Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nobs01 (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 14 June 2005 (→Personal comments: yes I am familiar with subject). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Republic of Texas

Hello. I think adding a sidebar to Republic of Texas was a very good thing. Howver, I removed the map of Texas as U.S. state, since the borders of the present day had nothing to do with the borders of the Republic, which as you know were larger. The other map in the article (which I created) are the historical boundaries (showing the difference between what was claimed by the RoT and was disputed by Mexico during that time). -- Decumanus 07:09, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Tom DeLay

Your points on the talk page sound pretty good to me, but why not post them and then make the corrections yourself? Best way to ensure it gets done... Kaisershatner 23:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jim Robinson/Free Republic

hey,

I noticed you've been expanding the Jim Robinson page. There is currently a minor dispute over whether the guy deserves his own page, or whether the infomation should go on the Free Republic page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please comment on the Talk:Free Republic page. Thanks! --Jonathan Christensen 07:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only apparent participant in that "dispute," JC, seems to be you. The majority of others who have weighed in on the Jim Robinson talk page have favored keeping it separate, but rather than engage in a civilized, mature discussion there you have opted to ignore the comments there, focus on your personal disputes with another user, and tag the article for a VfD dispute when in fact doing so was inappropriate per wikipedia VfD policy. You need to grow up and learn how to work with other people before undertaking edits here. Rangerdude 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame that the tides are against you. I agree with your argument Ranger Dude, but at this point, there is no way to turn the votes around on the votes for undeletion page, which is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it merged. It is a waste of time to vote otherwise. I just wanted to say that you aren't alone in your argument. I run into a lot of people that don't make sense, are delete-happy, and merge-happy. Good luck with your situation. I'm sorry tis doesn't seem to be able to be won, but if you think I can help somehow, shout at me on my talk page. Mr d00d! 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I moved your comment to my talk page. Mr d00d! 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A Question

Hi, I was just wondering if you had a Free Republic account. I'd really like to read what you have to say there if you do. You could post it on your user page, reply here, or post it on my talk page. --Halidecyphon 19:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - don't have one. And you can tell that to your buddy User:Jonathan Christensen who tagged you here as well. Rangerdude 21:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged me here? I just happened to watch the debate and took a look at the Free Republic site where there are many passionate people with interesting ideas and I was wondering if I could get some background on yours. FYI, I'm halidecyphon over there. Halidecyphon 13:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure you did. A self-admitted close friend of another user who was engaged in an editing dispute with me and who happens to agree with that other user's position against me just happens to stumble upon my talk page out of curiosity and, in further pursuing that curious drive, finds the need to inquire whether I am a user of Free Republic...presumably so we can all meet up over there and be freeper "friends," right? It's called trolling for information. Rangerdude 16:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that I am a friend of JCs, and that I found out about you and about Free Republic through the Jim Robinson edit debate (as stated above). I just wanted to learn more about the situation, and hopefully to understand your point of view. Thus my question. I'm very sorry if I've violated your talk space. Feel free to delete this discussion if you're so inclined. Halidecyphon 15:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see this: a discussion about reducing the length of Slrubenstein's block for breaking the 3RR on Jesus.--Silversmith 23:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Good work on the Jesus page. The only way to counter stuffing the ballot box is to be organized in like manner. Keep me in mind Nobs 05:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep it's a wikiclique at work. They're gonna be in for a shock if they think 2 dozen athiests are gonna rewrite 2000 years of human experience. Nobs 05:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I don't like the fact that you called one vote "ballot box stuffing", or that you claim I "expressed my surprise that the tide of the vote had turned", or any of the many other false claims you have made. Jayjg 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fib, distort, and backtrack all you want but your ballot recruitment record speaks for itself, Jayjg. That's the great thing about wikipedia - it keeps a record of EVERYTHING including the evidence of your act found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Rangerdude 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your involvement with the AD/BC dispute and want to tell you that you're absolutely right on this one. I won't get involved myself, having my hands full of other flaming stuff, but just one additional information on a similar thing in Germany: The traditional dating is "vor Christus (v. Chr.) " and "nach Christus (n. Chr.)", meaning "before" and "after Christ" (AD is used as a very archaic form), but of course after 1949 that wasn't well thought of in Eastern Germany, so they invented "vor unserer Zeitrechnung (v.u.Z.)" and "nach unserer Zeitrechnung", meaning "before" and "after our time reckoning". By that you can immediately tell whether a book comes from the East. I guess BCE/CE also stems from the same "attitude" (=POV), also there was no central comitee in the US or the UK. Regards, Str1977 15:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

