This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rex071404 (talk | contribs) at 08:12, 11 November 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:12, 11 November 2005 by Rex071404 (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hi Mr. Tibbs! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
I had to be the first to welcome you!
paul klenk 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yum
Your username reminds me of Ethiopian food. Thanks for making me hungry. · Katefan0 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
BigDaddy
Do you know if anywhere, such as on a User:Talk page, BigDaddy has indicated why he doesn't want to respond? I think he has gotten better generally. Marskell 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think this: and this pretty well explains his motives. See my post on Hipocrite's talk page: . I am in the middle of writing up an RfAr myself, since Kizzle doesn't seem to be moving forward with his, and his statement is well over 500 words long. As to your opinion about his improvement, I think you need to look through his recent edits: . Also it is important to note the community consensus on this issue. Mr. Tibbs 20:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Check BD's Talk page. He's responded to your Arbitration quotation with more personal attacks. It's really sad. Keep up the good work. Eleemosynary 07:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually my footnotes 1 and 2 above pretty much explain your motives. Thus, this rabble-rousing attempt to revive a pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around, help vindicate my thesis far more eloquently than I ever thought possible. And for that I give you heartfelt thanks.Big Daddy 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for the message regarding the RfA. paul klenk 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I won't be participating, but I will be watching it closely. · Katefan0 04:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Notice on article Talk pages?
Hi, Mr. Tibbs. Thanks for your work with the RfC and RfA against BD777. You've placed notices on individual user pages at each stage of this. Should a notice be placed on article Talk pages that have been impacted by this problem being accepeted for arbitration, such as Talk:Karl Rove and Talk:Ann Coulter? It might help to have people who were chased off by the unfolding of events alerted to this major event, to participate in the Arbitration, and perhaps slowly start coming back to the articles in question. Then again, would this additional notice be seen as incendiary? What do you think? --NightMonkey 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be seen as incendiary by most. Seeking consensus is just a good thing in general. Just keep it short and simple, so as to not be too intrusive. The reason I haven't done it myself, is because at the moment I am busy with the Arbitration Evidence page . So just go ahead and do it if you want to. Thanks for asking me first though. Mr. Tibbs 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Move for a temporary injunction against BigDaddy777
A move for a temporary injunction has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. --Woohookitty 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help WoohooKitty) Big Daddy 08:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Added my support. Thanks for the heads-up. Mr. Tibbs 18:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Q1werty
Q1werty was here--Q1werty was here 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we...
All give Redwolf a kiss? I don't care if he's a guy or not. lol Thank god. --Woohookitty 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Manual of Style : disambiguation pages
"Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place." JDR 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Reddi, you know full well that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the post invasion articles are essential to this topic. Especially considering the fact that your recent refactoring of the Iraq War article has thrown that page into chaos, and forced me to put up an AfD on War of Iraq. In your most recent edit you even readded vandalism: "OMG THE IRAQIS THEY BOMB US HOMG" . Mr. Tibbs 18:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- easy hotshot ... if you look @ the edit history ... it was 82.45.21.253 on 09:55, 20 October 2005 that was the vandal ... I missed that ... but that doesn't excuse the excessive wlinks ... they are not needed as per the Manual of Style citation.
- AND the AfD is unnecessary ... and wikipedia guidelines call for article splits when necessary ... and as
- ALSO the recent refactoring of the Iraq War article included factors after the war ... this threw that page into chaos. 'War of Iraq' covers the multinational forces and the old Iraqi army (something that needs to be doen to conform to a higher standard of quality; it is a military science subject ). Contrary to yourallegation .... a division is necessary to differentiate it from the loose collection of different violent events of the "colloquial" use. The Iraq War article covers this informal colloquial use. JDR 18:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Reddi, I'm not even going to argue with your POV about "colloquial" since the only person who seems to be supporting it is you. Just take a look at the AfD vote page: . Not a single keep vote other than yours. If you want to make a "Military Aspects of the Iraq War" or something like that fine. But we don't need a duplicative War of Iraq. And we do need to link to the other two most important articles on this subject in the disambiguation page: 2003 Invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005. Mr. Tibbs 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- A seperate article is need to differentiate between the war proper ... and the informal references to the various conflicts.
- As per Jacquelyn Marie's comment, this issue seems to need arbitration, not an AfD vote ... so really the AfD was inappropriate.
- Your allegation of "showcase Reddi's version" is inaccurate ... which biased the votes (and, BTW, the majority want to keep the NPOV content .... but move it back (eg., merge) into the original article). The article is to provide a NPOV article of military science ... Sincerely, JDR 19:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Tibbs, running to Steve to get him to help you in attempts to delete the neutral article doesn't help your case. And has been stated .... in the 'Iraq War Talk' _by others_, the technical exposition of facts (as in the War of Iraq article) is the most NPOV. JDR 21:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Mr. Tibbs, its highly improper to make a POV-based fork of an article on Misplaced Pages (see Wikinfo) --in fact it contradicts our prime directive to strive for NPOV. Nuf Said. -St|eve 18:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, looks like you perdicted the War of Iraq deal wrong, Reddi. - Mr. Tibbs 04:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
John Kerry
If you read Talk:John Kerry you will see that a great deal of effort went into agreeing on a new consensus version on 11.03.05. However, the editor you just reverted me in favor of, is threatening to roll everything back 1 month (in single section of article) becuase he is against the new consensus. James has been guard-dogging an arguably POV edit for weeks. At this point, there is consensus to move forward, but he is fighting. Please don't intercede again without reading all the associated talk dialog. Thanks. Rex071404 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Convenient timing with your latest revert. Rex071404 06:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Tibbs, I see what you are doing at John Kerry and it's not funny that you keep swooping in and reverting. These actions of yours, along with your failure to dialog there, while examined in the light of your efforts to push for 3rr against me, do not reflect well on you. I think that you are harming the efforts to resolve this. Please reconsider what you are doing. Rex071404 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)