Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anetode (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 7 January 2009 (→AN comment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Commune

I wanted to create an article about this group - www.thecommune.wordpress.com - who emerged from a split in the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. The AWL article references them and has a red link to the group.

So I wanted to create a piece here

http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Commune

But after repeated deletions it is not possible. The group, also called the International Communist Group, has been referenced in other left-wing media, e.g the Weekly Worker (www.cpgb.org.uk) and has produced its own newspaper and held several meetings.

So I wondered how to unblock this 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I've added a response to your question on journalist notability here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Journalism#Notability_guidelines 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi, Tznkai - thanks for your kind message on my talk page. Happy New Year to you, and let me take this opportunity to apologize for my part in our disagreements last year. With respect - Kelly 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Tznkai,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email. I voluntarily requested the removal of my administrative tools a couple months ago, because I realized I was spending too much time in working on disputes and not enough time on content. At the present time, I'm not interested in taking on additional tasks related to handling disputes, so I am definitely not interested. GRBerry 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria Thayer

See RFAR and new post at Clerk board. Then archive some of your talk page.;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

GM Cupertino was caught socking, see RFCU. As he's in a RFAR now, we've decided on a conditional unblock. I posted this on his talk page: "You have been unblocked by arbcom but are limited to participation in your arbcom case pages, own user page, and own user talk page. Edits to other pages during the next two weeks will result in immeditate reblock from that point for a full more two weeks." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Protection of "住田多蔵"

Thanks! That page was getting annoying! Hopefully the editor will get the hint this time!--Sallicio 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PhysicsEng

This user has 2 edits in December 2007 prior to the contributions on the evidence page of the Fringe science ArbCom case. The wording ("pro-science" right wing) and style is very similar ot that of MaxPont on the evidence and workshop page ("pro-industrial" right wing); it looks like the evidence of User:Durga's Trident at the cold fusion case. I wonder whether you or one of the two clerks assigned to the case could check whether the two users are connected in any way (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry). (I am asking you because you came to my talk page to request a change in my evidence, which I made although you don't seem to have noticed.) Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Same applies to this anonymous IP 81.131.6.201, who has just added similar type of evidence. Mathsci (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is PhysicsEng, and I can assure you that I only use one account, this one, when posting anything on Misplaced Pages. It is the only acct I have ever created on Misplaced Pages. I have no idea who Durga is, or any of the other users mentioned above...

And yes, I probably did make some edits way back in Dec.07... since ScienceApologist was clearly in the wrong and violating numerous standards, and yet, he seemed to get away with it just because he was an editor, and even threatened that he 'had friends in high places', and would get you banned if he wanted... meaning that he knew some sysadmins or something. Why do you think its been so long (Dec'07) since I've taken valuable time to contribute anything??? Because I was so frustrated with the havoc caused by SA, and the fact that the CF page was reverted back to the 2004(?) version. What a friggin' travesty. I AM one of the uninvolved, but SELF-INFORMED, persons who HAS read many of the papers on CF, and how a miscreant like SA can push his editorial weight around when he hasn't even read any of the latest papers is beyond me. So much has taken place since 2004, that the CF page has still got a long way to go to be current... Fortunately, I see that there is now an Arbitration case against SA, and I hope this guy is banned forever. The damage he has done by driving good people away from Misplaced Pages, far outweighs what editorial contributions he's made. It's about time that some one of higher authority seriously investigate this guy... PhysicsEng (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban of Pcarbonn

Tznkai - regarding ban of Pcarbonn notice posted by you: "Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee."

I am writing a news story on the ban of Pcarbonn. Can you please explain/show me the reason for the ban? StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai. Thanks for getting back to me. Please provide me with the press POC.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You got reverted again

ArbCom clerks vandalising? What next? Sceptre 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this. I apologize for my part in it. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AN comment

Hi. Would you mind if I de-indent your comment? It pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter. If it was in continuation of the thread and so directed at me, then I must confess that I have not assessed the RfC, my comments merely reflect implementation. ˉˉ╦╩ 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)