Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 23 January 2008

Welcome!

Hello, John Nevard, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! CWC 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding your question, there has been some ongoing removal of the same content by sockpuppets as of late. I should have paid a little more attention to your removal of sourced material, but given recent events I simply thought you were another SSP pushing the same agenda. You should note, however, that your comments (both in the edit summary and in the verbiage of your question to me) are both pretentious and unhelpful -- a little bit of civility goes a long way. Thanks for the inquiry. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh... and 'should note' isn't? John Nevard 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking back, if sockpuppets were editing in the same way I was I heartily endorse their actions. The content I removed was anti-FNC opinion (which Misplaced Pages isn't, you know, supposed to be), 'supported' by a source that had absolutely nothing to do with the content- except that it related to politics and the media. I've seen bad sourcing before, but this was almost deliberately poor. John Nevard (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PMOI

Thanks for your edits to the PMOI article. Every so often it gets attacked by pro-Iranian or Pro-PMOI people, so it's nice to know someone else is keeping an eye on the article! Dchall1 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Egyptians

Thanks for the suggestion. No, I haven't considered it before though it would be nice to have the pictures link directly to the relevant articles. I took a look at the template you mentioned. It uses a complex esoteric code I am wholly unfamiliar with and do not have the technical savvy to be able to undertake something like that. Maybe someone more capable than me would choose to do it in the future. — Zerida 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

r.e. GHB

Thanks, although I think you may be giving me too much credit! :) Halogenated (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit

Was curious as to your rationale for this edit.. Ordinarily one does not edit other people's user pages. I assume you meant no harm, which is why I am genuinely curious.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly, I never even knew it was a foreign language template. I just borrowed it from somebody.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

USA actively supported Saddam against Iran.

USA actively supported Saddam. take responsibility. have guts. What you are saying is that no one should speak about the American crimes. Not only Iranair flight 655 and the famous Handshake between the two old buddies Saddam and Rumsfeld, but the USA bombed Iranian islands and oil platform and violated the Iranian territorial waters. This is an obvious act of war. bastaNota bene I am civil and I do not see any reason to assume good faith when you systematically remove any information which shows that USA supported Saddam actively against Iran.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages. In hindsight, my edit summary here probably violated this- though at the time I was amused that anyone would claim that the US was a 'combatant' in the ->Iran-Iraq<- War. The user concerned is quickly building up a history of unbalanced and illiterate editing on Iran-related articles. John Nevard (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also if you want to prove me wrong you should lower your anti-Iranianist drive. Anti-Iranianism is as bad as anti-semitism or black hatred or as bad as hating whites. It is in the cathegory of irrational hatred based on ethic background. I do not say that you are doing it consciously but by being controversial and selective on Iranian issues you suggest this. Do not write history because of your assumption. Historical facts are known. And one should respect them even if they are bitter to them. I myself do with regard to Iran. I would not deny the wrong doings of Iranian rulers in hhistory, but it is amazing that the so many ordinary Americans talk good the crimes of their rulers. Look how unfair it is. Ahmadinejad won in a controversial non-free election by deception, force and fraude, while Bush won the elections in the USA in free democratic election TWO times. BUSH's record of human disaster is much higher than that of Ahmafdinejad, yet it is the Iranian people who should suffer under economic and military sanctions, and not those American people. Is it fair? NO. Do not be a chauvinist American and open your eyes. No one holds you responsible, but if you talk good crimes you are wrong--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

the most dishonest and arrogant edits n this issues were yours. Also your intervention in other Iranian sites shows 1- Yor irrational hatred towards Iranians 2- Your lack of knowledge of those issues--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be in relation to some type editing on Iran-related articles I did while checking to see how widely a certain editor spread his opinions through articles. John Nevard (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as I have an agenda, it is to reveal facts, so that when they can be and are revealed they will speak for themselves. I am not an American, and diatribes against me and them speak much about those concerned. I made a mistake in dismissing inappropriate edits against an established consensus for referenced, sensible facts on the Iran-Iraq War article by Babakexorramdin earlier as a joke, as I have noted. I have made no inappropriate edits since then, I leave this, and his edits to various talk pages, up to anyone interested to judge. John Nevard (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also not an admin. I find that Misplaced Pages admins are generally reasonable, and where I have a difference of opinion and a reasonable, valid argument that bears upon an article I can compromise with them. When people have problems with this process, it causes problems for Misplaced Pages articles and the Misplaced Pages community. I failed to act in a completely upright way with a previous account, which is the primary reason I now operate with this account. John Nevard (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But even today you again deleted USA froim the list, when there is athe general consensus, and that the facts show and the definition of your suggested dictionary shows it. The fact is USA fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. It does make nbo sense to deny this when all facts shows it. Please respect the facts and let Misplaced Pages be an obnjective source. Thanks --Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See for the edit with a dishonest edit summary that preceded this. John Nevard (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of quote

I understood the relevance of the quote was that Bush was refusing to apologise for the shoot down. If so, this makes the quote directly relevant to the article. What's your take on it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is not the reference to Newsweek "explicit, provable context"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hi

Thanks John. I hadn't ever dug through NameBase before. It's actually rather interesting. In two clicks I found someone involved in that whole Iraq incubator propaganda story I remember from my youth. Anyway, I had Misplaced Pages Watch off my list for a while, but if you look through the history, it was merged, and then slowly over the next month all the sources were deleted, and it was reduced to a brief one sentence mention. That's not how an WP:Encyclopedia should work; note that we have a {{expand}} template and no corresponding {{reduce}} template (that's actually for tagging overly big graphic files). So I resurrected it after I saw the slow-mo/sneaky vandal involved get banned from the project. There's no reason to treat this website different from any other. If anything, we should be treating it with the utmost care lest we be accused of trying to bury our critics. -- Kendrick7 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By Air

Hello John Nevard. How do you do? I am Nightshadow28. And done. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice little fix to "Snapping." Wowest (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

REname

Good times!--Alph Tech STUART (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Overstock.com

John, I posted a note in Overstock.com re the reversion. There seems to be a split opinion on this so I'm not going to revert, and frankly I'm a bit undecided myself seeing two editors I respect taking opposing views on this subject. Let's discuss.--Samiharris (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)