Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:46, 17 March 2007

Archives

User_talk:Crculver/Archive 1: – September 2006 User_talk:Crculver/Archive2 -- December 2006

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on December 12 2006 to Indo-Aryan migration

This is stupid. You know about 3RR; you ought to know enough not to break it

meta

Could you please confirm your identity with the user m:User:Crculver in Meta? It is needed to confirm your vote on the page m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Misplaced Pages because of sockpuppetry issues. Thank you in advance. --Yms 15:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop, if you continue to remove sourced information from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked.

Removals

Please do not again remove my innocuous suggestions from a talk page. Thank you. Zaslav 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Roma and crime

I think the entire section is blatantly racist and not supported by the cited sources, but some people keep restoring it in Roma people. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Hello! I became a bit concerned after seeing several edits which do not qualify as vandalism reverted with you with an edit summary of "rvv". This is generally used to mean "revert vandalism", and should only be used for blatantly vandal edits such as page blanking or insertion of nonsense or profanity. The insertion of even highly questionable content, while still quite possibly calling for reversion, is not vandalism. I've included some diffs for your reference: . Also, edit summaries such as "rv smartassery" may be seen as uncivil. Coming after this edit, this is a bit of a concern. I hope that you'll consider carefully in the future whether edits constitute vandalism-this is a serious word to throw around, and should only be used in cases of clear and blatant vandalism. Even in the case of highly questionable edits, we should assume good faith. Thank you! Seraphimblade 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Well, people can ignore the posts you know. If there are any personal attacks, please remove them and report it to an administrator if need be (however, only the personal attacks - not entire posts). However, it is normal that people have different views about different subjects, and as long as the posts concern the scope of the article and do not constitute excessive flooding (like it happened in Talk:Persian Gulf recently), they can stay. The only requirement is for the posts to concern improvements that can be made to the article. It is not respectful to remove the posts of other users like that. Reply to it or just ignore it - but that doesn't mean they can be removed. In fact, it is even controversial to remove personal attacks, did you know that? :) Baristarim 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at your contributions list since I had the impression that you would be going on "OR" patrol on other talk pages.

This: "'Please see WP:NOR. You are not permitted to post your own personal theories on Talk pages, but must source your arguments from peer-reviewed scholarship" - has no basis and is your own OR. Editors can post anything to the talk pages as long as they concern the improvements that can be made to the article. WP:NOR doesn't say that statements in the talk pages have to be sourced.

As for this - please see WP:BITE - try to be nicer to new users.

As for this .. I hope that it was a joke, otherwise I fail to see how your actions could be considered as being done in the interests of Misplaced Pages. Baristarim 13:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT remove the posts of other users from the talk pages, including mine. Baristarim 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is nothing personal, I don't even know what the subject is. However, I saw "remove OR" flash up on my watchlist couple of times and was curious. I am sorry, but we are not in a position to decide who should be "scared off". That is exactly the opposite of what Misplaced Pages is. Most users would have never started editing Misplaced Pages if that was the prevailing mentality - and that's exactly the reason why we don't bite newcomers. Just ignore the posts if you would like, remove them if they constitute excessive flooding or personal attacks - but otherwise let them be please. Your reasoning doesn't make sense per Wiki policies. You can do anything you would like, however the Wiki rules apply to everyone in the meantime: WP:NOR doesn't apply to the talk pages, WP:BITE is an important guideline and removal of comments of other editors is definitely not appropriate as long as they concern the scope of the article. Please do not remove the comments of other users like that again. Thanks Baristarim 13:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Huns

Please, try to be neutral. I know you like to push Indo-European arguments for the Huns article. There is nothing wrong in mentioning all the different views. The Tibetan-Turkic origins for the White Huns is also probable, even more logical than iranian people possibility. See David Christian A History of Russia, Inner Asia and Mongolia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell) 1998. Furthermore, i had already given references to world-wide recognized reference sources. Regards. E104421 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Columbia Encyclopedia and Britannica supports the Tibetan or Turkic origin possibility for the White Huns. Now you're keeping these references in place but pushing Indo-European possiblity as if both Britannica and Columbia supports your pov. You're misleading people. E104421 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

St Methodius

Hi, there's a discussion you may be interested in here.--Domitius 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may want to review the arbitrary move of St Cyril.--Domitius 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CouchSurfing

You reverted an emply sourced edit I made without giving an explanation either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Would you like to provide this explanation on my talk page? --Valmi ✒ 22:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your claims relating to WP:OR and WP:BLP don't make any sense. Please stop reverting and use talk page. --Valmi ✒ 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:3RR. --Valmi ✒ 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed that you and some other users are have a disagreement over Indo-Aryan Migration. Would you be so kind as to explain what's going on. Geo. Talk to me 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying to get this dispute resolved. Geo. Talk to me 17:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at Win's contributions I could not find any that were ungrammatical. As a matter of fact , some of your contributions seemed to be irregular. To promote NPOV, I am going to remove all unsourced and POV content. Geo. Talk to me 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to touch the article, after reflection. However your actions look like violations of WP:OWN. Geo. Talk to me 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

John Chrysosyom

I don't know if this is a bad time right now, but we may need your help at the John Chrysosyom page, on Beit Or's recent edits. --Grimhelm 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Resorting to those tactics is very uncivil, and I certainly don't believe in it. I think that honest bona fide discussion is the way forward, as it moves towards a consensus rather than furthering divisions. Input as a registered user is always more helpful than as an anon. --Grimhelm 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

I expect some Talk in order to understand your revert. Note any revert without comment will be considered sheer vandalism. Rokus01 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Culver

Provide footnotes before you revert in Michael E. J. Witzel next time. Abusing your editorial powers will get you reported, Culver. I see that your talk page is full of previous incidents of mischief. _{Freedom skies| talk}  12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As uncharecteristic as it may be I'll let it go this time Culver. I neither have the time nor the inclination to pursue the articles in question. I am, however, surprised at the sheer disrespect you have for WP policies when you continuosly revert to an unsupported version. Involving other other editors into articles which I do not feel inclined to pursue myself is something that I am not going to do right now. _{Freedom skies| talk}  16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RV of Nathaniel Branden

Regarding this:

Please note WP:RV simply reverting without comment does nothing to help us build consensus in how the article should be worded. Also please note my comment on the talk page.

Crazynas 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RV of Received pronunciation

Please note WP:RV simply reverting without comment does nothing to help us build consensus in how the article should be worded. I feel my revision was more neutral, as opposed to the language to which you reverted, which is extremely Anglocentric (and false). --Orange Mike 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your vigilance in protecting Misplaced Pages from POV-pushing nationalists, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. CiteCop 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies

Hello,

I've requested an arbitration regarding the conduct of Freedom skies.

Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies recounting your interactions with him and your impressions of his conduct as an editor?

Thanks.

JFD 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)