Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:01, 11 February 2007

moo

Hello Nssdfdsfds! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mytildebang 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of Neil Woodford

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Neil Woodford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mytildebang 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We obviously don't see eye to eye on the edits for the Center for Consumer Freedom page. I have created a discussion topic (topic no. 26 on the Center for Consumer Freedom talk page) to address my concern with the recent edits to the article. Arthurberkhardt 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Users

I got your note and left a warning on Arthurberkhardt's page. -Will Beback · † · 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Misplaced Pages can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group (particularly animal rights people), so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about these edits. Arthurberkhardt 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL on 18 Doughty Street

Stop being abusive towards me. I am merely stating the facts - read WP:CIVIL. I find your page odd - given how many edits you make in short periods of a highly biased nature, yet the total lack of discussion here. Perhaps your IP needs investigating. MarkThomas 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Investigate my IP? Abusive? Seriously take a deep breath, and chill out. Just because not everyone follows your left-wing agenda doesn't mean they are part of some giant conspiracy.

Saying that you are a POV pusher is not abusive in the context of any of the following edits. These are just within the last few minutes, there are others of yours that blatantly violate WP:NPOV

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=18_Doughty_Street&diff=106946727&oldid=106945980
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=18_Doughty_Street&diff=106947281&oldid=106946871

Using such terms as "extreme right" just isn't acceptable. Your kneejerk "investigate your IP" and silly accusations of abuse don't further your cause. Nssdfdsfds 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also you are in breach of assuming good faith and you just did a 3RR. Want to add any more whilst you're at it? MarkThomas 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. Given that you have made only two edits to the page Iain Dale in the last 2 days and nobody else than me has made any, it would be mathematically impossible to have broken WP:3RR (on 18 Doughty Street it's even less possible, as there are fewer edits there).

I'm not sure what you think I've done thatis not assuming good faith, but given your threats to 'investigate my IP', etc., simply for not wanting articles that use pejorative inherently biased terms such as 'homophobic' and 'extremist', I don't think you are really in a very strong position to attack me on these grounds. Nssdfdsfds 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to you calling me a "POV-pusher" in comments, hardly a good start. The 3RRs you already did is not on Iain Dale but on 18 Doughty Street - one more is a report-case. MarkThomas 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A minute ago you were saying I 'just did a 3RR', as if it were not allowed to revert a page three time (the rule is MORE THAN three times). Now you're acknowledging that this is not the case. So why did you attack me about it? Do you think I should come on your talk page and say "you just did a 3RR. Want to add any more whilst you're at it?" because you have reverted the page Iain Dale three times. It's an absurd thing to do. There's nothing wrong with you warning me that I was in danger of breaking the rules if I continued, but implying that I had already done something wrong is not a very nice thing to do (by saying "You are in breach of and you just did a 3RR .

BTW, I haven't made 3 reverts on 18 Doughty Street. In fact, I see only one revert: . None of the edits before that one could be described as anything other than content edits.

I understand your concerns regarding the 'POV pusher' comment, but you have *repeatedly* added in certain comments which are inappropriate to the introduction to an article about someone who has existed for a lot longer than 18 Doughty Street. Juxtapositions like this: "criticism that Livingstone supports 'gay rights' Dale has stated on his own blog that he is gay.", were repeatedly added back despite the subject's of the article's insistence that they were defamatory. Given that you have just been accused of libel, it was wrong to insert these comments at least five times, and without making any attempt to support the accusation that Iain Dale was linked to criticisms of Ken Livingstone for supporting gay rights. While I can see, although I disagree, with the addition of it the first time, given this repeated, and obviously offensive claim, which is not only an attack on another wikipedia user without cause, but also breaches warnings about libel: warnings which you should not ignore - no, you don't have to delete content just because a user says he doesn't like it, but given that he said it was defamatory, the claim that Livingstone was criticised for supporting gay rights needed immediate sourcing, not repeated reversion . In the context, I don't see that my comment was inappropriate. Nssdfdsfds 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Anne Milton. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also you evidently don't read your edits because you were removing far more than the mention of one EDM, and reverting changes to the opening paragraph. You are an idiot. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)