Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 11 June 2012

Craig Thomson affair

Yes, those obvious LNP supporters are being very foolish in wanting to use Bolt as a source. I have strong personal doubts about Thomson being as pure as the driven snow myself, but the approach of the Bolt pushers is never going to help their case. And it sure ain't encyclopaedic! HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest registering

Can I also suggest the you create a Misplaced Pages account yourself. It makes life a lot easier for all concerned, and improves your own credibility. Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Why create an account? to see why and how. Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Craig Thomson affair, are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. NeilN 13:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

suggestion ...

pathological liar - not good - no need to say that - please just remove it asap - please avoid personal attacks - focus on the content - read WP:NPA and avoid violations as blocks are easily given for such violations - thanks - Youreallycan 14:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and duly noted. Although you may be able to appreciate the situation whereby a deliberately false and defamatory insinuation is found, removed, and then re-inserted with false justification, some people may be reluctant to sugar-coat a negative fact. It appears to me that the editor to whom I referred knows how to play The Misplaced Pages Game well and know how to manipulate its rules. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you raise the matter, may I suggest that you learn how to play "The Misplaced Pages Game"? The body of policies and procedures that have developed to allow editors from all communities and outlooks to create a useful encyclopaedia is one of the wonders of internet coöperation. I urge you to review WP:SIMPLE as an excellent resource to get you going. --Pete (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:GAME. Take a hike. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

lulz

Just a friendly note here. Your participation is welcome, but you are going to run foul of the accepted standards of behaviour if you continue on your current path despite warnings on your talk page and elsewhere. Removing sourced material is considered vandalism, especially if you also combine the act with a personal attack. May I suggest that you calm down, read up on wikipolicy, especially on vandalism and edit-warring and consider how best to work in coöperation with other editors. --Pete (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, get some perspective. You have been just as guilty of removing sourced material that you didn't like. Was that vandalism? You are edit warring. It's reportable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. You can see why he was banned for a year. Heh. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Could you provide an example? --Pete (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

== Skyring alias Pete gets upset about his libel being removed

Your recent editing history at Craig Thomson affair shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Jimmy Wales: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information source = http://www.webcitation.org/5ptOvY3lx I removed false and defamatory libel, and somehow that's wrong? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

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 User talk:Skyring. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.Scott Delaney (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A statement of fact is not a personal attack. HTH. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the edit, and that was a personal attack.Scott Delaney (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I Sent the edit to User:Dennis Brown. You will find out soon.Scott Delaney (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Last warning

Removing the 3RR warning is acceptable, refactoring the header is not. Once more and you will be reported to WP:ANI. --NeilN 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)