Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 24 May 2004

/archive 1 /archive 2

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Leave comments below. I refactor this page as the voices in my head command. Anything written here may be moved to an entirely inappropriate location, summarized in a misleading and self-serving fashion, translated into multiple dead languages, archived where no-one will ever find it again, deleted without explanation, encrypted, or graven in stone tablets and sealed in a vault. Post at your own risk.

I will respond on this page.

racialist

(moved to Talk:Racialist)

Jural

Thank you for your revison on Sean Penn. I think Mr Jural is not yet up to speed on what this project is all about.

]

Et in pulverem reverteris...

Like the skull WITHOUT the bones ;O) Kind of cute ! Keep up the good work! The tyrants will fall by themselves as a side effect :O) - irismeister 23:11, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

That other guy

No, he's not me, I think he just wanted other people to read my rant. - Lord Kenneth 00:46, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

RfC/VeryVerily

Please restore VV's user disputes page on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. More than two users have certified it (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/VeryVerily/Page status disputed. Hanpuk and I favor keeping it up due to the ongoing disputes between Hanpuk and VV over the Cambodia-related articles. (Please see my comments on the talk page. 172 13:47, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. However, I still think that policy allows us to maintain the listing of the VV page. Milton also posted some comments on the status disputed page. There are also other users posting comments on the original Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/VeryVerily page. In all honesty, though, the policy isn't my principal concern in and of itself. I simply don't like the idea of continuing to list Hanpuk's user conduct dispute page while there's no listing of VV's page. We're presenting only one side of the story as of now. 172 14:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, VeryVerily made the claim that two users had not certified the dispute against him on the Request for comments page. Two users have certified the dispute however, me and HectorRodriguez. Hanpuk 15:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RfA triplication

Sorry about jumping in on you there. You must have posted the triplication notice between the time I actually viewed the page and when I started editing it. I restored Plato's vote on AndyL, which is the only one I could find that was lost in my edits. Feel free to double-check my work. --Michael Snow 22:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see you again so soon

Sort of. Your intervention to try and cool down Saddam Hussein is much appreciated. I've started a quickpoll for VeryVerily and 172 based on their reverts. You probably shouldn't vote, since you become an involved party by intervening, but any comments are welcome. --Michael Snow 22:56, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allegation article

Hi there, I saw you contributed to Talk:Michael Moore and US foreign policy, what is your take on Oil for Food Allegations? Get-back-world-respect 03:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a haphazard collection of complaints about the oil-for-food program, which seems to be little more than a playground for the local right-wingers. However I mostly stay away from articles on modern politics (it's not my forte), so I'd rather not get involved; best course I can think of is to summarize it and fold it into Oil for food, as is done with most of these Criticisms of . . . articles. —No-One Jones 03:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I cannot count on you declaring this in the vote as well? Get-back-world-respect 04:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for you help to find a consensus in the vote for deletion of "oil for food allegations". The article was merged with oil for food, but there are serious problems now, mainly because two users have extreme disagreements and no one else helped. Bcorr now suggested a peace-plan, and I thought you might be willing to help again? By the way, if you are interested in a project about learning, especially vocabulary, please check my page and let me know what you think. Get-back-world-respect 19:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Crown of Thorns

Edit conflict! Did I get your recents edits all into the version. I was doing major editing. Say, I'm just gonna steal that skull still life for Skull (mythology)! Wetman 04:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matter of Paul Vogel

The matter of Paul Vogel has been accepted for arbitration. Please present your request for relief at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel. Also present any evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel/Evidence. Fred Bauder 01:30, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Montreal street names

moved to Talk:Montreal, Quebec

Question

Ugen is adding comments under other people's votes on RFC..is he allowed to do that? If not please remove them. GrazingshipIV 16:59, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

You can ask for them all you want he does not have evidence of a NPOV violation, and even if he managed to scrape up one, there is no way it could be considered the way I normally operate. GrazingshipIV 21:03, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oh no no no- he takes away one of the disputes he takes away ALL of the disputes I'm not playing this tit for tat bullshit. If he wants to remove any dispute he has to remove ALL disputes too many people have voted and commented. GrazingshipIV 00:15, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to play this technical game then I think the page should be deleted due to inability to certify. GrazingshipIV 00:17, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I'm glad that you find me constructive, but I can't say the feeling is quite mutual at the moment. I'm not sure whet gotten under your bonnet, but your refactoring (removing my endorsement of Danny for example? How rude!) of the page has not been done w any sort of demeanor nor implementation common to other RfC pages. While you may have been right about the arrangement of the page, and I do appreciate your efforts there, I would ask you to take a step back from this situation. A number of your actions and statements have been in my eyes counterproductive, and I haven’t noticed your involvement in any of these particulars prior, demonstrating a lack of obvious rationale for your aggression and intensity. If you have some separate complaint against me, bring it up with me elsewhere. I have known you to be particularly compromising and competent in the past, and would ask that you re-evaluate the particulars here and now. Sam Spade 17:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I was just commenting on RickK's summary. 172 17:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

RfC redux

The RFC page has not been properly certified. Also Spade is changing his disputes I wonder whether or not this is allowed? Eitherway please take the page down as time has expired. GrazingshipIV 00:30, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is not charge 3 (the new charge) illegitimate concerning the rules of RFC that is must be single dispute...and how can he now ask for a comment that he was not invovled in (temp banning)? GrazingshipIV 00:45, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

This is true; if he has added new charges (perhaps something you did while still new, something that has little bearing on the current dispute) then he has to show evidence that he tried to resolve them. I'll make sure he does. —No-One Jones 00:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually I resolved the conflict through mediation with Kingturtle-over 2 months ago. It was about an edit war between me and anthony, he had NO involvement.GrazingshipIV 00:53, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have asked him about it; see the talk page. —No-One Jones 01:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

ok I reverted my response due to the votes so it's the statement that was there for the voting-but its hard to not keep responding when NEW charges keep coming. GrazingshipIV 01:15, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Kingturtle has vouched for me, I think Spade's charge is pretty much patent non-sense at this point. GrazingshipIV 02:04, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Ugen64 as not intervened in any one point of dispute from Spade, particularly in the NEW point of dispute spade has included-his certification according to the rules of RFC is illegitimate. GrazingshipIV 19:33, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Grazingship's assessment here - Ugen64 is not qualified to certify the RfC, having not attempted to resolve the matter with him. Snowspinner 19:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

He did intervene in the dispute over Grazingship's talk page (whether that intervention was at all effective is beside the point) so he can certify that part of the dispute.

I disagree. Commenting and intervening are two different things - the use of the word intervene implies an attempt to resolve, discuss, compromise, etc. Snowspinner 19:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

He asked Grazingship to "leave the heck alone", which was an attempt at resolution, albeit not very helpful—but I think anyone who wants to comment can figure that out for themselves. With that RfC on such shaky ground already, I doubt that it matters one way or another. —No-One Jones 19:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As to Sam's new disputes, they are already under close scrutiny; I wouldn't be surprised if he withdraws them very soon, as he did with the allegation of NPOV violations. —No-One Jones 19:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I've noted why Ugen cannot possibly certify the page. Mirv, have you considered the policy you are allowing with that...so he throw a baseless charge out there and when everyone realizes it's nonsense he can just withdraw it. Take this page down it is illegitimate. GrazingshipIV 00:48, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Read my new addition to the talk page, please. —No-One Jones 01:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Trolling

moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

Lst27

A general note to people who may be wondering whether this user is in fact Alex Plank. You may observe that Lst27's decision to remove his self-nomination for adminship, after it had received considerable opposition, is entirely consistent with Alex Plank's behavior when nominating himself in the past. --Michael Snow 21:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/172

I'm really surprised that you would endorse a summary that says Censuring someone who actually knows the material because some ignorant fuck who has never read a book in his life doesnt approve of it and wants to post his own ill-informed opinion will be the death of Misplaced Pages. Abusive language is always inappropriate. RickK 02:17, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the language is inappropriate; however, the idea behind it was and is correct. —No-One Jones 19:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)