Misplaced Pages

Cabal

Welcome to the cabal. Here is your cabal toaster. --Phroziac 22:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I also welcome you to the cabal. You will lead blue team. It is your job to stay up late finding reasons to oppose RfA's to make the cabal remain exclusive. ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Be honest

"I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk." Never? O'cmon. If I couldn't edit wiki drunk it would be pointless. Plz, if you have the time to give an admin opinion is the Beer prices worldwide article a waste of time? --Marskell 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Drunk Admins

Maybe you haven't heard this already, but administrators must be alcoholics. I'm afraid I'm going to have to request a de-sysop. Acetic' 23:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Ah, yes. Did you like the last book? Me, I have some issues, but I want to know what you think. Hermione1980 23:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler

Well, I'm a Harry/Hermione shipper, so I wasn't happy with the Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione thing, for one. I guess that's probably my main issue. I wasn't happy with the nice little ending surprise, for another thing. I've just thought this book and Order of the Phoenix both lack something. On the other hand, I like the fact that she developed Draco's character more. I thought the fact that he couldn't kill Dumbledore showed there's still hope for his redemption. Other than that, I really don't know what I think about it — I had an exam in Spanish today and I'm still chanting the different forms of the verb ser in my head. Cheers, Hermione1980 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Katefan0/5/monobook.js:

// ] - please include this line 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 23:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/Texas

Hi again! I just took the liberty of editing the Texan Wikipedians page. I hope you don't mind... but hey, we have a new Texan admin after all ;) *Hugs* - Shauri Yes babe? 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

How I became a Wikipedian

Thanks! I thought no one was reading it. Anyway, it's a good reminder to me sometimes of how to treat newbies. And oldies too. moink 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No Help At All

Kate, what you are telling me is that I must now come here and monitor this entry every day to see if it is being vandalized. And if it is I must go through this same silly procedure to get it back to what it is now. A tremendous waste of time which serves the purpose of the trolls perfectly. You say I can deal with the vandalism myself? Not so. I am not an administrator. I had an account with you last time this happened, but you closed it down. To me you are just passing the buck and ducking the issue AGAIN! When you let these trolls publish the names of my friends, their lives are placed in danger. In my first post on this issue I quoted you a line where they bragged about videotaping some of my friends at their homes. That is STALKING! I don't know why you don't think that rises to the level of warranting you to click one icon and save a human life instead of clinging to some ridiculous procedure where a page must be vandalized a thousand times in a single week before you will do anything. Next, I can't for the life of me understand why you won't discuss this privately instead of making me repeat it all in public a hundred times. More silly procedure. Your rationale for not protecting this page, and the page itself with the names on it, have all been shown to the local authorities who assure me that if any of my friends have to set the dogs on any of the punks who creep up on them, that you can be held criminally liable for publishing the addresses. Seems to me any sane person would want to protect themselves from such an embarassment, and possible even prevent it with a single click of the mouse. Rather than continue to act like a lame lawyer who thinks the splitting hairs means anything to criminals. I deeply resent having to come here and embarrass you again and again. That alone should show you the wisdom of just doing the right thing. There can be only one reason why you refuse to make this simple accomodation- BECAUSE USING MY NAME BRINGS PEOPLE TO YOUR SITE, even if it puts me and my friends in jeopardy. That's is pretty sad, Kate. There is no reason that anyone else would keep up a webpage that the subject of has repeated asked be taken down. And, as I have shown with good reason. If one of my friends gets killed in his sleep by some pumped-up, steroid-raging UFC wannabee, worse yet, if one of my friends has to kill one of these punks, I hope you can live with yourself.

Ashida Kim

You've got mail from...Big Daddy

I prefer to deal with this quietly. It should be clear to you that I, as a newbie who does not know ALL the rules yet, was being baited by someone who deleted my comments, then tried to set me up. The rest of this saga is in my email. This is a very serious situation in my book and I hope you deal with the offending party. I was merely protecting myself from unilateral and unconscionable attacks. I will not back down from people who think they can push me around because they don't agree with my politics. The person in question has a LONG history of doing exactly that to others. Just read their comments... Big Daddy 04:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. I stand by my edits and by my conduct, and have NEVER made a personal attack anywahere near the kinds you make as a matter of course. I cannot wait until you are blocked permanently from the Misplaced Pages - not as revenge, but as a response to your behavior. Your behavior thus far makes that a very likely outcome... you have a long history (including your 3RR vio and an RfC), of repeated, blatant personal attacks. Numerous editors have commented on it, it's not about my conduct. It's about yours. Kate - please help - this user is systematically disrupting articles in the interests of his POV. And claims he's a 'new user' are at this point irrelevant... he have had ample time to conduct yourself as an adult, and have instead made 'unilateral and unconscionable' attacks on others from the outset. The fact that I oppose his conduct does not mean we are equally at fault in this conflict. My behavior and his are nowhere near in the same league. I have edited and respected others consistently - and BD has not. The record is clear. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan doesn't like my politics. Therefore she tries to get me banned.

Everyone can read the comments Ryan has made to conservatives and the dismissive tone she uses. It's a long established pattern. To suggest that I'm trying to interject POV would be uproariously funny if I didn't think Ryan actually believed that. The fact of the matter is that the Karl Rove article was HORRIBLY biased. I have made several substantive and helpful changes that have brought much balance. No one has thanked me. No one has shown one whit of appreciation over the hard work I put in. But I've gotten plenty of grief over it. Warning...threats, anonymous reverts...I could write a book on the unconscionable way I have been treated since I arrived. "I cannot wait until you are blocked permanently from the Misplaced Pages!" Does that sound like assuming good faith?

I've also enforced founder Jimmy Wales edict that sources be IMPARTIAL. Ryan had been working on the Karl Rove article LONG before I arrived on the scene. And in that regard Ryan shares some of the responsibilities for it being so egregiously biased. And for Ryan to defend the condition it was in and to fight me...every..step..along the way of trying to bring a nPOV to this article says all anyone needs to say. Sorry, but wishing someone is banned is hardly consistent with Wik procedures of 'don't bite the newbies' and 'assume good faith.' Anything but. In fact, I think your very own words and actions, especially the unilateral deletion of my comments because you didn't agree with them says more about your motives than anything else I can add.

I have ALOT more work to do on the Karl Rove page. I will continue to do what I've ALWAYS done which is to submit my suggestions to others for comment before making changes. And then eliminating the bias. That's ALL I'm interested in doing. And I think it's worthwhile work. Sure, it would be easier if people didn't ANONYMOUSLY revert my edits without ANY COMMENT WHATSOEVER. And it would be easier if I didn't have to defend myself from silly personal attacks all the time.

I didn't instigate this revert fight tonight. That was Ryan. But I won't back down. Not from some tawdry stunt and CERTAINLY not from working my hardest to make Wik the best nPOV encyclopedia ever. Big Daddy 05:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I have been working on the article for a long time, and that I haven't been RfC'ed, or committed 3RRs, or made personal attacks, etc. proves my point. We can all get along, whatever our politics - unless we resort to personal attacks, as you have done from the outset. I have never personally attacked you, or any other editor - editing and issues get pretty hot sometimes, but I've never crossed that line. You, however, would pretend the line can be lifted and placed wherever you like. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, if you look at just what ryan has written in the FEW MINUTES since she was reprimanded, you'll find her constantly getting in my grille, stalking my every post, and making snide cheap and insulting comments. I'm simply trying to get on with the editing of the Karl Rove article and am totally ignoring any other side shows. Look and see if you don't agree. I think it'll vindicate my position from the beginning.Big Daddy 06:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please look and see if you don't agree. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, everybody take a deep breath. It won't do any good to argue on my talk page. BigDaddy777, if you feel like you've been so wronged, why not try following some of the suggestions in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution? That's what they're there for. I see that you've already had an RFC opened on you -- it's an awfully negative response so far considering that you haven't even been here three weeks yet; without passing judgment, to me this suggests that you maybe ought to reconsider how you're conducting yourself here. · Katefan0 16:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"It's an awfully negative response so far considering that you haven't even been here three weeks yet;" that's how they try to silence conservatives in here. That and falsely accuse us of vandalism. But don't worry Katefan...I can see based on you blaming last night on me and dredging up this bogus RFC that you're not being fair either...Big Daddy 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There are 3 certifiers (one who I don't even know) and 13 users aggreeing with the originators of the RFC. There are 4 users who said that the RFC shouldn't have been filed - whic reads, in part "Bigdaddy is rough around the edges and certainly tends to get hot under the collar," another of whom said "I don't think Bigdaddy has any excuse for bad language or getting nasty. He should be warned," a third who said "I appreciate Kizzle's concerns; they are valid, and they should be addressed". There is another opinion, which reads "After his admittedly poor start on Misplaced Pages BigDaddy777 and I have engaged in a conversation by email in which he has remained perfectly civil and taken on board my comments and suggestions about how he can improve his editing and his relations with other Wikipedians." That's not the response you get to a bogus RFC. You need to read the RFC, respond to it, and change your behavior to follow the policies and guidelines of this project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BD has just vandalized the article again , decrying a source for a section, then deleting it despite the addition of numerous 'notable' and 'reputable' sources. This is a downward spiral. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok KateFan, how would you handle this one?

NOTE FROM BIG DADDY: I'm embarassed that I would have been so naive as to think you were a fair broker here. Do you mind if I DELETE my pleading below. It just doesn't seem right seeing my honest appeal for help on YOUR page. I realize now I was just wasting my efforts.

Respectfully,

Big Daddy 07:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was some rule about not reverting an edit 3 times. Well an edit I was made has been reverted over and over and over again.

I explained NUMEROUS times PRIOR to my edit why I would make such a change and NO COMMENT. No one factually responded. They just changed or reverted my edit without comment.

So you see, in my ten days here I've been subejected to what appears to be a massive campaign to silence me. And sorry, my confrontational tone cannot be blamed for ALL of it. There's something deeper here. And last night topped the cake when, of all things, my talk comments were deleted by someone and you basically blamed me for the incident! And I will point out that Ryan has accused me of 'vandalism' simply because I, with thorough attribution, removed biased sections of the article. Did you reprimand Ryan for that? I'm asking for decency and fairness and not to be singled out as a 'troublemaker' because perhaps you don't agree with my politics.

Anyway, I'm trying to handle this right:

The article in question is Karl Rove, the subject is smearing him with the McCain black child push polling incident in SCarolina in 2000.

The most authortative voice on this subject, although not entirely partial, is the McCain campaign itself. The director wrote an op ed piece in the Boston Globe (again, none of this is particularly impartial) and yet, despite the 'stacked deck' - a disgruntled campaign manager perhaps with an axe to grind, writing an opinion piece in the liberal Boston Globe...he still says this about the 'push pollng':

"We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made."  He says the calls were made anonymously. That's compelling evidence. All the 'evidence' that Karl Rove was behind it are unsubstantiated rumors. And I've eliminated this piece at least a half dozen times.

Yet this piece keeps getting put back in, presumably by hippocrite who, along with the revert, cheap shots me and does not provide substantive reasoning for it's inclusion. Here's what hip said: "You are being needless combattive." And basically REFUSED to deal with the substance of my argument. It's like she's got her hands on her hips standing at the breach and, irrespective of Misplaced Pages rules and regulations is unilaterally trying to keep a smear in because of personal animus against me.

Now, I've put a lot of work into this and have done a lot of research and there is NOTHING....NOTHING that substantiates Rove's involvement. Same with this idea that he 'bugged' his own office. Just rumors. No proof.

So why do these useful corrections for which I did the legwork, and that I should be applauded for, keep getting reverted? Big Daddy 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If people view you as a troublemaker, Big Daddy, it wouldn't be because of your political views but of your demonstrated preference for hostilities in dealing with other editors. I believe that since the RfC has been filed, you have gotten better and while you express your frustrations at your perceptions of liberal bias, at least you're no longer personally attacking people.

Two things: One, can you point out where it says that sources must be impartial? Reputable, yes. Notable, yes. But I don't believe partiality is a significant criteria in selecting sources. Even if it was, if your true goal is NPOV through only impartial sources, why is the word of campaign manager of McCain dismissed because he has an "axe to grind" while Karl Rove's word is taken apparently by you as "impartial"?--kizzle 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you noticed I'm 'getting better.' I am still quite new afterall and didn't know what to expect although my initial gut feelings have all been confirmed. Big Daddy 23:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)