Katefan indicated she'd be willing to discuss the issues you mentioned once mediation was established. Would you be willing to accept mediation, so we can start to look at the real issues in the article and attempt to resolve them? There's obviously been much going on between you and I think a neutral 3rd party would help you guys (or girls) in reaching an agreement. -- Mgm| 17:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Would you object to this mediation to be done public on a subpage of Talk:Houston Chronicle? First of all, I'd like both of you to promise the follow these rules.

1. You won't edit the article while mediation is ongoing. Suspected sockpuppeting should be reported to me personally for investigation.
2. No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
3. Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
4. Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which I can review.
5. If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Please respond to let me know if you agree to follow these rules and whether you object to public mediation. -- Mgm| 18:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• "I would prefer that it focus primarily upon the differences between myself and Katefan0 regarding the section in question."
  

Yes, I was planning on giving those editors a seperate section to comment in. - Mgm| 06:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I've started a page for the mediation on Talk:Houston Chronicle/Mediation. Note that I've changed the first rule of the mediation (on editing), to accomodate your complaint on my talk page. Please provide a detailed account of your views on the article and which sections or sentences you consider disputed and provide alternatives you think are better. Wherever possible, please provide sources and diff edits to support your view. If you expressed your views elsewhere, please copy them, rather than providing links. - Mgm| 21:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments

Please stop using the term "stalker" to refer to my efforts in this project. Your use of the term has the appearance of a personal attack. Thank you. -Willmcw 08:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Then please stop engaging in behavior that strongly resembles wiki-stalking. Following other editors around wikipedia to intentionally challenge, disrupt, and deconstruct every edit they make on virtually every article regardless of the content is extremely poor etiquette, especially when most of the said edits are petty changes or challenges made without merit or proper background. You have demonstrably engaged in behavior of this type towards me for a long time and have, of recent, increased its intensity in a manner that is deconstructive and disruptive to the general purpose of wikipedia. An occasional encounter on common topics of interest is one thing, but nobody made you policeman or gave you the right to unilaterally screen and deconstruct the work of all editors you disagree with politically. Rangerdude 09:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no policy against constructive, NPOV edits on Misplaced Pages. Labelling edits with a term that you apparently believe is a perjorative is a personal attack, regardless of its truth or inaccuracy, and there is a policy against that. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and personal comments in no way help that effort. Thank you, -Willmcw 09:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are, however, extensive policies and guidelines requiring etiquette and civility. Stalking other editors around wikipedia for no other purpose than to deconstruct, disrupt, annoy, and unnecessarily complicate valid and sound additions to the articles on this forum expresses neither, thus I will continue to object to your behavior and call it exactly what it is so long as you persist in your etiquette violations. I will also note that internet stalking is generally considered a form of trolling. It thus pertinent information to any arbitration proceeding involving harassment behavior that is deconstructive to wikipedia & precedents abound establishing this. Rangerdude 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude: yes I am familiar with the administrator in question. Actually I may owe him a debt of gratitude since after my blog site & e-mail account were hacked I decided to just do all my work in the wiki community. Given his analytical skills he should perhaps stick with hacking since thats seems to be where his real talents lie (incidentlaly, my original User:Nobs password was stolen about a week ago when I was still learning Firefox). And as to the rhetorical arts, the subjects parsing of facts really aren't worthy of the Flat Earth Society.Nobs01 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)