Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:58, 1 October 2007

Archives

/Archive 1

Sept 2007

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in John Howard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Shot info 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in John Howard, or you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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 3RR. Thank you.. Shot info 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage format

Hi PJ. Nifty link for creating new talk topics :) However, a missing |} for your definition of the "messagebox standard-talk" table caused new talk topics to be created inside the "Talk to the Hand" box instead of where you presumably would prefer it to (at the bottom of your talkpage). I've fixed it. If that's not the effect you wanted, please accept my apology. --Brendan Lloyd 06:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

hadith

I recognize the problems in the lengthy duplicative articles on the hadith concerning the origin of the conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'a, and the ones on the doctrine of "temporary marriage." I personally think it would be quite possible to have an article on each individual hadith, since they all have a substantial later literature--but they should obviously be written not as a long quotation, but as an encyclopedic discussion giving various views--there is surely enough later secondary literature to discuss in the thirteen centuries of Islamic scholarship. But it might be practical to combine them by topic, and this should be decided in the appropriate workgroup, or if necessary through dispute resolution.

Many of these articles have now been prodded--I've removed the prods. Prod in any case is for uncontroversial deletions, and it is clear that this will not be one. You are of course welcome to pursue these deletions though AfD, but I strongly urge all those involved to find a better way of dealing with them, one which will improve the encyclopedia by providing an informative set of articles. DGG (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

	In the area? You're invited to
	San Francisco Meetup 3
	Date: September 16th, 2007
	Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
	San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FaithFreedom

Please don't re-add the poorly sourced material about living persons.Bless sins 07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

please do not make up false claims of blp violations, Bless sins.--Sefringle 08:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring on List of notable converts to Islam

As the title says, please stop revert warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, I have blocked User:Bless sins for 24 hours for being the worst reverter in this case. Thanks. —— Eagle101 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

I am working on a rewrite of the Religion of Peace at User:Mike Young/Sandbox2 would value your comments on this, and especially any references you can add. Mike Young 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello Prester John. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

The discussion pertains to edits by you of the David Hicks article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.lloyd (talk • contribs)

Reverts

The reverts can all be completely different. I unfortunately can't file a new report on HP right now, but will do so tomorrow if need be. Arrow740 06:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Block for Disruption of David Hicks.

I have blocked you for continued disruption of David Hicks. There are better ways to resolve disputes then by edit warring. We all know the english language, we can all speak in it, so please use the discussion pages, and cease reverting others needlessly. I have also blocked User:Brendan.lloyd for disruptive editing as well. When your block expires I hope you and Brendan.lloyd are able to civilly resolve your dispute. There are options such as mediation, or perhaps a 3rd opinion. There is no excuse for reverting back and forth. —— Eagle101 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unblock you for the same reason I unblocked BL in that I dont see a edit war occuring that warrants a block. Obviously controversial edits should be discussed first and where a revert of an edit takes place the matter should be discussed on the article talk page. Gnangarra 05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

reinstated

All editors to the article were warned Talk:David_Hicks#Protected that low threshhold then 3RR would be applied after the article was unprotected. Gnangarra 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Howard RfM

I invite you to the Howard RfM. I listed you as an 'involved party'. The aim is to reach a compromise position on the Howard copra plantation issue.--Lester2 06:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

External links you have attempted to add the Australian Greens

Please read WP:EL before adding partisan links to determine whether they comply with this policy. Adding links to hate/smear sites to political party websites doesn't fit with encyclopaedic content. You could also review other party articles to see the external links they have. Peter Campbell 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WHO smoking policy

Hi Prester. While I'll agree that the bit about the WHO's smoking policy passes WP:RS and WP:V, I disagree that it's at all notable. We'll need to see some media reports about the controversy to establish that it's notable (was this ever even a real controversy?), and so far, there are none in the article. Certainly the recent flap over the WHO's press release about DDT is much more notable, and that's not in the article.

You should also realize, if you don't already, that this material was added to article by User:Naacats who was just banned for egragious pro-smoking POV pushing. The way I see it, World Health Organization has this bit about their smoking policy in it not because it's notable, but because a now banned user is bent out of shape about smoking bans. If you still think this scetion should stay, that's fine, but please consider adding some refs to establish that the policy is indeed controversial. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

re Hicks

The references you have provided are unsatisfactory. The material is libelous. Delete immediately.--Lester2 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agenda pushing

Hi PJ, I removed it from Paul Keating because Pete was trying to make out that it was something that consensus had already been achieved on, when in reality going through the history of the article the exact opposite is correct; it has not even been debated to that point, sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.

I didn't revert on the John Howard article because it had the potential to become an edit war because of the volatility of that article and also the fact that the article actually did have a history of having the Monarch and G-G included. Now obviously I would support removal, but because on that article at least the point is debatable I went for the option of opening a new discussion rather than starting an edit war. I would very much encourage you to assist by adding your thoughts to the discussion on the Howard article, I think a consensus can be formed easily and quickly. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that an edit of yours to Family First Party was rv-ed. I started a discussion on the talk page, and I'd like your input. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please desist immediately from edit warring on User talk:Brendan.lloyd. To bump up against 3RR in somebody else's userspace means that you're way out of line and well into harassment territory. The user has repeatedly made it clear that your posts are unwelcome, and removed them (which he's entitled to do). To respond by reinstating your comment with the imperious edit summary "Answer the question" ... well, you're lucky not to be blocked on the spot. If you post on his page one more time you will be. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC).