| Revision as of 00:08, 3 December 2011 editLhb1239 (talk | contribs)5,190 edits →Take a breath, please: resp← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:58, 27 March 2024 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers381,928 edits Undid revision 1215891493 by Andrybak (talk) not permitted to be aroundTag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{sockpuppet|Mattisse|confirmed}} | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Hello, MathewTownsend, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| *] (using the ] if you wish) | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{help me}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ] ] 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Please help to establish notability of the minister from Nigeria you just posted. Just being a minister from Nigeria does not mean the subject is notable. Please review notability guidelines, and then write examples into the article with inline sourcing to external and reliable sources. | |||
| Happy editing ] (]) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok for ]. ] (]) 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Natalie Wood == | |||
| Please take a look at the newest edits/reversions at the ] article. The same editor who added the "Final Months" section previously is readding it and edit warring over it. I've already reverted twice and don't want to violate 3RR. If it's added again, would you please revert it out? Thanks, ] (]) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I left a note on the article talk page and the article is on my watchlist. It looks ok for now! ] (]) 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the current edit war with ]...tag: you're it (for reverting back what's still being discussed on the ] article talk page. ] (]) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::ok. ] (]) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Thanks for your copyedit to Edward Sapir, I really appreciate it. But perhaps it would be better to wait a little, perhaps tomorrow? Since I am working actively on it right now, and two people working at the same time may cause annoying edit conflicts.]·] 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Gladly! I wasn't going to do any more right now as I have noticed that you're working on it, but I'm happy that it's ok by you! Thanks, ] (]) 21:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Take a breath, please == | |||
| I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. ]. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. ] (]) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your advice and it is appreciated. The fact that it involves a ] though means that it is not ok just to leave accusatory and defaming information available in a highly trafficked article while we hash this out. I think the responsible solution would be to remove the information accusing ] of causing ]'s death until this is settles. Thanks, ] (]) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::(1) It's "libel", not "slander", when in written form. | |||
| ::(2) How do you know for a fact the article is "highly trafficked" or not? | |||
| ::(3) There's nothing in the article that accuses anyone - it is your opinion based on you reading into what's there. | |||
| ::(4) Don't touch what's in there while you have two (and there should really only be one at a time) RfCs going at two different noticeboards. | |||
| ::(5) If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level. And I really, really don't want to do that. | |||
| ::] (]) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I have no intention of "touching" your article. Remember, you asked me to revert the article when you didn't like what was there and were worried about too many reverts yourself, Lhb1239. I see how you operate and I see the article is owned by you. Thanks for the threats. Best wishes, ] (]) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :First off: please think about changing your tone and striking your accusation. I am not claiming nor am I exhibiting any signs of article ownership. Secondly: I'm asking you to back off and take some time away from the article because I think you're losing perspective and are bordering on going against policy. Lastly: There was no threat, just an indication of where things seem to be headed based on your zealousness and over-thinking and heavy-handed editing intentions. Please, just let this issue take its course naturally. Regardless of your personal opinion of how the article reads, ] (hint: read the article on that subject before going off half-cocked and doing something you're going to end up regretting). You've been here all of what? Two weeks? Do yourself a favor and listen to those who've been here a while and have an idea of what's what. Okay? ] (]) 23:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Addendum: what "threats" are you talking about in regard to the message I left you yesterday? I was asking you to revert what Gertrude Lawrence had reverted so I wouldn't get a 3RR pinned on me. I was asking you to do me a FAVOR. Get it now? Sheesh...... (this is a perfect example of why you need to step away from the computer and Misplaced Pages for a bit - you're ability to reason and see things for what they are is deteriorating) ] (]) 23:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, and I did you that favor. Even though you reverted me when I removed repeated wording. When I pointed that out to you, you returned my wording to the article. I see you are quick on the revert button. Well, you don't appreciate favors, I see. ] (]) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're starting to not go down a good road. Are you sure you want to go this direction? You might want to reassess. ] (]) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:58, 27 March 2024
 | This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Mattisse (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |  |
Good article reassessment for Siege of Mantua (1799)
Siege of Mantua (1799) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Benjamin G. Humphreys Bridge
Benjamin G. Humphreys Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Samuel Colt
Samuel Colt has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Category: