Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 162.119.232.101 (talk) at 05:58, 4 July 2006 (→user talk page policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MY TALK PAGE POLICY

I respond to all comments. Afterwards, I delete these entries in a few days. I do not like clutter and I think keeping unimportant information is a waste of space. There is very little interesting content in a user's talk page. Reviewing a person's talk page is, therefore, a fruitless venture. I eventaully delete all entries and keep a clean page. This is my personal preference and it is supported by wiki policy (see ). Some people claim that the talk page is required to see a block log, but all editors have access to see how many times a person has been blocked. I find keeping unimportant information is a worthless endeavor. Thank you. ER MD 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Breath

I knew you were going to bring that up, so allow me to explain: warning places accidently or without merit may be taken out-warnings put there for a reason are not supposed to be removed, ever. If you continue, you will be blocked again. The warnings you put on my page had not reason to be there. I can contribute without a username and it's obviously not against policy. And the 3RR rule doesn't apply when dealing with vandalism, which your removing of warnings constitues as. So calm down and stop removing warnings. 69.145.123.171 Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:22 (UTC)

And again, the inital warnings for "stopping" were invalid so removing them as according to what you are saying is valid, so i don't think you understand the initial reasons. Thank you. 162.119.232.101 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, they were not. They were valid and should stay here. This is the last time I'm going to tell you. Stop removing warnings from your talk page. --69.145.123.171 00:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

user talk page policy

Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you can create an archive and move the comments there.

Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose.

I recognize that vandalism warnings need to stay if they are valid. If you look at my edits in the past, you will see that I have operated in good faith and developed a few articles. Given that this is the case, why not go directly to on the claim of vandalism. I think I will be vindicated. ER MD 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a warning for incivility. This was a warning for personal attacks. This was for personal attacks. This was a warning for personal attacks. This was for user attacks. This and this were for userpage vandalism. This was a friendly reminder for blanking pages. Don't play dumb. You know what you've been doing and you are not allowed to remove messages. --69.145.123.171 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The first link was in reference to a guy who was eventually banned. see user nrcprm2026. James kept on adding crap and then proposed a debate to prove his point based on statistics. I simply argued that the point was never proven (that the U.S. has executed an innocent person). He wanted to prove it using statistics. Read the link that you provided. Obviously, you can't prove anything using statistics since each idividual case can be looked at. Statistics are only good when using large numbers and to give gross approximations. He was an not to smart since his POV edits eventually got him banned. the 2nd to 6th links that you mention deals with the same issue since he perpetually wanted to debate on my talk page... Go read his edits.. he got into about 5 edit wars. I eventually got pissed off and edited his user page to draw attention to the fact that he was making POV edits. Eventually people took notice and he lost an arbcom on depleted uranium and on capital punishment since he was a POV pusher. I did lose my cool with that case. The only other incident was the criticism sections on conservatism and on american conservatism. Look at each article now... there are balanced criticisms on american conservatism... bu conservatism has a way to go since there philosophy is different for different cultures. Rick norwood has been heavily editing those articles as he is a liberal and is trying to push his ideas. I am not on american liberalism pushing negativism, i am simply making sure that the criticism do not go overboard and reach into a soapbox.Look at eh resolution to "bit'o advice"...its a consensus between norwood and I on the contents and format for the section--indicating that I am willing to have criticsm so long as it is fairly presented. Recently, with reaganomics, I removed a huge section that was original research, had a POV encyclopedic position and had no references. Irish guy got upset and revert--obviously he did not read the section---its POV and unsourced. The main areas of contention with reaganomics is not the growth rate---its the amount of debt that was created (an estimated 2.1 trillion in 2004 dollars if i recall correctly). The section that opposes the "reaganomics" section tries to state that the growth during that period of time did not occur due to fiscal or monetary policy which is simply not true and not an accepted position. If that was the case then gov. policy would never affect the economy. In reality, the shift to monetary policy signaled the death of fiscal policy as a means to affect growth. This is the reason why the fed is so influential in our society. Fiscal policy actually does not differ between conservatives and liberals--they both spend excess. In fact, clinton had one of the lowest rates of deficit spending (an aside)...maybe because of a conservative congress...

Anyways, i never played "dumb" as you claim. I stated in a previous entry that I did have 3 blocks because of the POV of nrcprm2026 (who has since been banned) and a few other disputes about contents. So i called a few people names... big deal... The content that I have written speaks for itself. If Irish guy wants to defend POV and is Striver wants to continue to sanitize islamic issues and put unencylcopedic stuff into articles, I only hope that there are some other people out there with common sense. Because editors who simply do reverts without reading content are not doing any benefit to wikipedia. 162.119.232.101 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And the two warnings I put up were for blanking content. You did it here and then after it was reverted, you did it again a few minutes later . You cannot simply blank content you disagree with. Not in articles and not on your talk page. IrishGuy 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the section and tell me it is not POV. I will laugh if you say it is balanced. 162.119.232.101 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)