Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:52, 18 January 2009

Catholicism and Freemasonry

From my talk page... You wrote:

Hi Bluebore – I’d like to change the sentence in the Freemasonry article that currently goes “A number of Catholics became Freemasons, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law and justifying their membership by their belief that Freemasonry does not plot against the Church” to “A number of Catholics became Freemasons, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law”. My justification for removing that last sentence fragment would that I believe it implies the Church’s objections to freemasonry are grounded in a belief that it is an anti-Church plot. You said “ section does not talk about Church's objections but why some Catholics have joined Freemasonry” and I understand that, but there are a plethora of other things that freemasonry is not that may or may nor have led Catholics to join; I imagine the statement “A number of Catholics became Freemasons, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law and justifying their membership by their belief that Freemasonry does not plot against the Church or Nicaragua” would be equally true. Let me know what you think. - Schrandit 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vidkun replied:

Let me step up to the plate on this one: if one reads the concerned section of the 1917 Canon Law, the wording for Canon 2335 reads, in English "Persons joining associations of the Masonic sect or any others of the same kind which plot against the Church and legitimate civil, authorities contract ipso facto excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See." The new Canon, 1374, states "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict." SO, in the LETTER of the law, the situation is based on plotting against the church. All the Papal encyclicals and other condemnations don't add up to a hill of beans, when the law is written as it is. Now, some might say "The SPIRIT of the law is that that Freemasonry is still banned, for the various theological reasons, and not because of plotting against the Church; whether or NOT Freemasonry plots against the Church is irrelevant." That's nice. Why do they bother HAVING a code of written laws then? Additionally, Pope John Paul II wrote numerous times about the primacy of conscience, and that the conscience is where God speaks to man. Therefore, some Catholics who choose to be Freemasons make the claim that because the written law talks about organizations which plot against the Church, and their Lodge and Grand Lodge do NOT plot against the Church, they are then exercising their primacy of conscience by remaining members of the Lodge. It would definitely be an interesting case for Canon Lawyers, were it to be fought as a legal battle. If the Laws of the Church aren't the governing dictates, then why bother having them?--Vidkun 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He sums it up well... it was the change in the Code of Cannon Law that convinced some Catholics that it was ok to become Masons. The sentence you wish to change refers to this fact. Blueboar 17:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My camera

The photos I upload almost always mention the camera that I use to take it, as well as the lens. I use a Canon 5D. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Brogman

Hey Schrandit, I noticed you have taken an insterest in my project. I was wondering if you could provide me some assistance if possible in editing the page, as well as creating a link or an extension of it. Write me back!

Brogman

Casey/Santorum nonsense

You wrote that I'm writing "nonsense". Could you be more specific please? If I've included anything that is unsubstantiated or untrue, please let me know. -- Samharmon 04:54, 9 November 2006

I didn't add the link to the Santorum page. I've only added links to newspaper articles about the candidates and the campaign. In fact, even though I wasn't a Santorum supporter, if I had seen the link, I would have deleted it. -- Samharmon 01:35, 10 November 2006

Aly

Do you know Aly's heritage. Um, I like, totally think it's Jewish and German! --Sylvia 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

She loooks Slavic. All I can trace is that she is EUropean, nothing else (or Aussie). Using my IP

Category:American liberals

• Looking on your userpage I see that you are a fellow Republican. Even though there is a category labeling "American conservatives", the category labeling "American liberals" is up for deletion. This is obviously by liberals who don't want the bias pov of liberal celebrities and public figures to be known. So they don't want them categorized as what they are...liberals. I'm asking you to go to "Category:American liberals" follow the link to the nomination page and please vote to keep the category. -- AmeriCan 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: UN Security Council Resolution 52

Yes, but I didn't know that Wikisource was a source, maybe you should put that in text, like this:

• Wikisource,

now I understand - Patricknoddy 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Concord High School

Of course I don't believe it was built over an Indian burial ground, so if it remains unsourced it should be removed.HokieRNB 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Salesianum

The model UN win was placed as a note in the Student Clubs and Activities section, but still needs a source. The triple crown was placed into the athletics section, but also needs a source. The arch-rival is probably not encyclopedic. HokieRNB 03:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the arch-rival information adds to the value of the article, feel free to work it into the text of the article. In general, trivia sections should not be added. If it's trivia, then it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. HokieRNB 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 122

Hi - it may be my browser, but there's something wrong with the link to the category you just posted on the above article; it seems to link to an editing page. I don't know what I'm doing with categories, so if you get a minute could you sort it out? Cheers.

See User_talk:Chrislintott#United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_122 and good luck with your goal of creating an article for every UN resolution!--Fisherjs 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem with only having one link. Thanks for adding the next set of articles - as you might not be online for a while I've removed the bot tags from the pages and dropped a note to the maintainer. It seems to me that what you wrote is fine. Chrislintott 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United Nations

You might want to add {{United Nations}} to the bottom of all these resolution articles as well as {{UN-stub}} as per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United Nations. Just a suggestion. --Fisherjs 07:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 143

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United Nations Security Council Resolution 143, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://en.wikisource.org/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_143. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 156

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United Nations Security Council Resolution 156, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://en.wikisource.org/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_156. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 157

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United Nations Security Council Resolution 157, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://en.wikisource.org/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_157. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolution

Hi, before creating any more article on UN SC resolution, may I suggest you double check the listed date of adoption of article you are creating. I just came across two of your new creation and they both have the wrong dates in it. Another suggestion, link the article to the resolution available on the UN website (via a simple Google search), as well as linking to wikisource. Regards. KTC (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your work

Glad to hear of your work on the UNSC resolutions. I feel that your altruism in taking on this undertaking merits giving you this wiki-kitten. May the body of your work grow into maturity and completeness just as rapidly as a newborn kitten (shown here opening its eyes for the first time, just as the collection of information on UNSC resolutions is in its infancy) reaches adulthood. Actually, though, that may not be the best analogy because at some point a cat has to stop growing, while the number of UNSC resolutions (and hence articles on them) must continue to increase for as long as the UN exists, unless the UNSC goes dormant in a similar fashion as the UN Trusteeship Council. Anyway, here's your kitten. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure they all need their own pages?

Simply as someone who has read and worked with some of the higher numbered Security Council resolutions, I'd like to point out that resolutions are sometimes best read in clusters, and don't make much sense on their own. Often times resolutions just "reaffirm" older ones and extend their mandates, so aren't necessarily helpful if they are referenced on individual pages.

For example S/RES/1740(2007) establishes a UN mission in Nepal, and S/RES/1796(2008) simply recalls it and extends its mandate for a further few months. (There's a good technical reason why they don't do open ended ones any longer.)

A particularly long example is available at United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267. Even though the action of the original resolution has been heavily modified over a decade through 8 subsequent resolutions, the body which oversees its implementation is still called the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and Associated Individuals and Entities. Let me know if I can be of any help. The resolutions which I have downloaded for easy linking are available here. The interface allows template links to specific pages so you don't need to copy the text, as can be seen from this link. Goatchurch (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Schrandit! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Misplaced Pages:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Delaware Schools

I had quite a time getting Wilmington Montessori School listed - survived both a Speedy and a challenging AfD. I actually used the Tatnall School article as a quasi-template, and have done some additional cites on Tatnall's page, too. If you get the chance to look at WMS between UNSC articles, I would appreciate any advice on improvements. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration

Hi Schrandit, I saw this edit in my watchlist. I checked the ref, and you're right, the info is there, right at the top. A couple things though: the sentence needs to be reworded to avoid a copyright violation. I feel that that is the responsibility of the parties that want the info included, so I suggest you do that quickly so the info doesn't get removed. Also, I thought the edit summary violated WP:CIV, which explicitly discusses rudeness and edit summaries. Remember that civility is necessary whether or not you're in the right about a particular issue, and incivility on your part will make correction of the other user less likely. Just my thoughts, not trying to be a jerk. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 11:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for being cool about it. I absolutely hate getting involved in these things, but definitely let me know if you need me to. Peace, delldot talk 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 40 Days For Life

I have nominated 40 Days For Life, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/40 Days For Life. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IIUS

This is insane. A user comes in and immediately accuses others of "lynching Mexico", "vent their personal opinions against Mexico", advise that they, therefore, "do some soul-searching", and "make room for those who can be objective", and users reply, "I don't see any lack of civility, personal attacks, or bad faith at all, but a good disposition". Its not like this is the first editor who started making it personal (forex. the accusation that I removed the Canadian section because I'm a Canadian illegal immigrant - which, by the way, I'm not). I really don't think this article has a prayer of being handled objectively as long as things like this and similar are going on (such as taking votes to keep statements in whether they reflect their source statements or not and griping about statistics disappearing and then griping that they didn't gripe about that). I don't know what to do about this article. I'm seriously contemplating dropping out of editing it. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppetry

Have you noticed that there has recently been about a dozen brand new user accounts which make edits almost exclusively (or, in some cases, not just 'almost') to the IIUS article, support one another in whatever they are doing to that article, and have contribution histories only two or three edits deep? I don't know if the editors are all legit or not, but it looks suspicious. You might find it worthwhile to read up on Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. -75.179.157.247 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Don't forget to post a sentence or two in the RfC on IIUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Talk:Dick Sheath

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Dick Sheath, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Dick Sheath is a nonsense redirect page formed as a result of the reversion of page move vandalism (CSD G3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Dick Sheath, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha Hey Tom

Yeah, how's it going man? What page did you find my name on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: United Nations Security Council Resolution 203

Sure, no problem. Sorry, I didn't see the sources at the bottom. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Korean War article

I simply did a revert yesterday because it was to time-consuming to try and piece back the original statements along with your additional edits, since that was the way you decided to make the changes. For future reference, it is much easier if you break the edits up into smaller sections, making your additions first, then saving those changes, then making a different edit where you (preferably) break up deletions into smaller chunks. If other editors have problems, it's usually 'cleaner' to revert back to a specific edit than to just disregard everything.

No regarding the deltions, as I kind of said on the edit summary, many of those deleted sentences are in the sources already cited in the references. I have been working, albiet slowly, on going back through the references and trying to find which one made the claim. It's a time-consuming process, as many of the sources are rather large in themselves. Usually if people would read and learn how to follow links, then they could see much more than what is in the actual article. There are a couple a references that I've made that are used in multiple locations throughout the article, and I know there are many more. This article unfortunately has had multiple authors over the years who would add sections or expand other sections, and only cite their source once, while having the content from that source scattered all throughout the article. An example is the sentence you deleted "Elections backed by the U.S. and the UN took place only in the South, where the Joint Commission was replaced by UNTCOK which oversaw the elections with minimal resources and knowledge of the Korean people." I've seen that in one of the references provided, but then trying to go back and read each reference that sounds like it might be the one so that one sentence can be cited (while also trying to remember what other sentences or sentence fragments were flagged) isn't a 10 minute job.

It is also a good rule in general to discuss major additions, deletions or rewrites on the articles talk page first, so if other editors have problems or suggestions, they can be discussed first so that the article doesn't get involved in edit wars. This particular article is also the subject of many vandalism edits, so sometimes reverting back does indeed lose many good edits interspersed with bad ones (vandalism). Usually anything constructive (additions with sources, typos or grammar corrections, etc.) go by without complaint. Deletions, etc. usually will get reverted without a discussion first, even if they are included as part of some constructive edits. wbfergus 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BC to BCE

Please don't change BCE to BC or CE to AD, many artciles use BC/AD while many others used BCE/CE, this will be balance. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I say that there are many articles that used BCE/CE, but seem like you didn't look all of them, so I want it stay like that, they're same thing. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The above IP has also been editing as User:JacquesNguyen, User:Mamenchisaurus and User:Doremon360, now all blocked. If you see this sort of BC/BCE pattern again, please let me know, it may be another Jacques sock. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

StaticGull  Talk  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheers!

Thanks for the barnstar! As a fellow nationalist (and Catholic) I am happy to reciprocate the feeling :)--Johnbull (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article userfied

User:Schrandit/Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change CE/BCE to AD/BC

Please see Misplaced Pages policy here

"Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used ... It is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other."

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino555 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See Common Era. Explains better than I can. Neutrino555 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Enoch Powell

Hi, I have improved the text as you suggested by including proper references (drawn from The Times newspaper) and published biographical material. Hope it looks better. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota

As refugees in many cases. If you change the meaning you need a source. -Ravedave (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

U of D

Editing the U of D page to include its US News ranking is not vandalism. REAL vandalism is including references to seven-year-old dubious honors like being named a "Public Ivy" in something called "Greene's Guides." Whatever that is. - R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.186.191 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, I didn't revert those edits and agree with you that those awards are dubious and dangerously dated - Schrandit (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What it's about is that when I had previously included the US News ranking, you undid it and explained in the edit history that you were removing vandalism from the article.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Check the history log from that time period, my only edits then were on May 12th and they regarded the ResLife scandal - Schrandit (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. It was Spartaz.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. - Schrandit (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

re:commies

Hello Schrandit. I replied to your post on my talk page, I like to keep discussions in one place. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey Tom. It doesn't seem there's any real criteria you need to meet for it so, you have it now. Just... don't ever use it for your BC / BCE edits or anything that isn't clear vandalism because, well, that's not what it's for. Good luck. How did you find me? I ran into your name a while ago and was going to leave a message on your talk page. gren グレン 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Induced Birth Infant Liability Act

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Induced Birth Infant Liability Act

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

Please stay involved with this. There is one editor who is pushing an idea that the rest of us have told him is wrong. He keeps bringing in sources which are unreliable and removing references to the US legal code on an issue of law. He refuses to cooperate. There's no way I can address this problem unless you all stay involved.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As happened before with this article, we have a rash of editors who have no edit history all coming in to work on this article at about the same time and all of them working to support each other. Last time this happened, they all ended up being sock puppets. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same thing happened to be true now. If I write up the request for an IP trace, will you submit it (anon IPs can't request IP traces)? The editors I'm concerned about are;

Soccer mom 5, Grant 23, The patriot watchman, Architect Spirit, Quisp alien, Bsben, Zoe17, Border-Hopping Beaner, C0804080, Colibri37. Further, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these editors are creations of the same puppet master who ran this game last time it happened. So, checking one of the older sock puppet IPs to see if it matches the IP for the above editors would be a good idea as well.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr 13:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Looks to me like you've got plenty of diffs to justify the use of checkuser, now. Isn't it fascinating that editors come out of nowhere, with no edit history, just to back each other up? I'm wondering if Terjen is a puppet master.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

sorry about overwriting your edits like that. Thanks for gettng those sources.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47

Im adding info to the discussion page of this article. it's a more open debate over there. Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

About The Saint Mark's Page

Yes, I copied and pasted from the website because I found it clearly explained all the points that were necessary to compose the article. I don't believe the school website is copyrighted. If it is, I'm sorry, but I felt the page was desperately lacking, and as a student of Saint Mark's I felt an obligation to change it. Williamjdalton (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Policy

Do not personally insult users as you have done with regard to thisedit summary by accusing me of being on someone's payroll, as it violates Misplaced Pages policies on assuming good faith. Nierva (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatedly posted Anti-American propaganda from North Korean state-media. I believe at some point logic demands that the assumption of good faith be, at least temporarily, suspended. - Schrandit (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FA review for Battle of Incheon

Battle of Incheon has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

(I am informing you of this FAR because of your high number of edits to the Korean War.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate redirects

Please do not continue to redirect pages to Illegal immigration to the United States when they are more appropriately redirected to Immigration to the United States. Pages with specific titles such as US illegal immigration debate should appropriately redirect to the former, but pages with general titles such as US immigration debate should redirect to the latter. There is a lot more to the "immigration debate" than issues involving illegal immigration, reguardless of which particular aspects of the debate various wikipedia editors may or may not be interested in, or may or may not wish to discount. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We all have our politics. It should be noted for the record that I did not redirect those pages, I undid your redirects. - Schrandit (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Category :Norwegian-American Wikipedians

Regarding your comments on the talk page, the proper way to contest the deletion is to bring it to deletion review. Since this did not get overturned there, I have re-deleted the category as recreation of deleted content (WP:CSD#G4) VegaDark (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ruth Ndesandjo

User:Loonymonkey has nominated Ruth Ndesandjo, an article you created, for deletion. S/he does not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ruth Ndesandjo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I traced what happened. The redirect should not have been removed from this article as the AfD process was completed some time ago. Consensus was to merge this (and similar) non-notable articles into Family of Barack Obama. Sorry for the confusion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 269

Hi, I came across your articles UNSCR 268 en -269 today and noticed they are about one and the same resolution. It seems that latter is about the wrong resolution. I just wanted to inform you about this. Egs (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh how embarrassing. Thanks for the tip, I'll get on that. - Schrandit (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Save Our State revert

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits linking to the Southern Poverty Law Center source on Save Our State with the comment "Sorry no blogs". The source in question is not a blog, but an article by an accredited organization that discusses the SOS blogs. I would have understood such a source to be in line with Misplaced Pages's citation policies. If there is a Misplaced Pages policy that prohibits such a thing, please provide a specific rationale linking to the policy page in question, so that I might further my understanding of Misplaced Pages policy. A prohibition against linking to blog content is not sufficient due to the fact that the source in question is not, in fact, a blog, but an article discussing a blog.

You also deleted a reference to a local news story without providing a reason why. This needs a rationale as well if you are going to do that.

I undid your changes, pending a more detailed rationale of why my edits were reverted. I look forward to a discussion of the issue with you. Thank you for your time. 76.203.149.212 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The "No blogs" comment was in reference to the section sourced at ojaivalleynews.blogspot.com and I apologize for it. Misplaced Pages does not view blogs (in so much as blogs are personal, anonymous commentary and observation) as legitimate sources and I don't believe it was irrational for me to look at that URL and think "blog", now that I've given it a second look see that it is tied to a legitimate news organization. If that story was published on the newspaper's website (which it sounds like it was) it would probably be for the best for you to link to it there to avoid such confusion. Your material sourced at the SPLC was not deleted and it is somewhat disingenuous for you to claim that it was, furthermore a full-scale revision of my edits was, in my opinion, uncalled for. - Schrandit (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cesar Millan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thesoxlost (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of living people

Please note that contentious cateogories should only be added to the biographies of living people if the categorization is described and sourced in the article. See WP:BLP#Categories and Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite bombing

I have noticed an unfortunate pattern of gratuitous and excessive citation requests made by you to articles that involves reproductive and gay rights. These are often coupled with summary deletions of valuable material. Taken in the context of the religious declaration on your user page and the sort of articles you focus on, and despite an initial assumption of good faith, we are left with a clear impression that you are abusing the citation mechanism to damage and remove articles on topics that offend you, thus violating NPOV.

Maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I hope I am. But, just in case, I will keep an eye out for further edits from you that fit this observed pattern and react appropriately. Have a good day. Spotfixer (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just dandy and I'm glad to know I'll be having an angel over my shoulder but my Catholicism no more predisposes me to violating the NPOV rule on an article on homosexuality than does a gay man's sexuality predispose his to violating the NPOV rule on an article on Catholicism. Removing patent nonsense that has been tagged as unsourced for a year and half can hardly be summarized as the summary deletion of valuable material and for you to describe it as such is highly disengenuous. I'm sorry if I have offended you in some manner but this level of wholesale revision is highly uncalled for and highly unproductive. Next time, check the rule book before you accuse me of violating it. - Schrandit (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people are Catholic but edit neutrally; you just happen not to be one of them. When you violate NPOV, I will be one of the people who will undo the damage you cause. Spotfixer (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My cause is to make this a more reliable encyclopedia and you've been doing a tremendous job damaging that today. When I fail to demonstrate a neutral point of view when dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources you let me know. Until then stop reverting my edits en mass or will be forced to seek moderation. - Schrandit (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you moderate yourself. Spotfixer (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How old are you? - Schrandit (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Schrandit, Spotfixer doesn't appear to be right about WP:NPOV. That applies to the content of the articles, not to the motivation behind individual edits. But you may be using questionable WP:etiquette. One of the main rules of wikipedia etiquette is to try to achieve a consensus, a synthesis of the many points of view of many editors. This is not achieved by tagging statements with fact, and then deleting them. I haven't followed your edit pattern closely, so I can't say that you have a consistent pattern, but I would urge you to attempt to provide references to the things you delete before you delete them. If you recognize that you have a bias, WP:etiquette asks you to actively keep it in check. That would mean that you make an extra effort to find support for positions you disagree with. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for getting involved in this. I know these things are weird and thank you for offering a third opinion in a pleasant manner. Were I trying to add contentious material or challenge the legitimacy of sourced material I would, and have in the past, work for consensus. With the Fact tags and the like I'm taking taking out the garbage on wikipeida and I think I'm doing it in an equitable manner. I tag unsourced statements as unsourced to point out their questionable nature to readers and to offer another, better qualified editor, to source them and when I come across things that have been tagged for a reasonable amount of time I removed them in accordance with WP:Unsourced material. When I come across articles that I believe are of questionable notability I tag them for that to spark community discussion on the matter and on the rare occasions that I come across an article I believe warrants deletion I tag it as such and see how folks feel about this. (I think I've tagged 3 articles for deletion in the 3 years I've been on Wikipeia) The whole time, to the very best of my knowledge, I stay within the bounds of Misplaced Pages Policy. From time to time I go on binges of doing this and last night, among the other categories I was perusing, I was going through the abortion stubs which is what set spotfixer against me. I admit that like any man I have my politics and there is a lot on many of those pages that I disagree with but again, to the best of my knowledge, I have followed Misplaced Pages Policy at all time and have never removed any sourced material, in some cases I have sought out sources and I have made sure that a reasonable amount of time had passed since the tag was added and the claim removed. - Schrandit (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Spotfixer (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Ohio_Patriot_Act constitute a violation of WP:3RR. Moreover, they came after an explicit warning. If I were vindictive, it would be trivial for me to get you blocked. Instead, I'm asking you to undo your own changes. Once you've corrected your own violation of 3RR, there'll be no basis for blocking you. This is your big chance to do the right thing. Take it. Spotfixer (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the page again, it does not. You are a bit a vindictive jerk and would get me blocked if you could. I'm heading to the range, I should be back in 2ish hours, talk to you then. - Schrandit (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use your rollback privileged to edit war. Rollback is for obvious cases of vandalism. While of course, I would also encourage you more strongly not to edit war at all, undoing the edits of Spotfixer by means of rollback is an abuse of rollback. Consider this a friendly warning. Thanks.-Andrew c  04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, and 3 are all examples of you continuing an edit war by means of rollback abuse. In fact, on the 27th, you used rollback 5 times in under 2 minutes. Anyway, I figured you may have forgotten what rollback is for so hence my attempt at a friendly warning. As for the dispute resolution, I'd say your best bets would be starting a centralized discussion of sorts via a WP:RFC or trying, as you said, mediation.=Andrew c  04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I must have been tired or something. Those were "undo" edits, not rollbacks. My apologies. This and this are rollback reverts. Regardless, my point stands I guess, but please excuse my temporary incompetence ')-Andrew c  22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Schrandit. Your attitude is starting to get a little attention from the larger community. Try to keep cool, okay? – ClockworkSoul 03:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I understand. We all have to suffer through these at some point, so dispute resolution is pretty much a science at this point. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Hopefully it'll be able to point you in the right direction. Good luck! – ClockworkSoul 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 05:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just wanted to point out that other wikis are not considered "reliable" under WP:SELFPUB. Please, in the future, cite the UN itself, not our version on wikisource which anyone can edit. And if you have the time, please go back and add sources that meet our basic requirements. Another helpful tip, for articles on these resolutions, you need to make sure that notability is established by means of citations to multiple, independent reliable sources. Did the media cover these resolutions? Did other countries react? Did they cause a stir? Where the celebrated? etc. Not only would doing this make these articles meet our inclusion criteria, it would also help expand the encyclopedic content of these articles. Hope this helps. -Andrew c  04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, citing other wikis doesn't match up to our guidelines. It's much better to cite directly the sources that the wiki is citing instead. Having the template box that points to wikisource is fine, but that is different from actually sourcing the content of the article. One is for promoting a sister project, and the other is for making sure our article content is verifiable and reliable. Because anyone can edit wikisource, it doesn't meet out standards of reliability and therefore it cannot be used as a source. Hope this makes sense.-Andrew c  15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like gay and lesbians ...

those articles are probably better off without your special brand of "help". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.53 (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says that I don't like gays and lesbians? - Schrandit (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You do. Look at your user page, where you wear your Catholicism on your sleeve. Your edits also give away your homophobia. Spotfixer (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism = homophobia, outstanding deduction sir! - Schrandit (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, not all Catholics are homophobic. Plenty think for themselves and reject many irrational and immoral edicts from the clergy. However, the sort of Catholic who wears their religion on their sleeve and focuses their edits on undermining abortion and LGBT articles is not showing any signs of free thinking. So, yes, doctrinaire Catholicism is homophobic. Spotfixer (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tourism in Vatican City

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tourism in Vatican City. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gentgeen (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tourism in Vatican City

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tourism in Vatican City. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gentgeen (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've been watching the 3RR. That sample is really part of a larger conflict between myself and spotfixer. I feel that I've tried to follow the steps provided on the Dispute Resolution page but I'm not really capable of assessing those efforts from an objective standpoint. Our conflict is one of those annoying ones where the two editors war against each others work but never actually violate a Misplaced Pages guideline. If you have any suggestions I would be grateful. - Schrandit (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling your bluff.

You've been littering Misplaced Pages with demands for citations, ostensibly because you want these articles improved. I don't believe that so I'm calling your bluff. I think you're only interested in deleting text that goes against your religious bias. The big hint is what you target and how you target it. In specific, you're big on demanding citations, but I've never once seen you fulfill such a demand. Prove me wrong: show me that you can actually do some research and find a citation in response to your own demand. If you can't, then you have lost all claims to legitimacy, and I will no longer be able to even pretend to assume good faith with regard to your edits. Spotfixer (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For argument's sake lets ignore my over 3 years on Misplaced Pages and my 3,000 edits and say that all that I have ever done is tag unsourced material on pages pertaining to topics I disprove of and remove it if a source cannot be found. Have I done anything wrong? According to Misplaced Pages guidelines that is the appropriate way to deal with unsourced material. - Schrandit (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only are you a liar, you're an unconvincing one. You bump into sexual revolution and find a sentence where it talks about something you hate: the secularization of society. So what do you do? Do you ask yourself whether it's true and search for confirmation? No, you demand citations .

Of course, you're just hoping nobody makes the time to do a quick Google, so you can delete these words that offend you with their inconvenient truth. Then some random anonymous user walks in and finds a citation to back up that sentence. Rats, foiled again. Now you have to twirl your mustache and find some other article to vandalize.

This is all you do: you vandalize by pretending to want citations, then deleting. If you actually cared about citations, you'd go find them yourself. But you don't, and that's how we all know you're a liar. Don't you dare hide behind the pretense that you're just following the rules when your only motivation is to censor Misplaced Pages of anything your Pope disapproves of. Spotfixer (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh shucks, an anon posted an unsourced statement containing a vast generalization and I asked for a source? Really? Man I gotta stop doing that right away.

I'm trying not to be a jerk as I write this but you've got me pretty well convinced that you are a bigot, and not a terribly bright one. My edits are legit and I've never lied about anything. Trying to revert my edits en mass make you look childish and railing against my religion makes you look like an ass. - Schrandit (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And when you figure out that WP:CIVIL applies to you, I'll care what you think. In the meantime, my point remains: you demand citations but never try to provide them. Spotfixer (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Again sir, neither I nor any other editor is obligated to do so. Such a burden would be unbearable and this encyclopedia would collapse under the weight of unverifiable rumor and hearsay.

I noticed that you didn't address my argument. Also, I'm not actually a "sir", so please don't use that title with me. Spotfixer (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

It seems that, while I was recently inconvenienced, you took the liberty of reverting many of my changes. I examined those reversions and found that most were entirely unjustified.

In all too many cases, you continued with your questionable practice of seeking out articles on topics that are contrary to the policies of the RCC and marking them up with citations or simply erasing parts. Unfortunately, you have not taken even a little bit of effort to look up any of these citations, which makes it hard to take them seriously. If you really doubt something, Google it and see if your doubts are reasonable. Otherwise, it would appear that your primary goal is to erase valid material and inconvenience editors who do not share your religious and political stance, which strains WP:AGF.

My response has been to insert citations in the places where it is conceivable that you acted in good faith. In places where you went entirely overboard with multiple unreasonable requests in a single article, I simply rolled back and asked you to explain your objections in Talk. Please do so: if you revert without explanation, it will be seen as a change against consensus. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Madam, I have had this conversation with you before. Everything that I have done had has been within Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines and all my edits are legitimate no matter how you may choose to construe them. I yet hope that we come to some more productive end but if you just want to keep tracking down all of my edits and hitting the undo button I can just hit it again after you. - Schrandit (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've explained myself sufficiently. Spotfixer (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Etiquette Guidelines

Schrandit, lets start anew with this. Despite your assertions, it does not appear that you are following Misplaced Pages guidelines. WP:EQ states that editors are expected to act to improve articles, and not to push an agenda. By going systematically through articles that you find objectionable, and throwing up fact tags without making a good-faith effort to find the proper references, you are (1) not acting to improve the article; and (2) failing to keep your biases in check. These are two explicit guidelines in WP:EQ. This is a gray area, as you clearly believe that these objectionable articles contain information that needs to be removed, and that pushing your own personal views coincides with the improvement of articles.

Please understand that given the appearance that you are not acting in according with WP:EQ, other users may find your edits as inflammatory. Please give other editors the benefit of the doubt and do not engage them in edit wars. Further, please make sure to not appear to troll articles on homosexual topics throwing around fact tags without contributing otherwise. Lastly, please make a good-faith effort to not let your personal views guide your editing behavior. If you believe something strongly, thats all the more reason to make sure your edits on the topic are exhaustively researched, referenced and discussed. Lastly, please don't construe this as a personal attack; it is a good-faith effort to resolve an ongoing conflict and address potential violations of WP guidelines. Thanks! --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Systematic adding of fact tags can be a valid method of improving articles. Editors that draw attention to poorly sourced or questionable text and later delete that text if no citation is added are doing valuable work on Misplaced Pages. That those editors might not be adding citations themselves does not remove that value.

That said, if the goal of the fact tagging is to push a bias, then there may be a legitimate issue. However, I am not convinced that Schrandit is attempting to push a POV. Instead, it seems to me that Schrandit is attempting to neutralize a perceived POV imbalance such as the one which existed previously in the Hyde amendment article. Until it is conclusively demonstrated otherwise, it is best to assume good faith. -Neitherday (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unbiased fact tagging is a legitimate way to improve articles, and even biased fact tagging can result in articles being improved. As you say, the problem is whether the editor demonstrates a clear pattern that indicates that improvement is not his goal. This can be subjective, since its a judgment call, but take Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism as a recent example. He is engaged in an edit war over a minor difference. His argument can only be that the source states the the priests condemn the churches position, and not that they disobey it. But a 30 second google search turns up numerous articles about this issue that do mention homosexual men being ordained as Roman Catholic priests. This begs the question as to why Schrandit did not do a google search to support the statement he was deleting; given his background, he should be making every effort to support statements he disagrees with, per keeping biases in check WP:EQ. My point was not to simply criticize; Schrandit has made statements that he believes all of his edits to be entirely legitimate. I wanted to point out the WP:EQ guidelines that he may be breaking so that he can consider them and avoid giving the wrong perception in the future. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Gentlemen, (perhaps Ladies), I maintain that what I did was in line with WP:Unsourced material. With regard to that, no editor is under obligation to find sources, it is nice to do that, but no one is obligated to do that. Clearly I am a rather conservative fellow and most of these disputed edits are on highly contentious issues in American society, but I believe I have not allowed a bias to override reasonably on these articles. Look at the article Sheela Lambert. I tagged unsourced material as unsourced and removed material that had been tagged as unsourced since July. Spotfixer undid my edits and I undid his and it was all very annoying and then User:Benjiboi came along and found some sources and I am happy. Look at Benjiboi's user page and look at mine, clearly we are not going to rent a time-share in Miami together any time soon but we can get along and I have made no effort to "undermine" his work because it is legitimate and sourced no matter what I think of the article being edited. The Hyde Amendment article is a great example - the way it was written was heavy with pro-abortion (or is you prefer, pro-choice) bias, once that was neutralized by another editor (noted as an opinion and not as fact) I was fine. Look at the talk page for Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, in the 5th entry in this discussion I advocated changing the language of the article because I feared that it had swung into a pro-life violation of NPOV. Per the recent dispute on the page Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, the claim in dispute is not that "priests condemn the churches position" or even that "that they disobey it", in a religion this large there will always be clergy that disagree and even some that break ranks. The claim was that "some bishops continue to knowingly ordain gay priests despite the Vatican's pronouncement". That is a highly damaging claim and it is one that was not backed up by the source and for that reason I removed it. Now I'm not claiming to be a Saint but I have been reasonable through out this and I have and will continue to abide by Misplaced Pages policy. - Schrandit (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you are motivated to edit wikipedia to remove statements that are damaging to the church. That is a bias. If you allow that to motivate you, without any checks, you are violating WP:EQ. How do you check that bias?

Looking back over that Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, I think the statement is inappropriate because it is out of place. The purpose of that section is to present a defense of a position, and the statement was clearly added to argue against that purpose. But there are many unreferenced, dubious statements in that section, all of which are in defense of your position and were not tagged. For instance, it is claimed that a majority of priests "probably" support the church view on homosexuality. How could that possibly be supported? That is a statement that absolutely defies empirical support. Did an independent agency issue a poll? If you are going to state that your edits were simply applications of wikipedia guidelines, then you would have tagged these statements. Since you did not, how is an independent observer to believe that you are checking your biases? --Thesoxlost (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I my language was unclear, I did not mean harmful to the Church I meant harmful to the article in the spirit of the language of WP:Unsourced material. The Church has done many terrible things in the past and has many worldly faults but as the Book of John says; "The truth shall set you free". I wouldn't try to distort fact of fabricate history if for no other reason than to do so is folly. If the statement in contention were verifiable I think it would, in fact, merit inclusion into the article but I have not seen any source that can verifies it. Per the claim "that a majority of priests "probably" support the church view on homosexuality." yeah, that sounds highly unverifiable and you should tag it as such. - Schrandit (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hijacked Thread

The point that has eluded you is that, regardless of your opinion, your edits have been recognized as violations. If you continue this pattern of incivility, edit-warring and apparent POV-pushing, you will find that your edits will be routinely reverted. You need to show good faith by voluntarily searching for citations before flagging. Spotfixer (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Madam, what in all creation are you talking about? Where have my "edits have been recognized as violations."? You and you alone are the only one that reverts my edits and where does it say that and editor must "show good faith by voluntarily searching for citations before flagging."? - Schrandit (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When confronted with an obvious falsehood, I find it more tactful to avoid pointless debate. Instead, I will simply mentionthat anyone who cares to check will find that you are not speaking truth here.

I recommend that you focus on improving Misplaced Pages, which in your case would start with providing citations rather than endlessly making demands for them. The more effort you spend on excusing your prior errors, the less credible your new edits will be. Spotfixer (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Such an accusation is highly slanderous and uncalled for. If what I have done is wrong why are you the only person concerned by it? If what I have done is so egregious why are you the only person reverting my edits? Why are you the only editor to contend that I have seriously violated Misplaced Pages's rules? When I ask you what my wrong is why, instead of pointing to it, do you merely call me a liar? Have you even entertained the possibility that you might be mistaken? - Schrandit (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you no longer have the credibility to pull that off with a straight face. Contrary to your claims, there are easily found examples of other editors reverting your edits in support of the version that I found to be more compliant to Misplaced Pages rules. Since this is a simple fact, stated civilly, I cannot be guilty of defamation. (Written defamation, by the way, is libel, not slander.)

Once again, I suggest that you defend your reputation by actually going out there and making productive edits, as I have, instead of arguing about how great your edits have been. You protest too much. Spotfixer (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've lost such credibility with you, the rest of Misplaced Pages seems to be on good terms with me and it is to them that I address myself. - Schrandit (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's be careful throwing words like libel, slander, etc. around as per WP:NLT. Discussions about the content of the article should take place on the article page, so that others may comment and WP:CONSENSUS may be reached. Let's not return to incivility...(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I will refrain from such language. - Schrandit (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis

I suspect that you're going to want to read Talk:Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis before making any changes to the article. Spotfixer (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you madam, I always do and would suggest that you too might want to pick up the habit as well. - Schrandit (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparent edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sheela Lambert. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks, Chuckiesdad 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you might wish to look at WP:WQA right now. Spotfixer (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Anti-Mexican sentiment. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add, for the record, that the incivility is compounded with edit-warring and POV-pushing. Spotfixer (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, you've got your own warnings, and are doing nothing to help your own "case" right now. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving warnings is easy. That's the problem.

Schrandit has been warned repeatedly but hasn't even slowed down. Clearly, these warnings are ineffective. As for me, the warnings tossed onto my talk page recently were at best useless, at worst inflammatory. Spotfixer (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

illegal immigration in the united states

see my note to you in that article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be fair now, this is sources

More recently, the charity evaluation organization Charity Navigator gave SPLC an overall rating of three out of four stars in fiscal year 2007. According to Charity Navigator: program expenses are 68.2%, administrative expenses are 14.2%, and fundraising is 17.4%. The Center states that "During its last fiscal year, the Center spent approximately 65% of its total expenses on program services. The Center also placed a portion of its income into a special, board-designated endowment fund to support the Center's future work." At the end of the fiscal year, the endowment stood at $201.7 million." SPLC sets aside money for its endowment "to carry on the struggle for tolerance and justice — for as long as it is needed."It should be noted that all SPLC activities, including litigation, are supported by fundraising efforts, and SPLC does not accept any fees or share of legal judgments awarded to clients it represents in court.

1. ^ Charity Navigator Rating - Southern Poverty Law Center
2. Southern Poverty Law Center, Financial Information http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp
3. Southern Poverty Law Center, Financial Information http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp
4. Southern Poverty Law Center, Financial Information. http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp

Don't know why either of these, your recent revert, or the one above, need to be in an article on Morris Dees, because they are really about SPLC, not him. That article, however, is about Dees. I was simply trying to make it shorter and more focused. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Morris Dees does not own or run SPLC. He founded it with someone else in 1971 and is now its chief trial counsel. It is run by a Board of Directors like most nonprofits. I don't understand why there is any reason for ANY financial data about SPLC on the Morris Dees article, especially because most of it appears in the SPLC article. It is not relevant to who Morris Dees is or why he is significant. His innovative civil trial strategy, its use and successed historically (because he thought it up), an award named after him (and why it was given to a few specific people, and his personal life are relevant to a biography about a living person.

In the past day or two a concerted attempt was made by persons who are clearly biased against Dees to (1) add materials to make him look bad, and (2) remove materials that help explain his life and actions. I have resisted both efforts, because they are unfair and biased. Anything I added was an attempt to balance something added by somebody else. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: The section on immigration controversy substantially predates by coming to Misplaced Pages--by years. Not my idea, but needed a LOT of attention. Appeared to have been put there by a SUSPS supporter still grinding an old axe. I wouldn't mind if the entire section on "informal caucases" went away, as I don't think it adds anything of value. Might be integrated into article where relevant. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

village pump

why did you undo my post?-65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apology for falsely accussing you. The reason I couldn't see my post was because I didn't give it a proper heading - as you said.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have violated WP:3RR on Conscience Clause (Medical). If your next edit is not a self-revert, I will report you for this. This is your only notification: you have a long history of incivility and edit-warring, so you know exactly what you're doing wrong. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)