Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:05, 23 September 2007

To verify

Jinx, if that really is you, pm me on CU, and I will verify your identity. - Crockspot 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I have verified that 67.135.49.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indeed User:Jinxmchue. - Crockspot 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jinx

I am a conservative, and I don't feel that Misplaced Pages is too liberal. Actually, I haven't noticed any liberal bias whatsoever. WI hgope to see you come back eventually, as it must have been that article. Give it another try! =)

Sincerely,  hmwith  talk 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

I noticed your entry on the Conservapedia main page talk. Unfortunately, I've left Conservapedia for good, so I couldn't welcome you there, but just thought I'd drop you a note here.

I more or less agree with most of your sentiments about Misplaced Pages, but I'm afraid you won't find things any better at Conservapedia. At least at Wiki, people pretend to follow the rules most of the time; on Conservapedia Sysops are pretty much free to do whatever they please as long as they toe the party line. If you feel like it, you might take a look at the counter-site RationalWiki or at my blog for plenty of examples of what things are like there.

Also, Saurials rule! Damn, sometimes I miss the old 2nd Edition. --Lanfranc 20:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're back

You should have been here a week ago, you missed all the fun. - Crockspot 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooo! Sorry I missed all that. And yeah, I'm always open to giving things a second chance (even in the face of that old "fool me twice, shame on me" adage), so here I am officially back after making odd edits here and there under my IP (I actually got banned for a day recently because of factual and accurate information I added to the articles for Jean Auel's books). Jinxmchue 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Our old buddy FAAFA was up to his tricks in the RfA, even though he is banned. Imagine that! - Crockspot 17:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do tell. Where exactly did he get involved (there's a lot there to search through). Jinxmchue 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want it in a nutshell, look at the chart that is thumbnailed at the bottom, and then check question 15. The editor who posted that question has admitted to doing so in proxy for FAAFA. I am now known in some circles as the "Nazi, KKK, homophobic, racist, anti-semitic wiki editor who killed Andy". :) The RfA talk page has some good reading on it too. - Crockspot 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that question is just plain stupid. Your wording in the statement about people with "bear" handles may not have been delicate, but it certainly wasn't homophobic and has basis in fact. Oh, and I like how they judged you based on other people's opinions in the "homophobic" CU thread. You said absolutely nothing controversial in that thread, but they condemned you for it anyway. Guilt by association. It's not like CU is akin to the KKK, though I suppose is some people's (DUers, mostly) tiny, intolerant, ignorant, irrational minds, it is. The graphic is quite telling, too. They based their entire opinion on extra-Wiki activity because they couldn't base it on your activity here (which has been exemplary). FAAFA must be smiling quite smugly somewhere that his little smear job worked. The Powers That Be should be asked to review that RfA. Jinxmchue 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the only avenue for redress would be arbcom, which I haven't ruled out, but I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble. - Crockspot 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you. How much do you want to be an admin? Jinxmchue 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't give a rat's ass, at this point. :) - Crockspot 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

lol! I kinda figured you'd say something like that. Jinxmchue 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) One thing you may not have noticed is that BenBurch supported me early on, and then reiterated his support after "the question" was asked. - Crockspot 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that now. I also see that others dropped their support in light of that question. Nutty. Jinxmchue 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:PZ Myers for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. ornis (t) 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to verify my conclusion that the article is being whitewashed. Jinxmchue 02:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:PZ Myers for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. ornis (t) 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep OWNing that article like a good, biased Wikipedian. Jinxmchue 03:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter quotes

A quick perusal of quote usage on Ann Coulter reveals almost all seem to be qualified, or primarily sourced from non self-published material. Most also use third-party sources. Though some might not be the best. These sections seem good.

The only quote I found is in this section "If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether." This is self published, and tehrefore needs something to promote its notoriety.--ZayZayEM 05:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee. No surprise there. Jinxmchue 06:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

??--ZayZayEM 10:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message to SchuminWeb

You said "If you can make a valid argument as to why to justify using female pronouns, then do so... I've made my arguments and no one's countered them for days." SchuminWeb IS countering them and offering a counter-argument, according to the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style.

Also, please be civil, which is a policy: WP:CIVIL. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon further analysis of your edits:

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats basically the pot calling the kettle black, seeing as you have done so yourself, and have been blocked in the past for 3RR. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on D. James Kennedy. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Just take a deep breath and slow down or else there might be consequences.--Filll 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

lol! So who went crying to you? Jinxmchue 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read the rules on personal attacks. However, like me, we watch these articles.OrangeMarlin 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you warn others involved in this issue about their personal attacks. I won't expect it one bit, but I will hope for it nonetheless. Jinxmchue 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and as such, I can only give warnings. You are fully aware of what you are doing, so warnings are a matter of formality. I doubt you really care one way or another.OrangeMarlin 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. No warning about 3RR here. Why am I not surprised? So much for this being "a matter of formality." Looks like I'm the only one being targeted for this. Jinxmchue 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: You are awfully busy making civility reports on editors with whom you are in disagreement, and your own remarks are at the very least as uncivil and in many cases more so. Disruption combined with edit warring combined with violations of WP:POINT is not a combination calculated to win friends and influence people. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Prove any of that. Where have I been disruptive in any of this? Where have I engaged in edit-warring? Where have I been uncivil? Where have I violated POINT? Jinxmchue 23:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR is disruption and edit warning on its own. As for incivility, one simply has to look at this talk page. And for WP:POINT, may I direct you to the Midge Potts talk page? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not violated 3RR in regards to the Midge Potts article.

Nice non-specific "just look at this page" line. If you cannot be specific, then obviously you have no real proof.

Followed by another non-specific "just look at this other page" line. My issues with WP:ID and what logically must be the outcome of applying this "self-identity" nonsense are very valid, not disruptive, and not a violation of POINT. I didn't make edits to prove a point. I made arguments to prove it. Big difference (and people apparently can't see the forest for the trees). Jinxmchue 07:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)