Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 4 November 2008

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

The current Palestine Collaboration of the Month is • Leaders of Palestinian institutions •

All brainwashed pro-Zionist Americans should read: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Also the WP article about the book. Also numerous works by Jews against Zionism.

George Victor Browning

Hmm good question, i'm not too sure why I removed that part. Possibly because it sounded odd in the context it was being used. I have since reinstated the said sentence so it now reads:

Bishop Browning was born in Brighton, England on September 28 1942. His family were dairy farmers in Sussex. He attended Ardingly College and Lewes County Grammar School, before moving to Australia in 1960.

He initially worked as a jackeroo and stud groom, and then studied at St John's Theological College, Morpeth, where he obtained a Licentiate in Theology with first class honours. He was made deacon in 1966 and ordained priest in 1967.

Appologies. Jamesmh2006 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The bit of info fits better now, the way you've reinstated it. No need to apologize! You've improved the piece. — Writegeist (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hudson Hornet

Thanks for adding the reference in the Hudson Hornet article for the quote that I used to help introduce the section about the car's NASCAR fame. I was not finished working on it, but had to take a break. As you can see, there are many more things that need to be added within this section, as well as to the entire article. Carry on! — CZmarlin (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ford Mustang

Hi, I have noticed you are a contributor to the Ford Mustang article, you might want to read the comment I left on the talk page and let me know if you are interested.--Theoneintraining (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Ford mustang AV8ER, after leaving that message on the ford mustang page I found the Ford Mustang variants article and found there is a segment regarding the AV8ER however there is no picture associated with it (here is the exact part here. I think it would be perfect for that but I do think it would be good on the ford mustang page also. One thing though I have never uploaded a picture to the commons. Can you briefly explain to me how it works? or can I email it to you?--Theoneintraining (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Theoneintraining (incidentally I have a son who, also inspired by The Matrix, adopted Neo's name). I think you might find it interesting to upload the image yourself. After you've done one you you'll know how to do more as and when you want. You'll get all the help you need here: Commons:First steps/Upload form. It's easy once you get into it. Any problems, I'll be happy to help out. Let's keep your email idea in reserve, at least until you've had a go. Is this OK with you? — Writegeist (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course no problems, thanks for the information I will have a read now and let you know when it is up. To be honest I really do want to know the whole uploading image part on here. Considering I have been a Wikipedian for well over a year now it is kind of pathetic that I have not done it before. and oh yeah I love the matrix I hope you have seen those films before.--Theoneintraining (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I done it, it is now in commons here is the link to the picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Ford_mustang_AV8ER.jpg thanks for your help--Theoneintraining (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! And also for your perseverance in getting it into the Mustang Variants article. I hope we'll see more of your contributions here and there on WP now. — Writegeist (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Writegeist.--Theoneintraining (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon

Yeah, he's provokable. Best response is to ignore him.--Loodog (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems this WP article is tailor-made for him. — Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

I replied.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for replying to your reply there before I replied to you here. No discourtesy intended! — Writegeist (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you have defied the consensus. Why didn't you just go ahead and do what you want in the first place, and save all of us the time and trouble of discussing and deciding the matter? I plan to revert tomorrow, if you don't do so sooner.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I rather assumed that you and some others were capable of objective judgement. I'm disappointed that, in the event, you are enforcing a consensus of subjective views about which picture makes a candidate for vice-president look "hot" etc., while disregarding the more weighty rational discussion that opposes them; and also that you trumpet the consensus for no better reason than that it coincides with your own subjective view.

And I'm disappointed that I ever got it into my head that you uphold the core values of WP over the bigotry of personal prejudice. But it takes all sorts. Personally of course I'm pleased with any outcome that does a disservice to the seriously dangerous Palin cause. But when I peer out from under the brim of my WP hat, a lousy-quality photo of the candidate looks to be a poor show so far as serving the best interests of WP readers is concerned. Kind regards, Writegeist (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The "hot" business was humor. I obtained two of the photos in question, and I'm glad you liked one of them. The other will be replaced soon enough, as soon as a better one is available. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This whole storm in a teacup is WP as Monty Python. :~) Writegeist (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for weighing in on the Talk: Sarah Palin issue of retaining the commentary from the AP and CNN about her doing interviews. Dave Collect (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I appreciate the note. Writegeist (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent Yeahbuttal !

