| Revision as of 22:15, 19 July 2007 editBlaxthos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,596 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:54, 23 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,213 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section | ||
| (183 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| class="infobox" width="200px" | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| ],],],],] | |||
| |} | |||
| {{usertalk}} | |||
| {{Signpost-subscription|right}} | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| ]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]"). | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| == FNC == | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
| Appreicate the note... protecting the page is quite the wrong reaction... the admin refused to issue the block, and then threatened blocking everyone because of an unrelated issue. What's the project coming to? ;-p /] 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :No harm no foul. I believe AuburnPilot to be pretty reasonable, and I will ask him about his "support" (I missed that comment). This guy is definitely on a power trip, I'm just not sure how to proceed -- he's giving legitimacy to editors who are more concerned with pushing an agenda than following our policies. <s>In any case, '''giving up is not the answer''' -- that attitude will guarantee that this little experiment is won by those who will destroy it.</s> /] 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks for the heads-up . . .== | |||
| ::My edit summary was to the subject of the post, and not you. You did the right thing. The summary was just in case the post happened to roll across his eyes. I'm not giving up yet, but, let me just say, that sometimes I wish I could meet people face to face to have these discussions. A lot more can be done when someone isn't hiding behind a keyboard and computer screen. I am pretty certain the events of these last few hours probably wouldn't have occurred in a face to face sit down. AuburnPilot's support is in the ANI section, which mage me agree to drop it. Although, these later comments by this guy make me pick it up again. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| and good to hear from you, Ramsquire. I was under the impression that arbitration '''only handled disputes about content''', but if what you're saying is the case, how the hell do you get an impasse like this one resolved? Best Regards. ] (]) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I dunno, Ramsquire. Good faith and . . . ? I'd better hold my tongue. ] (]) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm done for now. See comments on the talk page. Good luck, should you decide to stick with it. Let me know if there is any ''real'' progress or effort (RFC, etc)... /] 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
===Re=== | ||
| Hey Ramsquire, I was JUST thinking about you like yesterday. Glad to see you're still around and lurking occasionally. I was going to let Badmintonhist figure out that ] is not the right solution on his own; given his near-constant accusations and namecalling, I don't think he'd take my suggestions in good faith. To answer his question above, the proper "next step" is a ]. Ironically, I have decided to ] from those sorts of article -- at the risk of ], I might suggest reviewing ]. Summary is that Misplaced Pages is a fundamentally flawed system which rewards editors for ''argumentum ad infinitum''; reasonable editors will eventually walk away ("not worth the fight"), and the notion of "compromise is always good" is incorrect -- purposefully injecting bias, and standing up to disallow injection of bias are '''not''' two sides of the same coin. Anyway, I appreciate the note and good looking out. Hopefully we can run across each other on some articles that don't attract flamethrowers. :) Good hearing from you! //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Are you insane? ] was the best of the ] films. By the way, I have stolen your separation of church and state userbox. --] 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Don't get me started with ROTJ :) ...outside of Vader, Luke and the Emperor, that storyline made no sense. One word sums it up... EWOKS! ] <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You hate Ewoks?! Do you hate Jawas too? ;-) --] 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691987405 --> | |||
| == Your Feedback on NPOV/POV == | |||
| Thanks for your comments on Gamaliel's talk page. I left a response there. You have an interesting user page. You also have a warped sense of humor, with which I can identify. I even identify with some of your political views. I would have to respectfully disagree with your support of the un-Constitutional notion of "Separation of Church and State" (which was taken out of context by the Warren Court from the writings of Jefferson, and are not to be found in the Constitution). However, that's what makes America great: we can respectfully disagree without getting nasty about it! <smile> ] 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your opposition to a state-established religion, which IS found in the Constitution. I am just very careful to make that distinction. Thanks again. ] 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Attack of the anons == | |||
| Do you think semi-protection is warranted in ]?--] 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Never mind. An admin stepped in and did the deed.--] 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FNC/Referree == | |||
| I appreciate your effort at quelling the argument, however I think these sorts of things could be more permenantly settled if everyone participated in sharing their opinion instead of watching two guys fight and then saying "you guys shouldn't fight." I noted at the top of the summary section that the RFC was effectively closed with consensus being to remove the image entirely, my only intent in continuing the discussion was to try and get the community (read: beyond the editor or two who have been fighting this from the beginning) to actually take up the issue instead of covering it with a bandaid or ignoring it completely (which is what happened anyway). If more of you would stand up and say "this is what I think about the content" instead of just trying to find a quick fix, I think we could erradicate a lot of the bullshit and trolling that continues to plague us. I think you've seen (many times) that I'm certainly willing to re-evaluate my position when it appears the community feels differently than I do, and it's my hope and belief that when trolls (even those with what they believe are the best intentions) see that they're just flat out wrong they'll be less willing to cause such tomfoolery. /] 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't like to feed the trolls. I am pretty confident that people like OutforthePeople, Arzel, Tom will not listen to any dissenting viewpoint from theirs. So, if they are violating policy, I will step in and give opinion, but I don't want to legitimize their nitpicking in situations where nothing is gained by going to the mat. If they wanted to change article content, I'd stand right by you. But since it was about an image, why stress yourself out. The other thing is, I was not actively following the discussion (I'm dealing with a troll/sockpuppet/anon and another misguided admin who thankfully has seen the light on the other articles I edit here) the reason I stepped in is that Cogswobble had gone into a very childish "well if you say so" mode, which told me that he had nothing else to add. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suppose you're right (in all of your points). I just think that the "social shaming" aspect is what's being neglected in this case. Is it more likely they'll stop if the meat of their nitpicking is ignored, or if a majority of editors point out that they're wrong/childish/etc.? I don't know... different approaches I suppose. In the end, though, I recognize that if the community writ large doesn't also actively jump in and honestly address the issues (which they did not, IMHO) then it just ends up making ''me'' look bad for pressing it (which is what, I'm afraid, happened here). "Being right is no excuse", eh? ;-) Point taken. /] 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't worry you don't look bad. I believe most of the community agreed with your position, but just couldn't get as worked up over an image. BTW-- the FAQ has been taken down again. It is interesting on the FoxNews page. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Appreciate the words of support -- by and large, I'm so avid because I am confident that the community supports my interpretation. The micro issue may be the image, but the macro issue is the bullshit that was used to force its deletion. I don't care so much about the image as I do about the blatant wikilawyering/policyshopping that is used to try and justify removal (read: censorship). Why doesn't the community step up to the plate? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, no? /] 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Considering the developments of today (tushie still sore), I am more inclined to be more pro-active in these areas. I'm more of a "give them enough rope to hang themselves" kind of guy, but I do see your point. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, isn't the timing ironic? I recognize the wisdom in the ''enough rope to hang themselves'' argument, but all the rope in the world does no good if no one is willing to say "''enough is enough''" and attach it to a set of gallows. It was, however, very thoughtful for Arzel to go ahead and prove my point for me. ;-) /] 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Policy shopping == | |||
| In light of recent events, I am considering writing an essay on policy shopping. Your contributions and thoughts (both positive and negative) are welcome and requested. Please find the (very) beginnings of my essay ]. Thanks! /] 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Update=== | |||
| I think it's now pretty much done (much revamping) and covers the basic points I'm trying to make. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! BTW, thanks for the support on the (silly) MFD. :-) /] 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == re:Keeping cool == | |||
| You didn't really do anything wrong, that I can see, other than the "screw you" comment. Which, admittedly, isn't really ''that'' big of a deal, but I know I'd be mad if someone said that to me. I know it's hard to stay cool when someone accuses you of something, or lies about what you've said, but it's generally best to just back away, or in more extreme cases, report them at ] and let them deal with it. ] 01:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages New York Meet-Up== | |||
| Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ ] --] 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding FNC == | |||
| There have been very miniscule, snide remarks made over the past few archives b/w me and Blaxthos, and I kind of let it boil over... hopefully this will better explain what I said on FOX NEWS CHANNEL. ] | |||
| :OoooH KAyyyyyyy... but I still don't know what attacks I made, and why anyone would assume that I thought the article was mine. That is a totally weird statement. I did the poll to allow everone to have their final say about the FAQ, not as some kind of calculated move. If this is something between you and Blaxthos, please don't involve others (i.e. ME). Thank YOU for looking out! ] <sup>]</sup> 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate the satire.... it did not involve you. Please accept my most humble appologies. ] 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Regarding Oswald== | |||
| have not sabotaged oswald page and I no intention to do so, | |||
| my only comment is that E. Howard Hunt is due to his intelligence backround | |||
| CIA, OSS, watergate) a favourite ghost for conspiracy buffs | |||
| and there is NO proof or credibel evidence suggesting his | |||
| involvement with Oswald or the JFK assassination | |||
| that is all I want to change unless some one can find a credible | |||
| source and prove me wrong | |||
| I can be reached at nerox21@yahoo.com if you want to correspond about this topic as I wrote my ba on watergate and have at least some knowledge of the subject, especially on Howard Hunt | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Thanks for trying to help me in the ] controversy. I see that I really messed up by trying to throw my weight around. I should know better. I'm going to stay away from the article now since I don't think I will be able to do any good there. ] 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, you didn't mess up anything. You tried to improve an article, which is what we all try to do. The problem is that JfJ, although benign to a Christian ear, is considered very destructive to the Jewish community, and has very strong opposition. Through the mediation we were able to to really neutralize some areas of the article, and to get JfJ's position out. So, don't be too discouraged, just let it lay low for a while. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I did go back to the article, trying to be more humble, and I think some improvements to the article were made. The long time editors of it ended up being much more reasonable than I had thought. It turned out to be a really good WP experience. ] 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] again == | |||
| Please check out ]. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /] 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:54, 23 November 2015
AfD nomination of Jay-Z vs. Nas feud
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jay-Z vs. Nas feud (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up . . .
and good to hear from you, Ramsquire. I was under the impression that arbitration only handled disputes about content, but if what you're saying is the case, how the hell do you get an impasse like this one resolved? Best Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I dunno, Ramsquire. Good faith and . . . ? I'd better hold my tongue. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Re
Hey Ramsquire, I was JUST thinking about you like yesterday. Glad to see you're still around and lurking occasionally. I was going to let Badmintonhist figure out that arbcom is not the right solution on his own; given his near-constant accusations and namecalling, I don't think he'd take my suggestions in good faith. To answer his question above, the proper "next step" is a request for comment. Ironically, I have decided to walk away from those sorts of article -- at the risk of WP:TLDR, I might suggest reviewing this discussion. Summary is that Misplaced Pages is a fundamentally flawed system which rewards editors for argumentum ad infinitum; reasonable editors will eventually walk away ("not worth the fight"), and the notion of "compromise is always good" is incorrect -- purposefully injecting bias, and standing up to disallow injection of bias are not two sides of the same coin. Anyway, I appreciate the note and good looking out. Hopefully we can run across each other on some articles that don't attract flamethrowers. :) Good hearing from you! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)