| Revision as of 15:41, 15 April 2007 editDking (talk | contribs)1,659 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:44, 15 April 2007 edit undoBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits Darvon cocktailNext edit → | ||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
| If you go to the bottom of the Dking discussion page, you will see that some people are in process of removing from Misplaced Pages references to my website and references to published articles archived on my website, on grounds that it's spam. Most of the article references were to properly sourced material on LaRouche within a number of LaRouche-related articles. In at least one case, the sentence in which the reference was cited has been removed, not just the reference itself. I was under the impression that Chip and I could cite our own work on LaRouche. Some of the citations being removed (as on the electoral history of the U.S. Labor Party in the U.S. Labor Party article, and on JDO infiltration of the LaRouche security staff in the JDO article) refer to things for which I am probably the only puhlished source available. The anti-spam people express indigation even over links I put on discussion pages as part of dialogue with other editors. In addition, the list of what has been or is to be deleted includes at least one link to a discussion page that I don't recall ever visiting, much less posting on. Having only a very limited knowledge of Wiki admin procedures, I would appreciate your advice on all this.--] 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | If you go to the bottom of the Dking discussion page, you will see that some people are in process of removing from Misplaced Pages references to my website and references to published articles archived on my website, on grounds that it's spam. Most of the article references were to properly sourced material on LaRouche within a number of LaRouche-related articles. In at least one case, the sentence in which the reference was cited has been removed, not just the reference itself. I was under the impression that Chip and I could cite our own work on LaRouche. Some of the citations being removed (as on the electoral history of the U.S. Labor Party in the U.S. Labor Party article, and on JDO infiltration of the LaRouche security staff in the JDO article) refer to things for which I am probably the only puhlished source available. The anti-spam people express indigation even over links I put on discussion pages as part of dialogue with other editors. In addition, the list of what has been or is to be deleted includes at least one link to a discussion page that I don't recall ever visiting, much less posting on. Having only a very limited knowledge of Wiki admin procedures, I would appreciate your advice on all this.--] 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Darvon cocktail == | |||
| ]. I think this is a dangerous precedent you're attempting to set here, especially when it's a blatant misuse of your tools to achieve a personal goal. The DRV absurdly endorsed you on this, and that's completely wrong. I'm going to again request that you undelete it per the speedy deletion guidelines, or I may choose to take other action on it. --] <small>]</small> 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:44, 15 April 2007
File:Animalibrí.gif
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just a note Good work
sub-page code?Do you know what the URL string is to display all sub pages under a given Misplaced Pages page? I remember seeing it once but can't remember now for the life of me. - Denny 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC) revertion of Misplaced Pages talk:VerifiabilityHello (I really love this discussion page - sorry for spoiling it). Since you reverted my modifications, you may now want to present your objections. Regards. Michelet-Me laisser un message 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
DisappointingSomeone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Excuse me, MaamHi Slim, we seem to have another dispute. I just saw a list compiled by you, with my username on it. Now, while I do not deny I read LaRouche, I do not make a list of people suspected of being agents or associated with agents of anti-LaRouche people, as I could do. I believe that the evidence speaks for itself. Now, if I were a LaRouche member, I would make my point, admit my identity and as long as my point stayed available for all to see on the talk pages, I would be happy for telling the truth. I would appreciate knowing what you are playing at. If there is a charge to address, address it to me directly, or kindly take my username off the list. <--- said list --Nemesis1981 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: RfA talliesJust because it isn't only a vote doesn't mean it isn't also one. The numbers incline but do not necessitate, to paraphrase Leibniz. :-) SlimVirgin 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editingFYI, here's an example of attempted vote stacking at a community ban discussion. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova These follow-up questions are particularly troubling. That effort didn't get too far because I've been monitoring the board closely, but suppose I go on Wikibreak? Suppose the canvassing tactics get sneaky? Durova 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Anton Chekhov: cheersThank you for reading and for the glass of Champagne! (Oh, dear, was it traumatic being on the front page: someone changed all the carefully combined refs into "ref name = " thingies, etc. Never mind.) This seems a good moment to tell you what my favourite article on Misplaced Pages is: Rudolf Vrba — I often point it out to people as an example of what Misplaced Pages can do at its best. I've dewatchlisted all Attribution and policy pages for the moment, out of sheer despair. :( Hopefully, I'll get involved again when a new way forward has emerged. You were ahead of those people, that's all: they'll catch up. (: qp10qp 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) transclusion mockup in progressSee Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion. WAS 4.250 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC) ReversionHi there. I noticed your recent reversion of a response SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) made to a comment on her Talk page. As you didn't provide a rationale in your edit summary, I reverted your edit; I'm sorry if my action was in error. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:unreferencedUnreferenced used point to reliable sources and then pointed to ATT for the brief period ATT was policy. It was asked that it be changed back due to the fact that ATT was no longer policy, and you changed the template to point to verifiability because RS also is not policy. RS, is however a wiki guideline, and was what the template pointed to prior to the whole ATT thing. Is there any reason other than that V is policy and RS only guideline to point to V over RS? Miss Mondegreen | Talk 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Proposed list of characteristics of attack sites, webpages, and forum postsSee Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites#What_is_an_.22attack_site.22 I hope that you can comment on what I wrote there. Andries 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
TransnistriaCan you protect the page? 3RR against user Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He was blocked before 2 days ago for 3RR.--M-renewal 14:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Dking references being removed as "spam"If you go to the bottom of the Dking discussion page, you will see that some people are in process of removing from Misplaced Pages references to my website and references to published articles archived on my website, on grounds that it's spam. Most of the article references were to properly sourced material on LaRouche within a number of LaRouche-related articles. In at least one case, the sentence in which the reference was cited has been removed, not just the reference itself. I was under the impression that Chip and I could cite our own work on LaRouche. Some of the citations being removed (as on the electoral history of the U.S. Labor Party in the U.S. Labor Party article, and on JDO infiltration of the LaRouche security staff in the JDO article) refer to things for which I am probably the only puhlished source available. The anti-spam people express indigation even over links I put on discussion pages as part of dialogue with other editors. In addition, the list of what has been or is to be deleted includes at least one link to a discussion page that I don't recall ever visiting, much less posting on. Having only a very limited knowledge of Wiki admin procedures, I would appreciate your advice on all this.--Dking 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Darvon cocktailThis is disappointing to read. I think this is a dangerous precedent you're attempting to set here, especially when it's a blatant misuse of your tools to achieve a personal goal. The DRV absurdly endorsed you on this, and that's completely wrong. I'm going to again request that you undelete it per the speedy deletion guidelines, or I may choose to take other action on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
