Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Verbal (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 5 February 2010 (→Rv: merci). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Atropa belladonna

Mentorship

I write because your name is listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User Rehab. I wonder if you might consider joining others in sharing the burden of a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: discretionary sanctions (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Homeopathy if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Final decision.

This warning relates to the current WP:AE thread at .  Sandstein  06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends..

How long you and Snowded are going to take. You still haven't really entered the discussion on the history part yet, apart from to say "Ditto". I think the electoral section can be copyedited without controversy, the policy part on the social and cultural may probably need dicussion first (curently its filled with obscurantisms about Mein Kampft or former members, ex-boyfiends half Chinese-Cuban child, which seems to be pretty much off topic). I'll copyedit the electoral section in the mean time and create a graph image for it, but I do expect you and Snowded to actually fully enter discussion on the other parts (as I won't sit waiting around forever). I'm thinking of getting a third opinion thing set up also, so we can have some non-involved editors contribute to the discussion. SirFozzie might be OK for that, but I'll look into it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion is no good, more than two editors are involved. There is no dispute, we're just trying to get you to stop acting unilaterally when you have been asked to discus things. It doesn't "depend" at all. Verbal chat 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Third opinion is much good, since two editors are making bias reverts the article subject. It would seem that you're "trying" to stop me from working on the progression of the article, a highly counter-productive initiative (you still haven't properly entered the discussion of content, just reverted, said "ditto" and went off to revert some other articles). You'd do well to keep in mind that you are not a one man police force, nobody needs your permission to edit Misplaced Pages. The point is if you're not willing to come and enter the discussion of the content properly with me (especially after making such a big fuss about it), then you have absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to reverting. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Those two editors, you, + the others involved on the talk page, + those on ANI, + 2/0, adds up to more than two. Your selective interpretation seems to be a recurring problem. Please stop making personal attacks. You need to abide by policy, as do I. You have been warned by an uninvolved admin that you are not abiding by policy. If you would propose your changes rather than engage in fruitless meta discussion I might have more time to spend talking about your proposals. Verbal chat 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Your removal of the tag violates WP:NPOVD. The tag merely indicates the existence of a dispute, and there plainly exists a dispute. Please self-revert. THF (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated placing of the tag constitutes disruption, WP:IDHT. You have taken this to several noticeboards and not got a different answer anywhere. If you continue you may be blocked or topic banned. Verbal chat 14:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You say "several" noticeboards, which implies WP:MULTI. To my knowledge, I haven't taken it to any noticeboards. Please identify which noticeboards I have taken this specific dispute to. THF (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't wikilawyer, it is also disruptive. Verbal chat 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I be violating WP:IDHT when I repeatedly politely ask for pointers to where there exists earlier discussion, and no one wants to provide it to me? THF (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You have brought this issue to FTN, NPOVN, and it has been discussed extensively. You were involved in many of these discussions. You do realise that "waterboarding" is torture, right, and that this is an encyclopaedia? Verbal chat 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv

Think you hit the wrong revision. Reverted over RV to last good version.

--King Öomie 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks. Verbal chat 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)