for the input

Hello Violet/Riga,

Thank you for your message about the PA 103 page. I agree with you about the need for a major edit in terms of structure. At the moment, I'm afraid that any structural change I make would be interpreted as hostile action, so I'll wait until the facts are agreed before attempting any major copy-editing.

Thank you, too, for the tip about American v. British spelling. The punctuation is different too. The rule I've been following is to make the spellings consistent within the page, and to follow what most users have done with that page, whether it's American or British. I hope that's the right way to approach it. I am very new to this and it's a steep learning curve!

Thank you again, and I hope I'm posting this in the right place.

Slim