Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred J (talk | contribs) at 09:50, 21 December 2006 (Sly Traveler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Removal of talk page warnings

Again, please do not remove warnings from your talk page, it forms part of your edit history. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Im new to Misplaced Pages, and I thought it was my personal page to do with as I please. I've seen other editors edit their own page... I'll have to ask my advocate about this.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I'll take the nasty looking policeman off at least.

Note for user pages (not talk pages) WP:UP#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space

Suggested reading Misplaced Pages:Sign your posts on talk pages and Help:Talk page and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines

Unfortunately, there is no clear cut policy about what may be removed from talk pages. A couple of ideas. Don't remove or alter dialogues in progress, since if you make a post and someone replies to it, but in the meantime you have changed the original postm then everyone gets confused. Other than warnings, it's probably ok to remove dialogues that are no longer current. It's ok to move everything to an Archive page periodically, I would suggest to start with to keep everything for 30 days, and then archive. See Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page --ArmadilloFromHell 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, Armdilo. I apprecation your help with the useful links. I'll just leave your message up here for a month or so. Also I appericate you removing that funny looking cop picture ;-)

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing material from ones talk page

It is recommended not to remove warning messages from talk pages. The idea is that the talk page is to function as testimonal of problematic user actions, so that administrators can see whether a user is performing the same disruptive stuff over and over. I would therefore recommend to be cautious when removing any negative messages.

Fred-Chess 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RfArb Attempt

I reverted your attempt to list a case on WP:RFArb because it didn't follow the instructions and broke existing code such as the template. Please be more careful with doing this on important pages such as this one. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I will. Sorry about that. I understand that it is a very important page.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:KyndFellow -- Mr. Knodel

There is no such user, you are not allowed to start your userpage there. Use your own userpage at User:KyndFellow, please, then tag User:KyndFellow -- Mr. Knodel for speedy deletion by using {{db|Created mistakenly}} or similar. – Chacor 03:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you want me to change "User: KyndFellow -- Mr. Knodel" to "User: KyndFellow" on the arbitration page? I'll do that. But not exactly sure what you are asking. I'm new at this.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocate

Fred-Chess 09:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. My apoligize that I don't have the time to look through the entire discussion right now.

Yet I want to give you this advice .

As your advocate, I would say that it wouldn't give much to go to arbitration, they are to be used as a last resort. I suggest you first start a WP:RFC, either on the page or on the user in question. If you find the instructions complicated, contact me again and I'll help you.

May you could also try Misplaced Pages:Mediation?

Fred-Chess 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added were inappropriate, as Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! Addhoc 10:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am looking into the matter as we speak.

Fred-Chess 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your message.

It took me a while to formulate the message on the talk page of Sex tourism. I hope it is accurate.

Fred-Chess 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocating

Hi. I wanted to await the results of Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover before I start with arbitration. Since you apparently have already posted for arbitration, I'll take a look.

Fred-Chess 10:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. I saw your comment on the request for arbitration. Do you know how long the puppet review takes?

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration specifications formatting

I hope I didn't overstep my bounds here, but I changed the small-text RfA statement link from my statement to yours, which I presume was the your original intent. I also (and this may have been going too far) copied some of my formatting to your Arbitration spec, and introduced sub-headings, which should make both editing and referencing much easier.

Lemme know if I assumed too much. No bad intents here. — edgarde 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that is quite alright. Thanks. I think that will be helpful for reviewers. I appericate it.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My reply

I will make a statement on the Arb-case later today.

Fred-Chess 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done!

Fred-Chess 16:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about assuming that you used a sockpuppet. I just couldn't imagine anything else, but I see now that it is very possible that it could have been your brother. I corrected my comment, and also removed yours (they don't like nested threads).

I also want to suggest that you change your signature to point to your username. This can be done easily by clicking "my preferences" above, and in the "Signature" field you write "Daniel E. Knodel, M.A." . Make sure that the checkbox called "raw" is unchecked.

Regards, Fred-Chess 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the tip.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page

Sorry for the mix-up earlier. — edgarde 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

KyndFellow: Some of your recent edits don't link proper diffs, but whole page archives , which will make it hard for the Arbs to discern your evidence — you might want to go back and fix those.

Overall your presentation and formatting is good, but without good diffs yr case will be hurt. — edgarde 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy arbitration

Hi. I just read your post on my talk page dated December 11 and I'll attend it shortly, hopefully later today.

Sorry I hadn't noticed it earlier. When you add further comments to my talk page, please add it at the bottom of the page, to minimize the risk of me missing it.

Fred-Chess 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that. Thanks, Fred.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing my comments.

My indentation in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sex_tourism/Workshop is deliberate and logical.

In your 2) Further edits should respect our Arbitration Specification content until receiving third-party feedback proposal:

• The above, further-indented comment is a nested reply to your comment about Devalover.
• The lower, twice-indented comment is a reply to your proposal. When you change the indentation for this comment, you change its meaning.

I trust this is not deliberate, and is because you are new on Misplaced Pages, and so forth. I'm sure you can figure out how to arrange your replies without editing mine. — edgarde 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have to admit it is getting a little confusing with all the intends on there :-) Ok, your welcome to organize you edits on there how you like, and I'll try to not change the intends again. I just posted a response to Fred's part about the interim state editor revision. So we should have some relief soon.

Enjoy your holidays.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible problems

Hi. Have you noticed that it is proposed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop that you be banned from editing the article Sex tourism? I realize I should have acted earlier to add evidence in your defence. Anyways, I have added some comments both at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop and at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Evidence on your behalf. You might want to review them. Then we should discuss what strategy to take now. / Fred-Chess 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sly Traveler

I think that above all, you should refrain from adding a the link to Sly Traveler, at least for the time being. As it is established that you have an earlier connection to Sly Traveler, I think that WP:COI applies.

If the website is really usable for readers of the site, you can be certain that a link there will be added by someone else. But if the website isn't necessary, then I do not see why it has to be there -- even if you believe it is helpful.

It is important to show high spirit at this stage. If you can't refrain from readding the link, I think you will by certainty be banned.

Fred-Chess 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)