Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ColonelS (talk | contribs) at 06:21, 24 February 2006 (→blanking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hypocrisy:

Please do not use edit summaries to accuse other editors of censorship. Keep your comments civil and productive. See Misplaced Pages:Civility. Gamaliel 22:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then tell your buddies not to censor out facts to cover the rear ends of their liberal friends.

Editing Misplaced Pages articles is a collaborative process, not a combative one. There is no reason for this to be adversarial. You can be a strong advocate for your case without resorting to such accusations. Gamaliel 22:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure you're going to lecture the guy over at the National Lawyers Guild article who just wiped it clean and said "to keep the far-right Horowitz nuts from rewriting history." Let's see how consistent you are there. -- ColonelS

I cannot personally monitor the actions of every user on every article and I see no need to rush over to some random article to prove something to you. Your actions are not dependent upon what other people do, you are the one responsible for them. Gamaliel 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So in other words you're passing the buck and making excuses for singling me out to a standard that you don't hold others to. It was a simple task, Gamaliel. It only involved one user on one article -- not a request to monitor "every user" on "every article." And the guy you just gave a pass to happens to be a liberal. Why am I not surprised? -- ColonelS

Oh, and Gamaliel - while you're at it, would you mind giving that same lecture about "civility" to user:Cberlet, who ever-so-kindly responded to my changes to the article by accusing me of a "cheap fabrication" both in his note and his Edit Summaries . Do that and we'll see once and for all if you are REALLY interested in keeping things "civil and productive," or if you're just singling me out for being a Republican while letting all the lefties slide. -- Col.S

I'm singling you out because you are the person who accused someone else of censorship in an edit summary that I noticed when I was monitoring recent changes today. I've been accused of both liberal and conservative bias so many times that your little taunts do nothing but make me yawn. I've tried to be polite about this, but since you are so determined to be the victim of political oppression, tell you what, next time you accuse anyone of censorship I will block you for incivility and disruption. Learn to play nice with others or I won't play nice with you. Gamaliel 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My my, what a pleasant person you are! "Do as I demand or I'll block you" while you look the other way when the other guy breaks all the rules he wants. And you call that politeness? Also if you were simply "monitoring recent changes" on the Chip Berlet article today, how is it you didn't see it when another liberal guy accused me of making a "cheap fabrication" in his Edit Summary? I sure didn't fabricate anything and that's more of a personal attack than saying it is censership when somebody deletes an entire paragraph of documented quotes that Berlet actually said! Tell you what - I won't call it censership anymore since you think that's uncivil, but in return I expect that you will step in and stop the other guys when they are uncivil to me and call me names like user:Cberlet just did. And that's just on the Chip Berlet article you are "monitoring" or whatever it is. -- Col.S

Also Gamaliel - Please forgive me when I too decide to yawn at your attempt to cast yourself as a neutral-minded unbiased participant here. I notice that you proudly state on your profile that you're a "Wikipedian Democrat." Nothing wrong with that per se, but don't try to convince me you're not just as biased to them as I am to the Republicans since you admit your own partisan affiliation with the Dems. All I ask for is a little consistency in the way you "enforce" the rules around here, especially when it is on the same article between two sides. If a lib insults me and accuse me of fabrications in the edit summaries he should be lectured on civility too. But if you threaten to block the conservative but give the liberals a pass for worse offenses since you align with their party it is holding your own side to a lighter standard than the conservatives and, well, that WOULD be a real case of censership. -- Col.S

My political orientation or your political orientation is irrelevant when it comes to Misplaced Pages rules. When you are violating a rule like Misplaced Pages:Civility, I don't feel the need to do an ideology check nor do I feel the need to keep track of the ideologies of people who violate the rules to make sure I warn the same number of Republicans and Democrats. The rules are the rules, and your behavior is still in violation regardless of what people of a different ideological orientation are up to somewhere else on Misplaced Pages. You can imagine yourself the victim of ideological persecution all you want, but that does not change the fact that it is a violation of this site's rules to throw out rude accusations like "censership" (sic). If you are going to go into every exchange with every editor on this site with metaphorical fists and accusations of "liberal bias" flying, I predict a short future for you on Misplaced Pages. Typically such people are eventually banned from the site, not because of their ideological orientation, but because they are rude and offensive to everyone they interact with here. I suggest you endeavor to keep this sort of behavior in check if you want to contribute in a positive way here. If all you want to do is battle liberals, please find a message board. In any case, I have indulged you enough in this matter. The rules are the rules, and you don't get a free pass because you are a Republican and I am a Democrat. Gamaliel 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They don't get banned. They become Admins.

MSTCrow 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More liberal hypocrisy:

Please be aware of the three-revert rule, which you are about to violate at Political Research Associates. SlimVirgin 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that all you sys-op types do around here? Threaten to ban conservatives for breaking the same rules that liberals get away with? As always the hypocrisy on the left is palpable. -- Col. S

The three revert rule applies to everyone, regardless of ideology. If you find someone breaking the 3RR you may report it at WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

blanking

Blanking is replacing the entire content of the article with blank space. This is indeed vandalism. Removing some material from an article is not blanking, it is a legitimate content dispute. I do not see anything in the edit history of National Lawyers Guild that could be accurately described as blanking. Please do not describe content disputes as vandalism. Thank you. Gamaliel 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What is it, are you stalking me now in addition to trying to start secret tribunal investigations of me? You've got some serious issues, buddy. Since you're so keen on throwing out rules and policies why don't you come off your high horse and read them:

Misplaced Pages:Vandalism says "Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."

Now tell your liberal friends to quit vandalizing that article by removing significant parts of it. - Col.S