Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:46, 1 July 2006

Welcome!

Hello, CovenantD, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 15:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

/Comics Archives 1

/Mediations Archives 1

/Misc. Archives 1

FG intro

You added material to the 1st paragraph without a consensus recently at the passing of deadline. I am also updating the paragraph at the passing of deadline. Why the double standar? --Samuel Luo 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a consensus for those three words and that you waited for one day before making the change. I simply don’t remember a straw poll for it, can you point that out to me? thanks --Samuel Luo 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dial-an-admin!

Hi CD. My suggestion would be to make a request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard to get a 3rd party admin to help and add this helpful directory to your favourites for any future needs: . I will be happy to 2nd your requests at any time. --Fire Star 火星 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Covenant

Give me a second to look through things -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looked through the talk page and I sandboxed the changes. I'd prefer it if you guys reached a consensus on the opening paragraph in the next two days, and then we can unprotect for a definitive version. I see nothing egregious in leaving out the references for 48 hours, but you are more than welcome to ask another administrator if they are willing to unprotect to make the changes. Please note that by no means am I endorsing any particular version, including the version that appears on the protected page. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Green Lantern edit

Right on. Kudos on all your continued efforts to keep Misplaced Pages encyclopedic. -- Tenebrae 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On the falun gong discussion page

Hello covenant, since im a rather new member and i cant post anything on the discussion page and since you are the neutral editor then id like to post here some comments so that you can read and perhaps publish on the discussion page in case you consider it appropriate. I am addressing all the editors in this post but specially the critics.

I personally dont agree my comments should be just linked to someones talk page because i believe they are important enough to be posted directly on the discussion page, please read them in case you havent so that you can notice why i think they are important. I and other falun gong practitioners are considering to restructure my coments a little bit, adding more of each others opinions and views on the matter, reorganize them, divide them into subsections so that it doesnt seem very long and posting them on the talk page as falun gongs point of view on the matter.

Concerning the central concepts, what are we talking about here? are we talking about what are the central concepts of falun dafa or what the critics think are the central concepts? critics are here to criticize right? not to tell us what falun gong is all about, we know what it is since we are practitioners, its the system we practice.

i suppose you are asking for the core principles of falun dafa and if you are asking about that then you should ask a practitioner of course. If you want to know what the critics think, because they have the right to express their opinion and help out in the making of the article just like us, then thats great but this would turn into a debate topic also, what falun gong establishes as its core principles and......well..how are they going to post what the critics think are the central concepts of falun gong on the article, are you planning to post something like "Well, the critics think Truth, Benevolence, Forbearance are not the central concepts or falun gong, they say the central concepts are (quoting them) deception, intolerance of critics, Xenophobic and homophobic statements, Li thinking he is a god among all humans" what's this all about? how can you establish that as Falun Gong central concepts? is this really neutral? is this even a neutralized discussion despite the difference of opinions? in this last post i dont see the critics holding back on offending us the falun gong practitioners, whos following the guidelines in here?. If you want to criticize falun gong then you should save it for the critics and controversy subsection which i believe should be made in to a daughter page, we should also have the right to reply on this critics like i did on my comments for example.

Im not saying some of the Falun gong practitioners havent made mistakes regarding the respect for the rules of this talk page but this quarrel between practitioners and critics is going to end up making the reader think you are not taking this project seriously. Remember that whatever you write is read by other people and that is not only the person who you are referring your reply to. Ive already explained what we practitioners of falun gong think about your critics, please read my "rather lengthy contribution" so that you can see our point of view regarding your critics. Please, follow the guidelines and lets hope we can make a good job on this one.

Andres

Apology

Hi, Covenant. I think I owe you an apology if you are hurt by the word "deceptive". I am not a native English speaker and sometimes I don't have the right vocabulary to describe what I see. Also I feel you did not intentionally scheme the confusion. So I apologize. Fnhddzs 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I have removed the warning because it doesnt seem purposeful, or I am mistaken.

I think you may have done this accidentally?

I think you have restored the wrong version? It seems as if you reverted to a vandalised version so it appeared that you'd inserted the text. I can't see any source that suggests he's gay? If I'm wrong, please re-revert it by all means! Fyver528 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll revert it for you. Perhaps you could provide the references :). Just so you know, I'm not infallable and this isn't a personal attack on you. Fyver528 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh voila, c'est complet ;) Fyver528 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're helpful unlike most, for instance the Neo Nazi "Atlantean" who went crazy at me for reverting his racist edits. Since then he's been visiting my userspace and leaving me lovely messages. I think he's a complete nutjob just a couple of examples;

..

Im not black for a start, but he doesn't need to know that. Fyver528 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and his IP originated from Poland, so you wouldn't have thought he be into idolising Hitler considering how many of them were murdered by the Nazis :S. He needs to be taken under the mental health act or something. Or sent to AtlantisFyver528 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I appreciate your archiving the talk page as it was surely needed. However, you archived a discussion that is still running, with comments only a few hours old. So I de-archived it and put it back on the page. I suggest that next time you archive the page you try not to archive discussions that are still running. Mcconn 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Strange/"Fictional hero"

Just wanted you to know I rv'd the change made by User:Rorschach567 when he directed the phrase "freaking moron" at you. He doesn't appear to know WikiProject Comics style or the concept of civility. Let's keep an eye out. Hang in there, C.D.! -- Tenebrae 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not call any individual a "freaking moron." Perhaps my language was a bit too colorful but I was just pointing out that it's pretty obvious that superheroes are fictional characters, another redundancy I try to get rid of when editting overlong intros.Rorschach567 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm apologize if you took it as a personal attack. I was simply making a point. The "freaking moron" was not supposed to be directed at you or any other user.

Until this morning, the term "fictional" was not in the exemplar page thus I did not feel an obligation to "dozens if not hundreds of editors" to use it. Although I disagree with this point and will continue to state my case, I'll abide by it because I understand the importance of reaching such matters by consensus.

However, I am offended at wholesale reverts of my work simply because of this one small point. If you have some problem with the rest of the edit, be it a WikiProject Comics style issue or not, I’d prefer you state the reason why on the edit summary, talk page or my talk page, instead of flushing the whole thing down the toilet on the basis one small point.

Thanks for your time and attention. Again, I am sorry if I offended you. Rorschach567 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Research Into Health Benefits

Thanks for your kind offer on helping on references. I will ask you if I have questions. Fnhddzs 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Agenda

I can see why you were upset but you were not able to see what had happened. Part of the Talk page went missing. I have restored it. I did not expect my edit to remain. I was, in fact, going to self revert. However, I spent the whole day (10 hours) researching the whole article in depth, and sought to make it the most bland and NPOV article that I could. Alienus seemed to think it was not terrible but needed work and Pollinator also felt that way. I did not expect it to survive, but I was hoping that by showing that version, it would provide a direction to go that would help avoid these on-going edit wars. I completely emptied my mind of any POV and simply did a Joe Friday on it. Given that I spent 10 hours on it, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read it over a bit more carefully rather than dismiss it in anger. Sure, I understand the anger -- it was well founded without having my comments to read -- but now that I explained it to you, I hope you will let that cool and reconsider the article itself. --Anon 64 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, help me be polite by being polite. I don't know what went wrong with that template didn't seem to be different form others I've used in the past.--T-man, the wise 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why focus on a tree when you can focus on the forrest. Take your battle to the project. You had a problem with stubs (although there is no policy against stubs), now I'm telling you I won't create stubs.

I'm just following WP common practices, you're just being an obatacle I don't know why.

Don't worry I'll do each one according to that page. Stubs encorage people to fill info, there is nothing wrong with that (according to WP).