Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 14 January 2015

Hi everyoneDominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your edits and reasonable comments. User:MyMoloboaccount

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&action=edit&undoafter=549643828&undo=549645669

"Wallace's comments were condemned by members of the public"

Do you rely on an article by Stephanie Masters for this sweeping statement? This is opinion, unfashioned and no where near proven.

Not neutral or a matter of fact.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Dominus Vobisdu. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Uw-notcensored1 - please do not censor articles - aquatic ape hypothesis

Hello, I'm Chris. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from this Misplaced Pages article. However, Misplaced Pages is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

How should we describe the Nazi genocide of Polish and Jewish population in Silesia during Second World War?

I have started a discussion on this and would value your comment, since you seem to be interested in the subject

Accusation :(

Talkback

Howdy

It's good to see you have resumed editing. Welcome back. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Got a bit burnt out by fringe proponents. Our policies make it far too easy for them. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same. Good to see you again! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for keeping an eye on the article. (Even if we disagree on other ones :P I still think it'd be good to have a well-sourced piece on abortion in art and literature, but I doubt I would ever be up for writing it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a big bunch. It's great to be editing again. Our disagreements are always handled in a civil manner, so they don't bother me at all. I like your sense of our sourcing policies. Keep up the great work! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi, history about homeopathy is a valid content. --Pediainsight (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, return the content to its place. --Pediainsight (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to return the content if you do not introduce it in his place. --Pediainsight (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Offensive speech

Removed your offensive comment here where you could use a lot better words. Kindly refrain from making similar comments again. You have been blocked before for personal attack and Talk page abuse. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)rephrased

tps Nothing offensive in that description of the article, don't be silly Blades. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Knew it was coming, that's why didn't reverted again. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to read and at least try to understand WP:NPA again too. You obviously don't understand it based on the comment you made above. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Rephrased, that's because I was more thinking as much about the previous incident, as he's aware of it. Still relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection, Blades, to a perfectly reasonable assessment of the quality of the article concerned. The assessment that it is complete and utter bullshit is quite accurate and appropriate. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As you are talking about the assessment of article, I would agree there. That's why I was already removing, and would still do until it is standardized. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I notice that you deleted your strong comment, and it would have been wise to refactor it, but it contained some good stuff. Please restore the good parts. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I agree with Brangifer's principles, I'd recommend caution. I respect both of you very much as editors, but it seems there is a rather asymmetric risk of blocking for personal attacks - lately, I have seen advocates issue a string of personal attacks on multiple pages without the slightest worry of getting blocked as long as they have a couple of allies - so now is time to be calm, civil, evidence-based, and to maintain the moral high ground. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that my request is completely misunderstood? I'm recommending leaving out anything negative and keeping the good parts. That is being very cautious. Isn't that a good idea? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobrayner is correct especially in this topic area: the situation is asymmetric. I see very little in your edit that could survive the pruning necessary to avoid putting you into danger. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

and it has already been reported to admins. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

??? I guess we must be talking about different things. Where is this other issue occurring? Diffs please. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Diff: Really, just don't go there. Make your points as dispassionately as possible, focusing solely on specific edits and without characterizing the subject matter in general. Keep in mind that you're playing with a handicap here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I guess I'm not familiar with the bigger picture here. There must be some prior history to justify such a strong reaction to something that wasn't even a personal attack. To me this was a single, rather strongly emotional, comment, which was self-reverted. No big deal and end of story....but apparently there's more. Was this part of a habitual pattern of emotional comments? When looking at the tattle tale/complaint (a rather extreme thing to do, and an example of stupidly creating more disruption, rather than defusing a situation), I would consider the source, a very fringe editor who generally defends fringe subjects and defends pushers of fringe POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

Difficulty finding a citation? Dan Watts (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality

Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)