| Revision as of 03:34, 18 February 2006 editHaizum (talk | contribs)3,156 edits →Regarding your edits to []← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:37, 18 February 2006 edit undoHaizum (talk | contribs)3,156 edits →Please NoteNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Please Note== | ==Please Note== | ||
| All fallacious, ignorant, illogical, emotive, or otherwise worthless comments will be marked with an asterisks (*). Thank you. ] 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | All fallacious, ignorant, illogical, emotive, or otherwise worthless comments will be marked with an asterisks (*) at my sole discretion. Thank you. ] 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Unblock request == | ==Unblock request == | ||
Revision as of 03:37, 18 February 2006
Please Note
All fallacious, ignorant, illogical, emotive, or otherwise worthless comments will be marked with an asterisks (*) at my sole discretion. Thank you. Haizum 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Unblock request
Why was this user blocked?! Fire Star & I had determined that his past edits were not truly vandalism! Please read his discussion page to see what actually happened. I totally believed he was blocked unfairly and that this is really just biting inexperienced users without really seeing what actually happened. He hasn't done any editing since then and his only recent contributions was to his own talk page with me and Fire Star. I request that his block be immediately removed! --LifeStar 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This blocked user has requested to be unblocked. Admin: If there is a legitimate reason to remove the block, please do so; otherwise, please leave a note to that effect on the User's talk page.In either case, please remove this template once you're done.
68.216.187.22 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Your request to be unblocked has been granted, since the block reason appears to have been a misunderstanding. I apologize for the lengthy delay since your request. // Pathoschild 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:
Thanks.
Haizum 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Virginia Quarters
(deleted lies and whining)
Hello, again. You may have the name wrong. For example, there may in fact be a reference for what you call "Virginia Quarters" but it probably goes by another, more established name. I'm currently hunting down references for you. Please feel free to help. Once we find the actual name of the quarters variation (and determine that it matches), we can add your text back in. Until that time, please refrain from edit warring. --Viriditas 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: I didn't touch the page since you edited it. Oh, and btw, there are no other names for that variation. "Virginia Quarters" dates back to 2001, at least. The segment will be as verifiable as the others, and it will be reposted.
- Haizum, I'm only trying to help. If what you say is true, it will not be added back into the article. I'm working on verifying the rest of the article as well, so your argument is fallacious. Please try to understand Misplaced Pages policies and how Misplaced Pages works before threatening to "repost" material that is not appropriate for our encyclopedia. I am willing to admit that a similar, more notable variation may exist, and if it does, we can salvage your text. Why not help me? Let's work together to improve the article. --Viriditas 09:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
False. The segment of the article will be restored, or most of the article will be taken down. In a matter of hours I will have 3rd party links that are as verifiable as the other links in the article. At that point, you will either have to just accept that the segment is verifiable, or remove the other segments that use the same 3rd party website as verification, then you will have to admit that you did not apply your standards fairly (because the Speed Quarters segment was left up the whole time), then I will be forced to report this to those that gave you administrative authority in order to make Misplaced Pages a better place. It's not complicated.' Haizum 09:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. I've already verified the rest of the article, and I'm working on adding citations. I have not, however, verified "Virginia Quarters". Please see the task list I've added to the talk page and do a search on any of the variations listed. If they match the rules of what you call "Viriginia Quarters" (and you would have to prove that it does) then you may be in luck. Otherwise, your content will not be added back into the article until it meets basic Misplaced Pages policies. And btw, I'm not an admin. --Viriditas 09:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:
As soon as the version is posted on the same websites that Speed Quarters is posted on, then it will be verifiable. And as I've said over and over again, if you don't repost it, then you are applying different standards to the same type of segment. Haizum 09:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
False:
The external link is not mine.
You've been repeatedly asked to explain why the citation for Speed Quarters is more reputable than the citation for Virginia Quarters, yet you continue to delete one and not the other.
You are blatantly warring. I am requesting peer review.
Also, please review the Wkipedia Civility Policy for your "meatpuppet" comments.
Haizum 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:
Your addition of "Speed quarters" to Quarters is original research, and the external link you've provided seems to belong to you and a meatpuppet. -Viriditas
You just admitted that "Speed Quarters" is original research. Why did you repost the article then?
Haizum 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I made a mistake. I meant your addition of "Virginia Quarters". In any case, since you have demonstrated that you refuse to stop spamming my talk page, from now on all discussion will take place at Talk:Quarters. If you have something to say to me about that topic, please post it there. I am respecfully asking that you do not use my talk page beacuse you don't appear to be familiar with Misplaced Pages:Talk pages. Thank you. --Viriditas 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:
No, you admitted that "Speed Quarters" is original research.
Haizum 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Personal attacks
deleted Viriditas' lies
- Viriditas, review the Wkipedia Civility Policy for your "meatpuppet" comments. Haizum 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I asked you not to post on my talk page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SOCK and the use of the term "meatpuppet" on Misplaced Pages. Any other comments on Quarters should be addressed on Talk:Quarters. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Viriditas 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Viriditas, review the Wkipedia Civility Policy for your "meatpuppet" comments. Haizum 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so instead of an insult, it's a flat out lie. Good work. Haizum 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Abuse
It is a lie to say that he did not contradict himself.
It is a lie to say that he was not dishonest about citation information.
These are facts, not personal attacks. You had no right to delete my comments, which I stand by.
Haizum 05:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop
* blanking pages
* harassing and personally attacking other users
* threatening other users - specifically Striver
If you continue to do so you will be blocked for 24 hours. You have been warned in the past. This is your last warning. freestylefrappe 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will not acknowledge such statements.
- Haizum 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:
On what grounds can you claim that I "threatened" the user Striver? None.
I quote:
"9/11 part two, bigger and better" (which has since been edited)
"the assasination of George Bush to create a martyr"
Those statements indicate some level of hostility toward the United States government and its highest official, especially when no context is given to suggest otherwise.
Striver was reported to both the FBI and United States Secret Service. If Striver is subjected to any legal action, that will be the response and responsibility of the United States government, not myself; therefore my actions did not constitute a personal legal threat as described by the Misplaced Pages policy page on legal threats. As far I am included, I merely informed this user that the comments made were worth reporting, worth reporting by anyone responsible enough to do so; I just happened to be the first one to notice.
Keep your half-truths and empty threats off of my talk page. Got that?
Haizum 06:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to User talk:Freestylefrappe
Please desist in this bizzare action. As most people apparently see it, there is no need to comment on a user talk page that was blanked. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)*
- I do not recognize illogical requests, but I will not contest your statement. Haizum 03:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk page vandalism
Advice: Please stop targeting one or more users pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This also applies to your personal talk page. Thanks. --Madchester 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- No statements have been altered in terms of meaning, otherwise I am free to organize and highlight comments on my talk page to my liking. You should heed your own advice and not make changes to my talk page, epsecially when they have nothing to do with you. Haizum 03:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Besides basic grammatical or spelling revisions, please avoid altering other users' messages. Please note that Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines suggests that users should "refrain from editing others' comments without their permission." --Madchester 03:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- A "comment" is an annotation, which by definition must convey a meaning. If I am not altering the meaning of someone's annotation, their "comment", then I am not breaching Misplaced Pages policy. Haizum 03:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Besides basic grammatical or spelling revisions, please avoid altering other users' messages. Please note that Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines suggests that users should "refrain from editing others' comments without their permission." --Madchester 03:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- No statements have been altered in terms of meaning, otherwise I am free to organize and highlight comments on my talk page to my liking. You should heed your own advice and not make changes to my talk page, epsecially when they have nothing to do with you. Haizum 03:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Olympic medal table
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. As a member of the Misplaced Pages community, I would like to remind you of Misplaced Pages's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Thank you!
Please note that the use of loaded terms like "dominance" are in violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Please choose your words more carefully. Thanks.--Madchester 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- When one says "right eye dominant" they are not implying that the right eye is superior to the left eye. The same applies to the medal table; it is gold medal dominant, as opposed to a traditional ranking system. It's not complicated. Haizum 03:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that the current wording is already sufficient, there is no need to use such NPOV diction. Change for the sake of change, especially one with loaded terminology is unecessary. --Madchester 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- The word 'dominant' is only loaded if the beholder is biased. It is used frequently in ecology, genetics, and even music. Haizum 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be in violation of Misplaced Pages policy if I were to append a character to the end of a user's comment for the purpose of a footnote, such as an asterisks? This would not be making any cosmetic or substantive alteration to the comment. Haizum 03:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- The word 'dominant' is only loaded if the beholder is biased. It is used frequently in ecology, genetics, and even music. Haizum 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)