Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 16 April 2005

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4

America West

While I agree that America West's experience with drunk pilots is apropriate material for Air safety, it is also a notable (for PR reasons) event which is pertinent to any article about America West Airlines. If you strongly believe the paragraph should remain removed from the article, would you perhaps consider a link from America West to the pertinent Air Safety section? --ABQCat 05:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buckshot, Inc.

It's a joke dude. Buckshot, Inc. does not exist, as far as I know. I may not be Linus Torvalds, but I ain't Bill Gates, either--read my user page--I'm a starving artist, and it's just too much fun winding y'all up-- :)

Winding people up is only part of my purpose--my purpose in winding people up is to simply have fun--when I say "you" I mean people who take what I say seriously--it's all just fun and games. If you read my contributions you will see how much I value Misplaced Pages--I'm no slouch, which is why I call myself a(n) (un)serious writer--get it? eh, eh?

and the thing you call a "mess" is something someone else might call "funny." not me, you understand, but someone with a sense of humor.

My mistake, friend, I thought humor was a serious pursuit, but apparently not--does this mean Misplaced Pages is not a serious pursuit? Encyclopedias are a joke, right? Isn't that the point of this site? To lampoon the idea of the encyclopedia by ratcheting up/down the seriousness of it?

Feel free, my friend, but be prepared for a fight--the vandalism policy clearly states that deleting large chunks of text with no explanation constitutes vandalism--so it makes no sense whatsoever for you to delete my Buckshot, Inc. on the basis of vandalism--in fact, unless you have a valid explanation for why you continue to vandalize my articles, I will notify one of the other admins and have you blocked, my friend.

Do we understand each other? I am this close to emailing another admin, my friend. You had better leave me a message. Being an admin does not give you the right to make empty threats, and I demand an apology.

Hey (wo)man, don't feel bad. It's all in good fun, now--it's all about blurring distinctions. As Derrida said, only you can prevent narcissism.

Oliver North

An old friend of yours, Tnuctnurgemetib, is back under the name Ger6 (talk · contributions) (after a brief incarnation as Winston88 (talk · contributions)). He's making exactly the same edits, and has reverted my defences four time in about an hour. I can't do any more; I've done my best, but even my unrelated edits (correcting and adding internal links, etc.) have been reverted wholesale. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oliver North

An old friend of yours, Tnuctnurgemetib, is back under the name Ger6 (talk · contributions) (after a brief incarnation as Winston88 (talk · contributions)). He's making exactly the same edits, and has reverted my defences four time in about an hour. I can't do any more; I've done my best, but even my unrelated edits (correcting and adding internal links, etc.) have been reverted wholesale. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HM Fort Roughs

May I bow to you and ask you to perform same? It might be helpful in order to avoid more controversy after attempting to defuse the same. MPLX/MH 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I am attempting to do is to remove all controversy concerning micronation status and just deal with the plain history of this installation. I noticed that since objections have ceased the fantasy has taken over the other article which contains a lot of non-factual details (such as the installation being abandoned after WWII and Bates being the first to occupy it. There were other squatters there before him and he threw them off.) My intention is to stay in the world of the United Kingdom and real law on this article, which is why I offered to defend any specific statements (or, if I cannot support them, I will gladly remove them.) I just don't want to get into time-wasting nonsense which is why I asked you to perform the task you suggested, in order that whatever is written - I didn't write it! I just trust to your wisdom and common sense to try to keep this article on the straight and narrow path of documentation. MPLX/MH 05:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you reverting AIDS?

Why are you reverting AIDS to remove all references to recent treatment guidleines? Why do you object to prevention being moved up the page? Why do you want to retain all the paragraphs that are repeated twice in this article? Sci guy 02:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have reverted agian! The Catholic Church does not advocote abstinence, that edit was incorrect. You say the CDC definition is badly written and I agree, but this is the current definition of AIDS, which is very carefully worded to avoid confusion. Sci guy 03:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's better than your POV family values nonsense. The Catholic Church recommends abstinence outside of marriage and lifelong monogamy. Did you even read the link you added? Rhobite 03:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It was you who introduced the Catholic Church - I was just correcting your factual errors Sci guy 14:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want so much Safe sex info? There is an article to link to. Why duplicate? The Safe sex article is exclusively about AIDS Sci guy 14:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey MacDonald

Hi, Rhobite. I've just done my 3rd revert to this article. The anon keeps adding very POV material, and refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. I've posted two messages to their own talk page, and there has been no response. I'm done editing for the day, but I thought you might want to take a look at Jeffrey MacDonald and weigh in as an admin. Thanks, func(talk) 17:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this article, Rhobite. :) I don't edit Misplaced Pages as much as I use to, and I'm afraid I was beginning to lose my cool with this one editor, (which wasn't really appropriate of me to do). Thanks. func(talk) 16:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think there are still some POV issues but it's great that the other editor has been open to compromise. They agreed to remove the most glaring instances of POV I saw. I hope you guys come to an agreement. Rhobite 17:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Taxation in the United States

