Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 23 November 2015 (→ArbCom elections are now open!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before you plan on typing a comment here please note: I am not an admin but a plain editor. I am not so versed in Wiki guidelines and rules that I can spit them out in a moments notice, but I can easily look them up. Most conversations/articles I tend to be quiet and let people edit away as long as the edits are constructive. However, I will step in when someone vandalizes an article, reverts against consensus, pushes a POV, or in any other way has a personal agenda. Please note that is my main goal. There are only a couple articles that I participate and the rest I monitor.

Thank you very much.

Also, if you would like to gossip, I will be happy to gossip with you too.

accusation

Are you accusing me in any way of any COI regarding Charles Koch? Thank you most kindly, and plese restore the material wherein your edit summary certainly appears to make that unsustainable and simply wrong accusation. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I base my summary on your edit patterns and also based on news reports that the Koch brothers had hired a PR firm to edit their Misplaced Pages articles to remove any and all negative information. The information that they gave more to a charity and not to the GOP means little in the entire context. If you feel that information should be there, then you will need to justify why it is important to include. Thanks. Brothejr (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? My "edit patterns" show absolutely nothing of the kind. Are you asserting once and for all that I am paid by Koch? Collect (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

assume good faith

my comments are sourced from the left and right, be careful not to run afoul of the 5 pillars friend, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about "five pillars." But let me give you a helpful hint: your POV is showing. Most of your sources are from the right, you are quick to say that a GOP president, not known for his transparency, is more transparent then the current president, and are trying to assume you have support for additions that you don't have in reality. Plus, you're comment about "socialist commentator" smacks also of having a deep POV due to the fact if you were trying to be neutral, you would never have added the word socialist. Finally: I've seen people like you come and go. You see the article on Obama as slanted to left, a puff piece, written by Obama's campaign, and many many more comments from Conservatives. This is mainly due to the fact that the article, and conversely the world, doesn't reflect your views on the man. So you have shown up to "correct" a problem and slowly change the article to reflect your views and criticisms.

The issue you bring up is not a pressing issue, is not one that needs to be added now. It's one that can wait a couple years or more for a more historical view point. The only reason you are bringing it up is for political/electoral reasons.

Finally, one of the reason's I'm semi-retired is I'm tired of playing games with POV pushers like you. You can get offended, you can threaten me, intimidate me, or whatever. At this point I don't care. I am simply going to come right out and say what needs to be said. You're trying to push you POV into the article. If you weren't, you wouldn't be ignoring other peoples comments, attempting to run a tally of supporters, and arbitrarily assuming that you have support. From what I read, you don't as most people in that conversation disagree with you in as far as needing to include it now or saying his administration is the least transparent. If you attempt to try and introduce the material into the article before there is a consensus of editor, I will remove it. Simply put. Don't try to play games here. I'm too tired to care. Brothejr (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry to hear you are pooped, how you feel better soon! i have sources from both sides, you have presented none. i appreciate your input, but must weight you opinions against those of the group, as of now, you are still in the minority. wikion! Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Health care reform in the United States

You undid several edits in one click, and in the process you re-introduced several errors that I had corrected. For example, Richard Nixon did not support the individual mandate, but Charles Grassley did. I had corrected that, but you've restored the error. Likewise the Acts are definitely controversial: most states are suing to have them overturned and most voters disapprove of them, so that is noteworthy. The article was very POV and some of my edits were to add balance. The article needs much careful and diligent work, but clicking "undo" does not measure up to the level of care and diligence required. Please revert your reversion and reconsider which edits you think should be changed.TVC 15 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For those thinking of commenting here

I am retired. Don't bother to comment here I don't care. I don't feel like dealing with those trying to push their POV's into articles. I am way to burned out to deal with the BS anymore. Brothejr (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Misplaced Pages talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

New Party revert

There is no dispute about the statement that I added. No one has contested it in talk. Even the Obama campaign agrees it is true. Furthermore, I do believe there is consensus for that much in talk, because I made the statement there, and several editors responded to the general discussion, but not to my statement. Therefore, I am asking you to self revert your revert. Additionally, I notice your statement about not caring. But who is pushing here? Please ask yourself that. Notice that Wikidemon has been following the article, has a different POV than I do, and did not revert my edit. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)