Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 26 September 2007

Useful templates

use

• {{unsigned2|00:00, 00 Jan 0000|00.00.00.00}}

when you want to provide a template for someone else to fill in.

The template

• {{unsigned2|6:17, 18 Jun 2005| Jpgordon}}

gives

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpgordon (talk • contribs) 6:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

documentation:

source: <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{1}}} (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><noinclude>]</noinclude>>

• Verification: {{fact}} | {{check}} | {{or}} | | {{what}} | {{specify}} | {{verify credibility}} | {{cite}}
• Templates: {{t1}} | {{tu}} | {{tli}}
• Misc: {{cquote}} | Template messages | User talk messages | Welcome messages

References

I added an example to the talk on Stossel's page and Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Morphh 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

+

Welcome!

Hello, Andyvphil, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: You're right that I need to archive the talk page. But you can always add a new comment by using the "+" button on the top of the webpage, and then use the "edit" button by the header to edit just the one section. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

There may be some value to placing a category on one of the "Discover the Networks" redirects, but not all four. Likewise there's no reason to add a category to "Front Page Magazine" when we already have one on "FrontPageMag.com".

Separately, this talk page has some categories that only belong on articles. Please de-activate them. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

further discussed at Beback Andyvphil 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

example of inerting Categories when on inappropriate page

User:Hipocrite and their abuse of the AfD process

Hey, they admits that they are editing through POV tinted goggles here. Cheers. L0b0t 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting reading for you here. People don't agree with me, so they must be stalkers. LOL. L0b0t 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started RFCs on some of the articles that Hipocrite likes to censor. If you feel up to it, please join in.

• Talk:Paul Booth (SDS activist)
• Talk:Lynne_Stewart_Trial#Request_for_Comment:_Validity_of_sources
• Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Request_for_Comment:_Validity_of_sources
• Cheers. L0b0t 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Request

This is my final request that you stop labeling good faith edits as vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not my final request that you establish the good faith of your deletions, if you can, by responding to the questions I and others have put to you with something other than obstinate repetition of your assertions. Start with this question: Why did you nominate the David Horowitz Freedom Center article for deletion (on the grounds that it is a "Non notable organization - has no sources outside itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)") and have not nominated the Political Research Associates article on the same grounds? If there is some explanation other than your POV, please supply it. Barring an answer you will continue to have exhausted the assumption of good faith, and I will continue to revert your apparent POV vandalism wherever I find it. Andyvphil 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

POV warring is not vandalism. Please do not label it as such. I dispute that I am pushing my POV, but, even if I were, it would not be vandalism. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

POV warring, per se, is not vandalism. But you are apparently choosing vandalism as your weapon of choice for POV warring. Answer the question. Andyvphil 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite is cross with me

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/L0b0t, cheers. L0b0t 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Bad Faith

It is a violation of policy for you to assume bad faith with respect to my changes. If you believe I am out to harm the encyclopedia, I reccomend you file an arbitration case (WP:RFAr) or request a community ban (WP:ANI). In the absence of such, I must insist that you at the very least, make no assumption, and at best assume that a contributor, that, unlike you, has edits to articles that have nothing to do with politics that date back more than three months, is operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you have it wrong. WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy, and it allows for the "occasional exception" (that's you). Answer the question. Andyvphil 15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Berlet

Andy, you're in violation of BLP by restoring an unknown source from a dodgy website. Please read WP:BLP. SlimVirgin 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Killian

How exactly does 'because of his responsibilities with the' invent or assume any knowledge? It says the same thing as 'he had a campaign to do', except in a readable way. Having a campaign to do certainly entails 'responsibilities'. Color me boggled. Arkon 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The "assumed prior knowledge" was about the identity of "Blount". If it reads better, don't name him, just don't have an unidentifed "Blount" appear. "Having a campaign to do" does not necessarily imply "responsibilities", merely the opportunity to work on a campaign. The word has a semantic load which is not justified by the cite. Let me make my POV clear: Bush wasn't needed in the Guard and it's OK with me that he got on with his career. But his "responsibilities" are an invention of the editor who write the line. Andyvphil 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Blount is constant in both of our edits, and I could honestly care less if the campaign itself is identified. My confusion is in your distinction between having a campaign to do, and having responsibilities to that campaign. If I have a job to do, I have responsibilities to do that job. If you really wish to bunker down with this distinction, you are welcome to it. That article is hardly watched and we would just 3rr ourselves into oblivion if I pushed. Arkon 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any interest in restarting the Killian discussion/debate/whatever? The past few weeks have not been without intrigue, but I kind of want to get back to my original purpose in venturing into wiki land. -BC aka Callmebc 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

312 Kilobytes and growing

How do you feel about archiving Talk:Killian documents sometime soon?

Related:

• Please don't let Callmebc get to you. (He once said he is "just a troll after all".)
• He's been writing emails to Charles Johnson.)

Best wishes, CWC 15:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do a partial archive whenever the size justifies it. My skin is pretty thick when it comes to the opinions of someone whose opinions I don't respect, so BC isn't getting to me. But I'm not overly polite either, and I thought the "aka s**t-for-brains" response was past due. That said, before Misplaced Pages I had the impression that the memos used kerning and other context-sensitive character placement that required a computer to execute, so I've found the back-and-forth useful to correct my impressions. My command of the material is insufficient to make many substantial contributions to this subject in mainspace, but I can certainly contribute to keeping an eye on what BC, or the uninformed, put there... I see I was quoted with approval in the LGF thread. Would post there to address the complaints about WP and clear up some of the misinformation, but CJ's not accepting registrations...maybe I'll email him. Andyvphil 21:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

It has been pointed out to me that you have violated Misplaced Pages policies on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, especially with this edit . Please refrain from posting any more personal attacks. Doing so could cause you to be blocked. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, "Andyvphil," I'm off my block (so to speak), and I just wanted you to know that "Alabamaboy" issued that reprimand without my consent. I had made this complaint to "Jehochman" in My Talk page: Lastly, how is it that others are free to insult me (including calling me "shit for brains"), to demonstrably misrepresent and outright lie about things I posted, to threaten me with "Loss of Privacy", to make hostile edits and redactions, and to basically attack and be uncivil to me as all heck and not be called on it? Is there a secret handshake I'm missing or such?

Of course that was not responded to (Misplaced Pages seems to have an awful lot of people who only make statements and never answer), and only the naughty word got anybody's attention, but I defended you with a later comment that went at least he, alone of all the right wingers and despite numerous insults on his part, actually was genuinely curious about my links regarding the true state of 70's office tech and showing issues with the forgery claims. All the others have insulted me pretty regularly -- their only difference is that they've so far avoided using naughty words, and have shown no interest or curiousity whatsoever about anything not supportive of the forgery charges.

And it's true -- the others were sniping maliciously out of what appears now to have been a political agenda (connections to LGF at least) and had no desire whatsoever to discuss anything -- just block & suppress. Although things got acrimonious between us, you were indeed the only one actually curious and actually "discussing" things in some manner.

I wasn't entirely idle during my block, so some stuff is already happening, but I made it quite clear that you were likely the only straight shooter of the bunch (not that you ever quite hit your target...) FYI. Callmebc 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Unfounded, bizarre accusations like this will be considered as personal attacks and will be removed. Please refrain from attacking the author rather than discussing content. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to discuss JOG's behavior with him have been deleted from his user talk. I now think that it is reasonable to begin a request for arbitration and I am interested to know if you wish to participate. I believe that there is sufficient evidence and precedence () for action to be taken. I plan to request that he be blocked from editing pet food recall-related articles and that his administrator privileges be reviewed. Let me know if you are interested in helping. Jfwambaugh 14:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

restored 1

(3) -- well, the current version isn't a bad compromise; having only just gotten this alleged "majority view" out of the lead, keeping A&M somewhere near the top isn't bad. I don't feel this is criticism per se. I don't like the idea of leading off with a quote farm -- sooner or later someone will want to alphabetize them and then find a white supremacist baby killer named "Aaron Aarvark" etc. and it'll just get messy. (2) eh... there's been edit warring over this before -- does a rebuttable to Tutu belong immmediately after Tutu or in the criticism section? -- I do prefer the latter but you'll just have to fight your own battle here. -- Kendrick7 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comment about criticism section on talk page.--Urthogie 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraphs of A&M that were sent to the bottom of the article in Other Views was everything following the first paragraph there, which any number of pro-Israeli editors didn't like. I have no idea why. I restored it in part or in whole several times. -- Kendrick7 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected page

