Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 5 July 2006

Template:User vandalized

Archives
July 2005 – June 2006

Welcome

Feel free to advance any advise you have, always open to suggestions. However, RFC's on user conduct I will not participate in, since they evidently are a popularity contest, and not an objective discussion on perceived problems the editor might have caused.

Mediation

I think you and I should seek 3rd party mediation to end this back and forth situation. Is there a venue you prefer? --zero faults 18:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please respond with what you feel would be an appropriate venue. I do not want to seek one that you are against and then choose not to participate in. Thank you --zero faults 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you have choosen Arbcom as the location for mediation, however they require prior conflict resolution attempts. Please suggest another so we can attempt those before wasting time with Arbcom, thanks. --zero faults 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

NATO

Please see the War on Terrorism article it states "The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (also the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT") is a campaign by the United States, NATO and other allies, with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." Furthermore I have given you 3 major operations related to the WOT, OEF-A, OEF-HOA, and Operation Active Endeavor. If you need more information feel free to request it on my talk page. Thank you --zero faults 01:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Who did I help?

You left me a message telling me something was amiss... but you did not tell me who it was. I am sorry if it is self-evident, but I don't see it. Thanks! Eagle talk 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, has User talk:Zer0faults created a request for comment? Eagle talk 03:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't let it get to you. If I were you, I would make a small comment about the removal of the comment and provide the diff. Do so in a nuetral and polite manner (as you have been doing) and you will be fine. If you need helf with this, feel free to ask me. Eagle talk 03:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Help

You responded to an editor requesting help. However, he was informing you of facts that are not correct. Now he removes my comment on this. Evidently this is unusual behaviour. Nomen Nescio 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I was just responding to a help request and do not want to get involved in an edit war. I suggest you politely and calmly talk to that editor about it on their talk page. Viridae 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The post was only to inform you that your comment was based upon insufficient information. How that would lead you to believe I wanted to involve you is not clear to me. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 08:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that because you were involving me in it by updating me on the situation when I had very little to do with it (I wasn't even given your name as the editor he was talking about) that you were looking for support for your position. If this is incorrect I apologise. If you need any help, feel free to ask. Viridae 08:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD vote

I just wanted to drop you a note. I noticed you voted Delete on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of war crimes allegations. Based on the comments you've made, I'm presuming you MEANT to vote Merge-- meaning you want the content moved into List of war crimes, not deleted from Misplaced Pages entirely. If that's correct, you probably should change your vote, so your views doesn't get mis-interpreted. --Alecmconroy 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Correct, sorry. Nomen Nescio 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on July 5 2006 (UTC) to Misplaced Pages:WOT

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

WOT seems to be a mess, with all this reverting. It looks to me as though you are mostly at fault, and have certainly broken 3RR. If you can convince me that there was some good reason for you insisting on blanking your comments (be *brief*) then I may unblock you.

Nescio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am only asking that all my comments are restored or that I am allowed to remove the remaining which clearly are no longer representative of the original ] |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am only asking that all my comments are restored or that I am allowed to remove the remaining which clearly are no longer representative of the original ] |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am only asking that all my comments are restored or that I am allowed to remove the remaining which clearly are no longer representative of the original ] |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I understand that I am not allowed to counter the harrasment by other editors, second, blocks are not meant to be punative and I evidently have not edited the page any longer so there is no reason to block simply to award me some punishment. Third the fact that two editors team up so they can revert and provoke 3RR should be reason to doubt the report. Howcever, clearly your are being formal and as such I did make 4 reverts, but you might look into it more and discover there is a campaign against me by two editors and the 3RR report surely is part of that. Nomen Nescio 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not a campaign simply because two editors feel you should not remove all your comments from a page, comments that have had replies to them. The page without the comments will end up reading like gibberish. You have been told you are welcome to comment on the page, just stop attempting to change what the vote was about after over 30 people have voted. The first time you attempted to change it, 18 people had already voted ... And making polls inside of other polls is just off the mark. Removing all your comments because you are upset at the poll itself, or the turn out, is not appropriate. --zero faults 17:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock