Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 08:19, 30 September 2004 (weak. All nations conscript as justification for conscription?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add new messages at the bottom.

I reserve the right to post replies on this page instead of your user talk page, although I often don't.

"Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how." — Mary Schmich

Selective general archival on occasion. Long additions subject to early archival.

Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M

Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak

Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.

;-) -- VV 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KR

User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

your thoughts might be usefull over at Talk:Khmer Rouge PMA 22:47, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I didn't even notice until just now, when I checked the history. Meelar 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rigged"

I like your latest wording best. I hope Meelar agrees. Cecropia 01:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VV, I'm in my own little drama right now and I'd rather not step into the middle of another one. Sorry. RickK

lousy English

I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!

If your work on Continuation War wasn't enough (and frankly, that very article is far from ready with respect to factual content and NPOV, imho), or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))

/Tuomas 08:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grammer fix

I don't mind the Grammer fix, as a matter of fact I encourge you to fix my grammer because I have a habit of typing fast. Thanks Comarde Nick

compliments

I wanted to compliment you on your civility, something which should be standard on the wiki, but in practice is rare enough to earn my compliments. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Mediation re

Indo-European

The article says "The Basque language is unusual in that it does not appear to be related to any known languages." Why do you insist in inserting "living"? Basque does not appear to be related to any known languages, period. It is of course true, that if we go back two or three thousand years, there may be languages to which Basque would then seem to be related, but we don't have any remains of such languages and hence "living" is unnecessary, as Basque does not appear to be related to any dead languages either. Vice 21:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See "aquitanian" at . VV 21:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point - I was unaware of that. Perhaps then you should include a short reference to Aquitanian in the sentence? Vice 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see the point. It's just an offhand reference in a list of non-IE languages in Europe, a bit of a tangent. Deeper details belong in the Basque article, which the reader seeking further information can click on. VV 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfA Nonsense

Thank you for the kind words on RfA. I'm not going to dignify the attacks with a response, but I appreciate that you stepped up to speak.

If you're curious: I first became active during the Quickpoll saga. I grew interested in the administrative workings -- but I saw that people tended to vandalize each other's pet articles, so I decided it would be wise to maintain separate accounts for contributing versus talking. The community has affirmed this practice on numerous occasions, so I feel I'm on solid ground -- and I use my real name and valid email for voting and controversial discussions, so I daresay I've got a better claim to legitimacy than certain other users.

As I said, I won't dignify the personal attacks on RfA, because they're irrelevant to the merits of the nomination. But thanks again for stepping to my defense. I noticed it, and I do appreciate it. Cribcage 17:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship nomination

Hi, are you aware that somebody has just put you up as a candidate on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship? I don't know how you feel about this, but I think you probably already know that you wouldn't receive consensus support, and the nomination is not really a good idea. If I knew that you were opposed, I would cancel or remove the nomination myself, but for now that would be premature. Anyway, I really wish people would follow instructions and actually ask permission before nominating people. --Michael Snow 22:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's not irregular at all for nominees to leave nominations up for a while before making up their minds how to respond. All in all, I think you handled the situation very well. My concern is mostly that quite a few people who are in similar positions positively object to being nominated because they know that it will just promote an attack-fest. That's why I consider it important that people at least ask for permission before nominating.

While nominations are sometimes removed by others when consensus support is obviously lacking, on RfA I often find it best to defer to the nominee's wishes. In the past, I've removed at least one nomination on sight because I knew the nominee would object and the discussion would quickly turn ugly. On the more contentious nominations, the bulk of the damage is indeed done fairly quickly by the initial swarm, but even later there will still be more piling on. I can think of at least a few people who I would have expected to add some vehement opposition had things continued. --Michael Snow 16:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my adminship nomination. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

Acting in response to a request from User:Stargoat, I've unprotected Henry Kissinger (after mistakenly editing it myself before seeing the protection, though all I did was add links). Just thought I'd notify those who were active on Talk:Henry Kissinger. Best, ] 16:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. VV 23:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's latest

Neutrality posted a comment to User talk:Rex071404. By this edit, Rex changed it, to make it appear that Neutrality was confessing to "intentionally causing trouble." Neutrality tried to correct it, but Rex reverted and reverted and reverted to keep his falsehood in. When Lyellin mildly remonstrated with Rex over this, Rex responded with this edit, putting harsh words in Lyellin's mouth as well.

I mention all this because you seem to be about the only person on Misplaced Pages who's had any contact with Rex whom he doesn't regard as being out to get him. If you were to drop Rex a note, letting him know that this behavior is completely over the top, perhaps he'd desist. It's obviously not your problem and has no claim on your time, but if you were to invest a couple minutes now, you could conceivably save a lot of other people a lot of time down the road. Thanks for considering it. JamesMLane 18:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might as well not bother. Soon after I left you the above message, Rex indulged himself in this edit, his most vile yet. As a result, the matter is now in RfC: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042.

By the way, I hope this was clear in my intial post, but I didn't raise the matter here because I thought you had anything to do with Rex's misconduct or because I thought you've ever done anything like that. Quite the contrary -- I think that, although your political views seem closer to Rex's than to mine, you have the basic civility that he lacks. I feel sorry for you because sometimes, finding yourself on the same side as Rex, you'll be adversely impacted by the way he makes everyone on that side look unreasonable. It's guilt by association, and completely unfair to responsible conservatives, but as a practical matter, I expect Rex will often have that effect. JamesMLane 21:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)