Revision as of 14:13, 4 July 2007 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits Another vandalism warning← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:11, 4 July 2007 edit undoReinis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,337 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::::::Okay, I'll keep that in mind next time, but it still doesn't make it vandalism. –] 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ::::::Okay, I'll keep that in mind next time, but it still doesn't make it vandalism. –] 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::::::It was. I stand by the accusation. If you were attempting what you claim you were, you would have left a message for on the discussion, and you would have selectively archived. Doesn't matter now, you are on everyone's list now. And your rude comments to me on your Talk page, that will make you a hero I'm sure. ] 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | :::::::It was. I stand by the accusation. If you were attempting what you claim you were | ||
- generally incompetent and ineffectual; 'feckless attempts to repair the plumbing'; 'inept handling of the account' | |||
- not fit to assume responsibility | |||
, you would have left a message for on the discussion, and you would have selectively archived. Doesn't matter now, you are on everyone's list now. And your rude comments to me on your Talk page, that will make you a hero I'm sure. ] 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I doubt it, since there are probably at least some people who understand the policies. You're also under a faulty impression that I'm a "POV warrior". And I think I've said quite little to you, considering the circumstances. Someone else might have said much stronger words, having had an unstable dolt lashing out on them. –] 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::I doubt it, since there are probably at least some people who understand the policies. You're also under a faulty impression that I'm a "POV warrior". And I think I've said quite little to you, considering the circumstances. Someone else might have said much stronger words, having had an unstable dolt lashing out on them. –] 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::There is something highly suspicious about the actions recently at the ] talk page. No discussion before hand, no obvious reason to hide the history and recent discussion, just a mess created by an editor none of us was familiar with before. Hmm...--] 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I gave the ''obvious'' reason in the summary: 280 KiB. It was slow to load. I didn't discuss it because of ]. I suppose you suspect ] too, who did the same thing, also not asking for your permission, just with preserving the history at the same location. Or ], who pruned your warring with ]. Two experienced editors agreed that this was not vandalism, and that you should follow ], which is an official policy. I think I also said that anything relevant should be restored. Please lay off with any more unthinking accusations or tag-team tearing at me. –] 12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
<undent>I ''am'' assuming GF, but it is still suspicious. And the discussions with Octoplus did reveal some interesting patterns which we might pursue. I never said it was vandalism. And I might ask you to AGF, before you get aggrieved and throw your weight around. I would have been pretty embarassed to go to an article I had never been on, and just slash and burn without any discussion as you did. But it does tell me something about you, in any case...--] 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Well, if you keep dishing it out, you should be prepared to take some. You are using the talk pages as a venue to bully creationist muppets. You're not following ], as was pointed out to you by someone else earlier. Now you're trying to denigrate a new editor, which is against ]. Yes, I admit making a mistake by following the wrong procedure in ], but it wasn't breaking the rules, and much less warranting such a reaction. It was a good-spirited attempt to fix something. Now have a good day, I won't respond here anymore. –] 13:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:By the way, although calling it an article fits your rhetorical purposes, it was a talk page. –] 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
== Archiving == | == Archiving == |
Revision as of 16:11, 4 July 2007
==This was great, "audacious fuckwit". •Jim62sch• 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
July, 2007
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Talk:Creation science, you will be blocked from editing. Orangemarlin 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't get your panties in a wad, I was just following WP:ARCHIVE. –Fatalis 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Panties in a wad? What childish language is that??? You're just trying to hide good discussion about a lot of POV issues. Now it will all be repeated over and over and over again. Editors will come in and fight battles that were resolved, eliminate consensus that was constructed over time, and whatever else that happens in these type of articles. Have you ever thought about discussing it? Didn't think so. Just took it upon yourself to mess it up. Great. It was vandalism. Orangemarlin 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way Mr. Panty obsessed--someone reverted your vandalism. Oh well. Orangemarlin 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, they just moved parts back in, as I had suggested. Please familiarize yourself with the policy and stop being a dick. –Fatalis 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- First panties? Now my penis? Wow, you're an unusual person. Orangemarlin 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'll leave that conclusion to others who happen to read this. –Fatalis 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- First panties? Now my penis? Wow, you're an unusual person. Orangemarlin 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, they just moved parts back in, as I had suggested. Please familiarize yourself with the policy and stop being a dick. –Fatalis 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way Mr. Panty obsessed--someone reverted your vandalism. Oh well. Orangemarlin 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Panties in a wad? What childish language is that??? You're just trying to hide good discussion about a lot of POV issues. Now it will all be repeated over and over and over again. Editors will come in and fight battles that were resolved, eliminate consensus that was constructed over time, and whatever else that happens in these type of articles. Have you ever thought about discussing it? Didn't think so. Just took it upon yourself to mess it up. Great. It was vandalism. Orangemarlin 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Moved
The following is moved from Orangemarlin's talk page, since he has a slight bent to delete whole discussions.