Never heard anybody else use that term before. Now I'll have me some hotdish before bed...Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Yeahbuttal" is delicious. (I shall plagiarise it.) Not sure about the hotdish, though. That "binding ingredient" sounds a little scary. Does Dave Collect partake of hotdish too? Does the binding ingredient contribute to the intellectual rigor that you both so conscientiously exercise on the Palin stuff? I find it difficult to maintain cool neutrality. — Writegeist (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on Palin

But the problems continue. Someone has now removed all the anti-bridge content. See talk page.GreekParadise (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What some so-called intellectual's won't do to silence the common man...:>)..I knew it wouldn't fly long at Sarah but I expected longer than 5 Minutes. Sadly, I am confident that the slurs will not stop. It may be their final gasp. I read some articles about Mccain's feelings about Asians after your mention. Interesting! Thanks!--Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor that removed it from Sara has removed it from McCain. Can you visit his talk and give some support (I left him a message). It was only 50 years ago that Obama would have had to give McCain his seat on the bus. Maybe this editor is too young to know that.--Buster7 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain was in the habit of referring to Asians as "gooks" and when he was called on it he back-pedalled, claiming that he meant "only" those who had tortured him. But as it's an epithet for an entire race, i.e. a racist epithet, it doesn't cease to be racist just because it's leveled at a specific group of the race in question. Like so many of his party McCain is a dyed-in-the-(white) wool racist.

Please can you give me a diff for your McCain "I'm gonna whip that uppity n—'s ass" edit that was removed? It's definitely a notable remark. I'll gladly leave a note for the editor who censored it. Writegeist (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, when exactly are you claiming that McCain said that? A search for the term "whip that uppity" yields one blog and three forum posts. You have to mind WP:BLP if you are going to continue editing here. If it was not a quote, then it was an uncivil remark which has no place here to begin with, and its removal was justified as such. »S0CO 02:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You both need to go back and read what I said....I never said that McCain used the term 'uppitty'. I said that that is what some wacko would hear McCain say. My point is this...when Carter said he would "whip his ass" when he was competing with Ted Kennedy, no one thought anything of it. Two white guys gonna duke it out. But, now it is different...Obama is the first American of color to have a serious shot at the White House and the term "whip his you-know-what" takes on a whole new meaning. Actually it rekindles a whole OLD meaning that all your censorship cannot deny. If my comment is not allowed at the McCain talk, the least I can do is move this conversation to the talk.--Buster7 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Buster7, I did not mean to give the impression to you, in my dialogue here with you, that I thought I was quoting you. I elaborated to show I understood the subtext and the context.

I was not directing my above comment at you, Buster7, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. But I should let you both know that I do not appreciate being accused of censorship, and neither do the other editors with whom you have found yourselves in opposition. Writegeist's straw-man misrepresentation of the quote (extrapolating "I'm gonna whip that uppity n____'s ass" from "after I whip his you-know-what") is indicative of the problem you are having: It is the use of such tactics and forceful, uncivil language which is damaging your case.

Writegeist, Thanks for the use of your talk page. My hope is that we can get to November 5th without a calamity.:')--Buster7 (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There, and beyond. »S0CO 05:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

JcSoco, I have removed the schoolmarmish section of your contribution above. (Yup, now you know what it's like to be censored.) It's patronizing, threatening and uncivil. And anyway, you killed Kenny. You're a bastard.

Buster7, you're welcome. Thank you for drawing my attention to McCain's threat. - Writegeist (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, I have made a serious error. Soco is not the editor that censored me. He deserves better treatment. All I can say is ..OOPPSS!!--Buster7 (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And I hold no grudge, so long as we're all willing to work cooperatively. And yes, I did kill Kenny... but then again, who hasn't? :) »S0CO 06:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage, eh? Cheer up, no bones broken! I expect you've apologized to the poor innocent. Anyway who was the censor, and has the edit been restored? If not, it should be. It's relevant to the article. Please give me the diff. Thanks! Writegeist (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an extensive discussion about it right now on the McCain talk. Look it up. »S0CO 06:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Writegeist (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

JcSoco I have removed your schoolmarmification again. I may be wrong about "threatening" and "uncivil" but it's certainly patronizing. I don't want patronizing twaddle (well, except my own) on my talk page. Please don't take it personally. And the fact remains that, despite that cutesy lickle smiley, you're not fooling me for one nanosecond: you're still a Kenny-killing bastard. Writegeist (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I got here late. Who is Kenny?--Buster7 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh Buster7. You do know that when you've lost your innocence there's no getting it back? (And I really like your innocence, so it grieves me to take it away from you.) But anyway, here goes: Kenny keeps getting killed over here. SOCO is the bastard perp--he confessed on his user page. (It only took the threat of five minutes alone with VP candidate Madame Winkalotte discussing the merits of the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace. Fact: Madame W once stepped into her yard in Wasilla and saw Tolstoy's wife shoveling snow in Moscow.)