There's a bot that does that, as far as I know. Regardless, the issues don't seem to have been worked on on the Talk: page; a specific individual seems to edit Misplaced Pages solely for the purpose of edit-warring on this and 3 other articles. He doesn't appear to like to use the Talk: pages, but he regularly agitates to have pages unprotected so that he can start edit-warring again. As a result, I don't think the parties are ready for unprotection. Jayjg 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

straw poll

Hey Andy. Please share your thoughts at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll. Thanks, --Urthogie 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

frontpagemag

Is there a chance the problem is somewhere on your end? http://www.frontpagemag.com/ works fine from my connection. -Will Beback · † · 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes procrastination is a good thing when writing an encyclopedia. I often find that that if I wait long enough to add a fact it either gets added by someone else or turns out to be wrong. Either way my work is done for me. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 07:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Arab sources for apartheid accusation

I noticed your comments on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid talk page and thought I might direct you to potential sources at the Hafrada (Separation) page that make that claim. Specifically, there is a Palestinian reverend in Jerusalem named Naim Ateek who heads the ecumenical organization Sabeel, and a former Yale professor, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, who both claim that Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians amount to apartheid. Tiamut 13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I copied above to Allegations of Israeli apartheid talk page. Andyvphil 13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Political Forgery"

I'm still not getting involved with the Killian page (aside from reverting what Deaniack vandal did) until some lingering other issues are dealt with, but "Political Forgery" has as much business being there as "Government Hoax" does on the moon landing and you know it. But I'll bring it up on the discussion page like a good doobie when I get back to business. -BC aka Callmebc 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: -BC aka Callmebc 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Stossel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Croctotheface 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

John Stossel

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not insert personal attacks again. You want to discuss it, I will discuss the matter with you here. I have no wish to have an adversarial relationship with you, but you simply can't attack other users and then restore those attacks when they are removed. Barring the restoration of your attacks, I am open to exploring whatever may resolve this issue. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to continue our discussion, that is fine, but linking to your personal attacks are just as inappropriate as restoring them was. Why play these little games? What possible point is there? Attacks are inappropriate and prohibited, period. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

input at Centralized and Israeli allegations Talk

Hi. Liked your comments. Replied to you both at Centralized and AoIA Talk pages. Thanks! Keep up the insightful challenges. HG | Talk 11:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I really appreciate your taking the time to read and edit the synthesis effort. Whatever you can do to improve it would be great, esp since I sense you tend to see both sides of an argument. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. FYI I added a rebuttal to the self-identifying counter-argument you(?) made (about Holocaust vs Final Solution). This back and forth needs to be condensed, but wanted to tell you, with the hope you might help further analyze this and other arguments. Thanks! HG | Talk 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Please do not roll back edits that cite an OTRS ticket without a good reason, and preferably without contacting the editor who made the edit first. OTRS edits often involve privacy issues and should not be reverted without knowing exactly what's going on. (Re: ) Phil Sandifer 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

French apartheid

Andy, calm down. Read the first paragraph of the article "Allegations of French apartheid draw analogies between France and apartheid-era South Africa." France and South Africa, not France and French Algeria and South Africa. In any case, the discussion on merging the article with Social situation in the French suburbs has been closed by a neutral admin with a finding of consensus to merge. Lothar of the Hill People 02:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See Allegations_of_apartheid#French_Algeria. Lothar of the Hill People 03:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Algerians disagreed with that assessment:) Anyway, I've done a preliminary merge into Social situation in the French suburbs. Please feel to go over it and tweak it as needed. Lothar of the Hill People 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Blog

Why did you restore a blog as a source for a WP:BLP? Misplaced Pages's policy on BLPs says:

• Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

Is there an extenuating circumstance that justifies breaking a policy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither cite sufficiently supported the long-present statement in the article and therefor neither was a "source" for controversial innformation. The overlawyered.com item did, however, point to an actual RS (The New Republic) which could be consulted, and removing that clue while leaving the unsupported text was unhelpful(as my edit comment indicated). I didn't then have time or inclination to run down the truth of this matter but have now done so ] with the aid of the removed cite. As I suspected, the problem was with Misplaced Pages, not overlawyered.com, which appears to be far more reliable. Andyvphil 08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seam Zone source may be useful

Hi Andyvphil. I though I would pass on this from the Seam Zone article:

In a petition to Israel's Supreme Court challenging the legality of the separation barrier and the seam zone under international law, the Israeli non-governmental organization HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual stated that,

It might prove useful to the section on Israel on the crime of apartheid at the Israeli apartheid article. Tiamat 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm soon going to be off on vacation for three weeks with no internet access, so I'm not going to have time to look at this until I get back. And I am in any case looking for examples where violation of the UN/ICC definition is clearly referred to. But, thanks. Andyvphil 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. HermesBot 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery