Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:37, 12 December 2005

This is my virtual food court - or more commonly, my talk page. Aiyah, just leave a message, complaint or suggestion ah, discuss frankly and casually no problem leh. Just like organisation though. Please leave new comments not related to existing ones by using sections. I will address them as soon as possible on this page, unless it exceptionally has to be flagged otherwise. I have archived the two sets of discussions at archive 1 and archive 2. I eventually want to be diligent and document them like how WMC does his, but I'll get to it...sometime. Oh, I generally don't mind most public complaints or suggestions, but if it really is personal and you just need to get my attention, just email me.

Aetherometry

Hi Natalina. Sorry to see that you've gone over to the Dark Side :-) More seriously, I'd like to see the PS tag in; and I'm not sure why you've become so insistent on keeping it out. There is now a pretty fair consensus for having it in: if you ignore the anons, and the people that edit only Aeth, you're the only one who doesn't like it. William M. Connolley 09:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC).

I removed the tag under the impression that if we removed the tag, the aetherometrists would be appeased, peace would exist and they wouldn't be incited to add additional POV. To me, this peace has lasted considerably, until the tag was added again. I mean, the last time peace wasn't achieved they added huge lists of links to irrelevant articles and categories such as "Natural Science". -- Natalinasmpf 16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeeeessss... but now you're part of the revert war. And I can't say I'm happy doing deals with these folks, even implicitly. Still it seems to be quiet now. I won't revert you over this. William M. Connolley 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (ps: moved here: easier in one place).

I just hope you won't think I am an ignorant supporter of questionable theories and conspiracy theorists after this. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were supposed to be my sock puppet, anyway :-) William M. Connolley 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC).

Hi

I noticed this edit . Please abide by our policies against attacks. I know it has been a long time since it happened, but I thought I should give you some advice. Thanks : ). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian Anger

Hi Natalinasmpf,

Unless you do believe much in national pride, don't take the current arugements during this Van Tuong Nguyen saga too seriously - Note the fact now that there is Australian anger and you won't see too many rational additions for now, and they'll eventually go away when interest on the incident dies down (like Michael P. Fay). In case where you find your WikiStress boiling, try working on other articles in other topics of your interest. :)

- Greetings!, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

I cannot open the zip file you sent me last night. Please contact me on IRC asap. :D --Phroziac _. o º 01:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

...nevermind. i sent that at the same time you contacted me. haha. --Phroziac _. o º 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism

Hi there. Please observe the Misplaced Pages Three-Revert Rule on this article. You have already reverted the same change four times, please stop and discuss the changes with the user in question before reverting again.

Many Thanks. --Intimidated 16:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Communism

Hi there,

I also have issues with your repeated removals of my text, and your most recent removal of a "disputed" tag. Please read the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Communism#Under_the_Comintern and respond to it. Please let's avoid an edit war. -- 24.91.136.214

Well...

Singtel IP. It's shared. Someone may get caught in the block. I'll block for 15 min. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Brainy!

I hope you don't think I'm being patronising, but you strike me as being one brainy wikipedian! And in one so young! ;) Camillus 12:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism, again

Sorry, I'd gone out for dinner, so had to leave off monitoring reversions to the article. There seems to be something of a lull at the moment, but I don't think User:KDRGibby is going to become a consensus NPOV editor any time soon, and I'm concerned by his edits to Liberalism as well. Ho hum... Mattley 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I had to fight to get the editors of Liberalism to relequish a very one sided POV on the page and allow the original liberal interpretation of events to remain on the page. Much in the same way the communist page now has problems with allowing information to be "leaked" where they disagree with the basic principles.

There is nothing wrong with what I've wrote, especially after the multiple revisions. At least I have made an effort as opposed to any of you. (Gibby 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

What do you mean, "leaked"? We're not trying to deny that the People's Republic of China is in fact, very much market economic like - but this is already mentioned in the article, and covered in further detailed such as History of the People's Republic of China, economy of the People's Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China article in itself. As well as state capitalism. -- Natalinasmpf 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Free Market Communists

You have not supplied any good reasons for the deletion of that section. I have edited with each deletion to make that portion fit better with each passing day. Please see the discussion page to discuss your dislike...or more likely disagreement with the facts. Please add comments there before deletion.

Thank you,

(Gibby 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

see the fmc discussion and the NPOV discussion.

seriously, see it, discuss it, and try giving logical reasons... (Gibby 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

I already am. Please use proper Wiki etiquette, as well. -- Natalinasmpf 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Are you aware that you are in violation of WP:3RR? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But that was merely to revert his fourth (and following) reverts - it was clear that consensus favoured a version without a huge "npov disputed" template at the top, especially since 172 et al had similarly done it. -- Natalinasmpf 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That is no excuse to break the rule. I have protected the page for now, but I will be watching. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus" by whom may I ask? And how did you determine what was "consensus"? (BostonMA 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

By everyone who posted on the talk page - it was ad hoc, and if in dispute, should be been raised by someone not just by him, especially since everyone else agreed there wasn't any real problem. -- Natalinasmpf 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly "everyone who posted on the talk page" did not agree with you regarding the the "npov disputed" template. In fact the opposite, if you look at the discussion page, you will see that there is a section NPOV. To date, no serious arguement has been raised that there is no NPOV dispute. (BostonMA 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

I have unblocked the other editor with which you had the edit war, for fairness. BostonMA is making good proposals, that I hope you all consider. Take advantage while the article is protected, because it is not forever. I will unprotect in a few days. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the narrative in the section which is now titled "Soviet Marxism". I pointed out that the narrative was filled with "original research", which lacked verificable sources. I further cited sources which clearly cast doubt on the accuracy of that narrative. You resonded that verifiable sources would be forthcoming. I am still waiting.

Your new "dyoh" template

In your Template:dyoh, I wanted to fix the words "access to anyone to the total sum of human knowledge", but I can't quite see what you're trying to say.