Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Halibutt (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 5 June 2005 (→Accusations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Sciurinæ! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Flockmeal 00:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Andre (talk) 00:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Response

First of all, I didn't protect the page, Rdsmith4 did, to stop what he (rightfully) called vandalism. I did not block it, as policy dictates, though I would have liked to! As for the revert rule: as anyone can see in the page history, I had only three edits on December 2nd:

18:32, Dec 2, 2004 Andrevan (I honestly don't understand why you're reverting this propaganda accusation-less version of the page when we're currently discussing it. As it is now, it doesn't have any disputed aspects!)

18:06, Dec 2, 2004 Andrevan m (Reverted edits by Nightbeast to last version by Andrevan)

17:49, Dec 2, 2004 Andrevan (good god, you just reverted a number of my improvements that were unrelated and ignored the "controversy" section entirely. why don't you read edits before you revert them?)

K1Bond007 had three reverts as well, which I assume were the ones you referenced. Please note that the three revert rule applies to single people, not groups. You had five reverts that day, which is why you were blocked:

19:42, Dec 2, 2004 Nightbeast (there shouldn't be any at all now)

18:57, Dec 2, 2004 Nightbeast (the old version still contains Copyright violatins according to Bond, just try to combine our versions but till then this copyright clean version is kept)

18:18, Dec 2, 2004 Nightbeast (you can revert but you can't change a definition)

18:02, Dec 2, 2004 Nightbeast (happy now? why don't YOU just use your words. I'm sure you speak better English than me)

17:43, Dec 2, 2004 Nightbeast (no "POV", NO COMPYRIGHTVIOLATION)

On December 5th, which is what I blocked you for the second time, you had something like 5 reverts and I had 3 reverts, with one compromise attempt - a normal change, not a revert. Changes are not the same as reverts. K1Bond007 probably had several as well. Then, you returned with other IPs and continually reverted, so I blocked the IPs.

As policy dictates, I am not going to unprotect the page, because I was involved in it. Another admin will have to do that. I'm not going to be involved any longer because I don't care enough about it to be stressed out by your nonsensical (yes, nonsensical), POV, and biased arguments. Andre (talk) 21:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I left the America's Army talk page is because I really would rather not deal with you or it any longer, and I don't care enough to stress myself out. If you want the page to be unprotected, you can request it yourself. I'm not doing it. Oh yeah, and I didn't ask Rdsmith4 to protect the page - he did it himself after I brought the page up on IRC, in the public #wikipedia channel. Andre (talk) 00:38, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Nightbeast - I can see that you are taking pains to go through the material at America's Army. Might I direct you to Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot (although, considering the time you have already been here going by what's above, you might have already come across it.). Also, I suspect that this user may be a Sock puppeteer of User:RememberMe / User:BeOnGuard / 62.134.105.101 / 212.144.105.156 / 149.225.40.78, although I have not investigated the matter fully. If so, I suggest you stop; if not, feel free to protest your innocence. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 21:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this dispute with Ele9699 is likely to continue, and you feel that he is using sock puppets, there are many options open to you. I suggest you refer the matter to the Association of Members' Advocates; as a last resort, you can request arbitration from the Arbitration Committee. I shall advise Ele9699 to do the same. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 21:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you are contacting me since I am the Coordinator of the Association of Members Advocates I must inform you that we are not mediators. If you need an advocate please contact the AMA members that are currently accepting new cases or post your information on the request for assistance page at the Association's AMA pages. Good luck. — © Alex756 01:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Serious game

Nightbeast, I've had cordial relationships with most Wikipedians I've come in contact with. Occasionally I've bumped heads with someone else, but almost always those conflicts have been resolved, peacefully. You are the one exception. When trying to resolve the issue of serious games and America's Army, we have gotten absolutely nowhere. When you respond to me, you often launch into incoherant rants that I nor almost anyone else can follow.

I gave up on America's Army figuring you weren't going to budge, depsite the fact that every serious game expert states that America's Army is the world's most successful serious game. It doesn't really matter if you like the idea of serious games or America's Army or not. But you've objected to even a NPOV statement such as "Serious games experts credit AA as the world's most successful serious game." I've listed sources, but you continued your stonewalling and so I gave up (I'm not getting paid to do this, after all).

But now you've reverted my mention of it on the serious games article. Please, I'd like to get this issue resolved. Can you, in a single sentence, state your objection to mentioning AA as a serious game? If you launch again into a rambling rant, we won't get anywhere. Can you state your objection in a single sentence? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Nightbeast, darf ich dich fragen für wen oder wieso du den Song auf deine Benutzerseite gestellt hattest, du würdest mit eine großen Gefallen tun mir unbekannterweise das zu sagen.

Germany

"This is not to be summarized if you want a fair proportion of the history section" Can you explain what this edit summary means, please? We have a history of Germany article, the main article shouldn't be cluttered up. --Golbez 18:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The existing version didn't mention why the revolution happened either; just that other revolutions were occurring. However, the way you put it, is better than the way the article did it. I deleted him because the article is about Germany, not him. What a single politician does - unless massively shaping the state, as Bismarck and Hitler did - is not needed for a SUMMARY of German history, and based on the short mention, he doesn't seem nearly as central as Bismarck or Hitler. I'll look at the changes again and take your comments into consideration. And wonder all you want about my treatment of the Third Reich section, I wonder why you said it that way, why not just say what you're wondering outright, hm? --Golbez 18:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, based on your assessment that Metternich is major, I'll put him back in. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you're saying; a quotation from a book is not a copyright violation if properly sourced. However, I don't see room in that section for any quotes. --Golbez 20:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the point; personally, I don't care what some book says the proportion should be. I'll trust your description of it and take that into consideration, as I have all of your other edits. However, in my opinion, proportion is irrelevant; all that matters is content. So it's probably better if you don't upload it. --Golbez 21:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Accusations

Your assumption of my alleged nationalist bias are completely missed. And it's not me who is pedantic here, I'm only enforcing the rule and adopting the interpretation used by other esteemed contributors (for instance User:Chris 73). If you want to question the interpretation, you should contact him. If you question the vote itself, please leave your protest at the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion. Halibutt 17:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, your accusations are completely missed. I'm not obsessed with Poland, I simply know the most on its history and that's why most of my contributions are related to the history of Poland. On the other hand I barely ever contribute to topics I have no idea on. If that's nationalism, then the article on nationalism must be changed. Also, for me (that's what my user page says) Warsaw is the best place under the sun, just like my girlfriend is the most beautiful woman ever born. Please read my remarks for what they are and not for what you think they might be. By saying that I love my city (which, accidentially, seems to be in Poland), I'm not stating that Poland is better than other countries. I'm merely stating that for me that place is the best under a sun. User pages are for personal oppinions, do not confuse that with contribution to various articles. Also, if saying that my GF is the best is chauvinism, then the respective article should be changed as well..

As to Chris- no, I'm not kidding. Numerous people saw the danger of such a vote before it was even started, yet they were ignored. Then Chris started adding German names (Germanic language names to be exact) to all articles linking to Gdansk, Szczecin and so on. We asked him to reconsider, we asked him several times to propose some more reasonable interpretation of the voting - yet to no effect. Please read the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for details. However, to no effect. And since both User:Chris 73 and User:John Kenney are admins, they were able to enforce their views on the voting. If that is how wikipedia works, then why should we adopt double standards? If the results of that voting apply to the page on Amber or Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, then why not to Phidias?

Halibutt 18:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)