Misplaced Pages

How many

Hi GoodDamon, re 3RR – you are making your argument on AE in good faith, but please take a mo to look at WP:3RR. "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period whether or not the edits involve the same material". Unfortunately, the way it is set up, editors don't start again at 0 for every separate issue that is being fought over. Cheers, Jayen466 11:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about that. Fair enough, and thank you for pointing it out. I suppose it's moot now anyway, as I'm voluntarily waiting for the incident report to be resolved, but you're right, I did technically hit 4RR. Thanks for your diligence on that, and I should have been more diligent myself. :) --GoodDamon 15:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Zero Down, Zero Interest at the Oregon COTW

Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Acorn/ Claim/ Weasel

Claimed is not a weasel word if it is attributed to who makes the claim, which in this case is properly attributed and therefore good style.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a claim, it's an official finding by the Inspector General. And WP:WEASEL specifically mentions the formulation of so-and-so "claimed" as an example of a weasel word. I won't revert you again, but I urge you to, and I'll argue for it on the article talk page. I agreed with your removal of the other weasel words, but this is adding one in. --GoodDamon 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll reread it and see if it is. If so , I will revert. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

] might be a better source for edifification. I think argues would avoid the problem nicely without the authority that "reports "lends (see reference)Die4Dixie (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But it's not an argument. It is a finding at the end of a long investigation. It may not be accurate, but that's not for any of us to judge one way or the other. Right now it's all we've got, without any findings to the contrary, and we really shouldn't be trying to spin it. "Claim" weakens it for no good reason, lending the illusion that there is credible opposition to it. "Argues" is inaccurate, and frames it inappropriately. What's wrong with using the most accurate descriptive word for something that is neither a claim nor an argument? --GoodDamon 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. When ever you make a case, you argue it. The arguments are the proof that you offer to sustantiate your conclusions. Any paper that i write I argue. If the word is troubling to you, think "argumentative essay",

A better analogy would be a legal finding of facts. After all the arguments are in, judges sometimes issue a finding of facts (see the Microsoft monopoly trial for a famous example of one). As far as the judge is concerned, those are the facts of the case, and they aren't open for further argument. A higher judge may reverse those findings, but they're still the lower judge's findings after all the facts and arguments have been sorted out, and it takes a higher judge to turn it back into an argument. In this instance, the Inspector General wasn't making a case; he assembled all the facts and arguments, and issued a finding. If no one of equal or higher standing is disputing it, I'd say the argument is over. --GoodDamon 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

please see if my latest edit meets with your approval. Cheer.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mon

Hey, please put your nose back in place (grin) and help out with the Scientology articles. I, for one, miss ya. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayers

his admission of having planted the haymarket bomb is an admission of criminality , meeting the third prog for inclusion in the category, no? Lyle Mendez says he didn't kill his parents, but that doesn't really matter much now, does it?Die4Dixie (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Scientology

I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.....but

I'm not sure this edit was really vandalism. Boris is a long-term editor, whose doppelgaenger is an admin. However, just to make sure someone didn't hijack his account, I did ask him what was up with the edit. Kind of odd. OrangeMarlin 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)