Your revert of the anon edit by 142.154.128.42 seems to me to have removed a rather cogent analysis of why the U.S. tax code gets increasingly complex over time (especially following tax code "simplification"). I am curious as to your motivation for revert vs. edit. Perhaps some portion of this should be returned? Best wishes, Leonard G. 20:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take another look at my revert - the anonymous user added nothing to the article, all they did was put in some random boldface and remove the list of taxes. Rhobite 20:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

My error, I should have read further down the comparison text. Leonard G. 18:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SamuraiClinton

Howdy. Feel free to edit my list of SC's contributions. I still can't figure out if SC is simply a severely misguided good-faith contributor or an extremely subtle troll. Regardless, I think an RfC is necessary, and have started a draft here. (Lucky 6.9 and Binadot both have expressed their support, as they have tried and failed to get through to SC.) The hardest part has been figuring out what policies have been explicitly violated – I'm still a relative newcomer, so I'm not all that knowledgable. Feel free to edit that page as well. At the very least, we'll be able to hash out some new policy for dealing with these types of contributors. Thanks. android↔talk 21:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. He's gone from idiosyncratic articles and edits to outright policy circumvention, and I think the time to act is now. I'm going to finish up the RfC tonight and hopefully post it at around 04:00 UTC. Feel free to make or suggest changes at any time. android↔talk 00:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC is live. android↔talk 02:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes

• I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Misplaced Pages policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Misplaced Pages provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

B1link injunction

(Thanks, btw, for talking the effort to do this). Can I suggest you amend your proposed injunction to explicitly prevent him from editing, correcting, refactoring or otherwise changing others comments on the RFC and Arb pages. His habit is to perform massive number of edits to everything, making it really hard to figure out what he's changed. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's probably the best approach. Thanks for the idea. Rhobite 17:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photography External links

Hi Rhobite,

So would you care to revert the PhotoPoints guy. I'm more or less at the 3RR over this one. I've left them a standard spam note at User talk:24.8.190.44, but it could use some extra input. -- Solipsist 21:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Rhobite. I'm now trying to pluck up the enthusiasm to tackle the external links on London after removing one particuarly dismal example last night. -- Solipsist 20:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I meant to delete out your name - you have responded - and to the guy who is making the accusations too Symes 00:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Rhobite/Speech of thanks

Were you aware of the existence of this bit of silliness? I was about to delete it, but then thought that you might be keeping it for a reason. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User talk:John Kerry Article Reverts

You and I apparently have vast misunderstandings. I thought it prudent to confront my accuser and seeing that you are from Massachussetts has not taken anything away from my belief that you are very biased toward Mr. Kerry. Let me set some things straight with you. First, I am not a republican but actually an independent who considers himself a mildly conservative. Second, I have never vandalized any Misplaced Pages article. The Bush article i edited was to take out a line from the main paragraph that stated that Bush enjoyed gay pron in his free time. I have tried to find this edit several times and post a link to prove it, but it seems that some of the editors here got to it before i could and removed that edit. I am not against knowledge and would therefore not remove anything that was infomative. It does appear to me that you are against knowledge, however, because you insist upon removing a quote. Now, you may believe that i somehow edited the quote to make Mr. Kerry look bad but i don't believe so. If that is the main point of your argument then i propose we insert the full quote, but i can guarantee you that your side will not gain any support as the full quote does not make Mr. Kerry look any better. Since the topic of the edit was war crimes, i inserted the parts of the quote pertinant to war crimes. Third, you may be a software developer but your facts are unfortunately very flawed. I have never tried to overload the wikipedia server. I did create a very large article in the SANDBOX but i was told BY YOU that is where i should do test edits. So please stop trying to gain support for your failing position by making outrageous claims about me.

I commend you on being able to locate some proxy servers i use, but it seems to me that you aren't all that skilled at actually finding where people are from. To make it easier for you, and because i know i am not at fault on anything, I am from Missoula, Montana. If you have some google time on your hands, you can probably even find out where my real school is. Bravo.

This quote issue is a problem for the validity of Misplaced Pages. The fact that editors like you are against the insertion of the quote and would rather have a small part of the quote followed by SOMEONE'S interpretation is a little POV, isn't it? I know i am not the only one to notice this. Other registered members have said the exact same thing. If you think i am putting the quote in in a biased way, lets just insert the entire quote. This was an important enough quote to the future of John Kerry in the run-up to the 2004 election that it should be included. People should know everything they can, shouldn't they? Don't you believe this community is pro-knowledge? This article is probably going to stay locked forever because i am adament on seeing that quote in the article. When it is unlocked, the quote will be put in. I also know quote a bit about software and i can easily create a program that will continuously insert the quote if deleted. I don't think that's the right way to go about this. This is a case where you want to limit information and i want to provide it. Don't turn this into some ugly partisan war. I don't know of any other users besides yourself who are actually AGAINST the quote.

Have a nice day.

-The John Kerry Editor