Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John254 (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 11 September 2006 (adding comments to archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions with User:John254. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

OK

OK, you're probably right, so I deleted it. Yeah on consideration I guess it would be too encouraging to him to let any material by him stay. Herostratus 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RPG Maker

Just wanted to let you know I didnt add that POV statement in RPG Maker. I had reverted to remove it, but I didnt revert far enough back. You would have realized this if you viewed the history. its the vandalism that I stated I was attempting to remove in that edit.

DrChatterjee

Thanks for notifying me about the checkuser case. However, I don't think that diminishes the arguments, and in a sense, I think it actually strengthens them. —ptk✰fgs 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in engaging in speculation as to the user's intentions in placing CVU on MfD. As I said before, I do think that the arguments he has made are persuasive. That persuasion has not relied on any credibility I attributed to the user. I think it is clear that CVU with its present name, style, and branding is acting as a vandal magnet and inflicting significant collateral damage. The claims that it provides an important resource over and above VAND and CUV have not persuaded me. I doubt I will have anything further to add to the MfD discussion. —ptk✰fgs 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverting banned edits

The problem with this is that it totally guts conversations. In effect, it is somewhat like deleting the whole conversation, including comments by users who were not banned; they are responding to no one. Banning policy says that edits may be reverted, not that they must be. —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to remove these edits without discussing this totally reasonable objection to it? The reason I reverted your removals is because it is often difficult to do a proper revert after subsequent edits have been made to this page (in retrospect, this would not have been necessary for the closed MfD). Do not continue to make edits for which there is an objection and no established consensus in favor. I know Misplaced Pages:Banning policy quite well and it is nonsensical, and frankly uncivil, of you to imply that I am editing at the direction of a banned user as a proxy, when I am simply reverting edits for the reason I have given above. Do not continue to remove these comments without further discussion. Do not make wild accusations. —Centrx→talk • 04:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

n.b. To quote from Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing.

Since User:Dr Chatterjee's policy-related comments were made in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages by weakening its defenses against vandalism, removing them is not only consistent with policy, it's the right thing to do. John254 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put an archived debate notices where appropriate and archived the CVU talk page, which should alleviate the concerns you had of people continuing to debate dead issues, and also archives several others of the comments that were intermingled throughout the page which had never been removed. I also removed various freestanding sections initiated by the sock that had no substantial comments by other users. You are of course free to remove such free standing comments that aren't associated with any other user's comments, but generally it is not a productive use of time. —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues with Category:Articles with unsourced statements

How dare you close a debate prematurely and deprive me of my right to vote? Category:Articles with unsourced statements was deleted by a large majority, but a clique restored it. You obviuosly think that people who disagree with you have less right to an opinion than you have yourself. Casper Claiborne 11:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

n.b. Please my posting to the administrator's noticeboard about this issue. John254 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:John254. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.