He also likes girls with big fat titties. I mean Kenny does. I can't speak for SOCO. Anyway, there it is. I'm sorry. Forgive me! I know you will, because you're a good person. Or you were, until you lost your innocence. I guess it's all part of an Intelligent Design. Writegeist (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize for both of us, Buster - you have officially been corrupted. Now there's no going back. :) »S0CO 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

O you evil denizens of the dark ways. I shall never be corrupted. I shall remain pure as the driven......what's that your drinking?--Buster7 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead links don't mean material is uncited

Dead links don't mean material is uncited. A reference to a news source, with an article title and a date, is sufficient; not everything must be found on the internet. In the future, please just remove the dead link. Jayjg 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You added live lnk per invitation. Well done. Writegeist (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have, but I was pointing out that a live link wasn't required. Citing a publication, title, and date is enough. When a link dies you can add the {{dead link}} template, or, in this case, simply remove the dead link, but you shouldn't delete the citation entirely. Jayjg 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to a news source with article and date is useless where the source is a website and the article is no long available there. I forgot the wayback machine. Well done. Writegeist (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Here is the discussion I referenced. I'm not sure if there were others -- you might want to peruse the talk page archives. Coemgenus 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. — Writegeist (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

No matter what you think of me, I still thank you for your input. Collect (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an addiction...

Worst habit I've ever tried to kick! Fcreid (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ArmyDinnerJacket... :-D Fcreid (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Please be careful not to exceed 3 reverts per day at John McCain, per WP:3RR. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanker. See User talk:Ferrylodge#3RR. — Writegeist (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanker

Thank you for the photograph you so thoughtfully posted above, which demonstrated your wanking action. It's probably better kept to yourself, so I have removed it. — Writegeist (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Sara

From what? Is this an act by the evil CABAL I keep hearing about??? See my note at MastCell's talk. This should NOT be swept under the rug after the 4th. It really IS a serious act of aggrrrression (i can't even spell the word) against ALL the editors envolved at SP...BTW, I am uncomfortable with the hand gesture to the right of this entry.--Buster7 (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good note at MastCell. I dropped one on L'Aquatique. I'd welcome any info re. your previous dealings with ?her?. She seems inept (putting it as kindly as I can). Oh, and thanks for reminding me -- I removed the rather strange self-portrait that "No-no-no-I-don't-work-for-them-oh-no-no-no-I'm-just-a-volunteer-here-really-ya-gotta-believe-me" Ferrylodge posted. — Writegeist (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gripe

This is a warning. Please do not attack other edits, as you did at WP:ANI. You should consider removing the recent statement you made there. Grsz 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a cut-and-paste from your editor review page:

...you were extremely uncivil and rude. if i were an admin, i would have banned you immediately. please do not be rude to other wikipedians. i am *extremely* surprised you haven't been banned yet. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So I don't need to tell you what you can do with your officious and hypocritical "warning". Apart from that, thank you for your visit to my talk page. — Writegeist (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If only you bothered getting a background. That was an user angry because his 3RR report was declined. The point still remains. Grsz 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. His point still remains. As does the hypocrisy of yours. I shall delete any further posts from you here. Goodbye. — Writegeist (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pinochet/McCain

I see that you are operating under the misconception that Allende was murdered.

No. I'm not. You are fundamentally mistaken. — Writegeist (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in reliable sources ( not the fables that the "periodista" Gabriel Garcia Marquez printed), then I would be happy to provide you with them. This happens to be a subject that I am very familiar with, and I would be delighted to steer you right. Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Aahhh. I understand if you were just saying that he was murdered. If I was fundamentally mistaken in believing that you actually believed that he was murdered, then I do apologize. I understand that we often say things that we don't believe for effect. Again, my apologies.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I said he was murdered because fundamentally I thought he was. When I researched more recent sources I found that fundamentally the story of the suicide is likely true. Which fundamentally I acknowledged in a subsequent post. Seems you did not read it. No problem. — Writegeist (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

I wish to draw your attention to my post here. This applies not only to the Sarah Palin page, but any other article related to the US elections. Please don't continue this behaviour. Risker (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Risker (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Appeal the block? Bollocks! It's a rite of passage! I am sooo turned on! Risker's hot! Check out this awesome stub she created! — Writegeist (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yowza!

What a trip! My first block with an admin! Yowza! This chick blocks like there's no tomorrow! — The erstwhile Block Virgin, Writegeist (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Apartheid

Hey, is it Israeli Apartheid Week yet? Writegeist (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesson learned

You have presented the Administration with an obvious solution for a thorny situation. Rather than place an Article (Sara Palin, for instance) under full protection and be besieged by a fire-strorm of protest, they can just block individual editors that present "a problem"...:>)...Buster7 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Also a revealing instance of admin bias--vide the conspicuous absence of any admin response to the numerous ad hominem attacks on those who most strongly oppose Conservative POV-pushing in you-know-which articles.

It appears therefore that one of the tasks of a WP admin is to protect tag teamss. And that another is to facilitate and protect the sanitization of certain BLPs. No wonder the excellent Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in this month's issue of The Atlantic, laments: "...students today have a great deal of knowledge. This knowledge is wrong, because it comes from Misplaced Pages, but they know more wrong things than you did in high school." I had thought that this sad state affairs was accidental; that it arose from the wholesome anarchy at the root of the Wiki concept. I now realize that where certain articles are concerned the disinformation is deliberate.

Indeed, lessons learned. :~) — Writegeist (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)