Fatalis
I noticed you warned User:Fatalis. Please note that his edits were not vandalism, and that he was merely archiving the page (which was becoming quite significant in size). Perhaps he should have checked if there were any ongoing discussions, but please remember to assume good faith in future. Angus Lepper 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about you assume good faith with me. There are very critical reasons why I think it was bad idea, the first of which, two days from now, a bunch of trolls/POV warriors/anonymous twits will come it and make all kinds of changes. And we won't be able to point them to discussion, because it's gone. So, if you spent two seconds to provide some good faith to an editor who's been creating articles, fighting these POV types for months, and looked over my extensive edits on a wide variety of articles, you'd think, "wait a minute, this guy has a point." It was vandalism. And as I said below, thanks for the lecture. Orangemarlin 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- When you were writing this, it was already fixed, and the page is 3 times smaller as a result. It was almost a third of a megabyte before. By the way, I'm very much from the same camp as you, so I don't understand why do you need to be so hostile. –Fatalis 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good spinning there Mr. panty and penis obsessed. You deleted the whole damn thing. Several editors caught on to your behavior and fixed your vandalism. So don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back. Orangemarlin 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing was deleted. Can't you wrap your head around the concept of "moving"? –Fatalis 08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism warning
Please don't accuse others of edits that are obviously not vandalism. According to Misplaced Pages's official policy "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.". Also "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Evil Monkey - Hello 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was vandalism, plain and simple. A POV warrior removed tons of discussion, some of which needs to be referred to keep the POV crap away. How about your providing me with good faith that I think the deletion was a very bad idea. Thanks for the lecture buddy. Orangemarlin 23:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:VANDAL ("any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."), I'm afraid you're wrong. The user asked on the IRC channel #wikipedia about how to archive a talk page as this was now sitting at 280 kB. When he found out, he went ahead and did. Whether or not you agree with the edit, that one caveat means that you were incorrect. Angus Lepper 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I apologize. I didn't know that the IRC channel was an appropriate way to discuss Misplaced Pages. Let me revert all my edits over the past few months, because I don't engage in discussions there. Now I know that the Talk pages are completely useless, and shouldn't be used for much. Thanks for the update.Orangemarlin 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mate he didn't just cut and paste some some old expired threads into a new archive page, but moved the whole damn thing (ongoing discussions included), wiping out the history in the process. ornis 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Moving a page does not mean anything gets "wiped", it's just changing the location. –Fatalis 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the history does get wiped (or rather moved over to the new location). It's generally not a good idea to archive pages this way, since it obscures the entire history. Who's going to know that they have to go to Archive 12 to find the history? Silly rabbit 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll keep that in mind next time, but it still doesn't make it vandalism. –Fatalis 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was. I stand by the accusation. If you were attempting what you claim you were
- generally incompetent and ineffectual; 'feckless attempts to repair the plumbing'; 'inept handling of the account' - not fit to assume responsibility , you would have left a message for on the discussion, and you would have selectively archived. Doesn't matter now, you are on everyone's list now. And your rude comments to me on your Talk page, that will make you a hero I'm sure. Orangemarlin 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it, since there are probably at least some people who understand the policies. You're also under a faulty impression that I'm a "POV warrior". And I think I've said quite little to you, considering the circumstances. Someone else might have said much stronger words, having had an unstable dolt lashing out on them. –Fatalis 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is something highly suspicious about the actions recently at the Creation Science talk page. No discussion before hand, no obvious reason to hide the history and recent discussion, just a mess created by an editor none of us was familiar with before. Hmm...--Filll 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I gave the obvious reason in the summary: 280 KiB. It was slow to load. I didn't discuss it because of WP:BOLD. I suppose you suspect Banno too, who did the same thing, also not asking for your permission, just with preserving the history at the same location. Or ornis, who pruned your warring with Octoplus. Two experienced editors agreed that this was not vandalism, and that you should follow WP:AGF, which is an official policy. I think I also said that anything relevant should be restored. Please lay off with any more unthinking accusations or tag-team tearing at me. –Fatalis 12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I am assuming GF, but it is still suspicious. And the discussions with Octoplus did reveal some interesting patterns which we might pursue. I never said it was vandalism. And I might ask you to AGF, before you get aggrieved and throw your weight around. I would have been pretty embarassed to go to an article I had never been on, and just slash and burn without any discussion as you did. But it does tell me something about you, in any case...--Filll 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if you keep dishing it out, you should be prepared to take some. You are using the talk pages as a venue to bully creationist muppets. You're not following WP:DFTT, as was pointed out to you by someone else earlier. Now you're trying to denigrate a new editor, which is against WP:BITE. Yes, I admit making a mistake by following the wrong procedure in WP:ARCHIVE, but it wasn't breaking the rules, and much less warranting such a reaction. It was a good-spirited attempt to fix something. Now have a good day, I won't respond here anymore. –Fatalis 13:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, although calling it an article fits your rhetorical purposes, it was a talk page. –Fatalis 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Archiving
Give me a few minutes to finish the restore, and I will set up the archive as well... Banno 11:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. Thanks for doing this. –Fatalis 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2007
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:Orangemarlin may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.Orangemarlin 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)