Misplaced Pages

User talk:2nd Piston Honda

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netsnipe (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 3 September 2006 (→This talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:04, 3 September 2006 by Netsnipe (talk | contribs) (→This talk page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, 2nd Piston Honda, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 11:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

Please refrain from personal attacks while on Misplaced Pages. Calling other contributors feebleminded is a personal attack, and is not tolerated. Enjoy editing, but please try to remain civil. You'll find it helps others relate to you, and will in the end benefit the project more, and make your time here more enjoyable. Thanks, Ec5618 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Halo 2 and WP:EL

Here's the reason. The stated "mission" of the site is to be a forum. From WP:EL 1.1.4: Articles with multiple points of view should contain external links providing counter points. I'm sorry, but Halo 2 is not Palestine, George W. Bush, or Evolution. From 1.2.3: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." This halo2sucks.com doesn't fall under that. From 1.3.1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose" should not be included. It doesn't provide any more information than is found in the article. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONS• • 15:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to say, nice work with the SSPX article. Good defense.C3H5N3O92010 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens

I saw your revert of the astonishingly moronic edits 72.195.144.113 made to the Hitchens article. This user needs a very serious vandalism warning placed on his talk page, and it would be best, it seems to be, that you do so given the fact that you reverted his vandalism. This guy is a menace, and he needs to be put on notice that his activities will not be tolerated. Thanks. ---Charles 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism

Speak now or forever shut up, thereabouts. | Norwood's edits -Scribner 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

comment request

You have twice reverted me on Roman Catholic Church, and even specifically said "see talk", yet you have not made any comments concerning the edit. I'd appreciate justifiation for your rash reverts. See the discussion here. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen your comments concerning the new first sentence discussion (which I haven't introduced to the main article yet). Yesterday, I went to talk to propose a change to the last paragraph of the opening. I got support from lostcaesar, and some off topic comments from Vaq. After waiting 24 hours, I introduced the paragraph to the article. You reverted it, saying it talks too much about the pope (even though the current wording talks about the pope). I then took your comments to heart, and edited again, preserving more of the current content. You reverted that saying i don't get the point of your edit. See talk page. However, you didn't comment on the talk page about this edit, and it almost appears to me as if you haven't even read the initial proposal and discussion on talk. This is why I was confused and came to your talk page asking you to address the issues surrounding your reverts. Maybe I am trying to do too much at once in the article and it is getting confusing, but I feel the last paragraph proposal, and the first sentence proposal are two seperate issues.--Andrew c 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You only want what YOU feel is important to be added? You must be G.W.'s friend.

This editor does not feel that ALL the facts should be present in articles.

Does that sound like a smart editor?

(cur) (last) 18:10, 1 August 2006 2nd Piston Honda (Talk | contribs) (so ALL facts belong in the article?) (cur) (last) 18:07, 1 August 2006 Playnine9 (Talk | contribs) m (it is a FACT, that's why it belongs. Explain to me why it DOESN'T belong.)

YES, ALL OF THE FACTS BELONG, YOU MORON!

Oh, and Hondas are slow. --- Playnine9 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you believe ALL facts belong in the article. Including what bush had for breakfast last thursday, or what the wing speed of a hummingbird is. What a moron. 2nd Piston Honda 18:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? The wing speed of a hummingbird has NOTHING to do with George Bush! The fact that you said that is pure idiocy! Also, what Bush has for breakfast(remember, we start names with UPPER CASE) has nothing to do with anything. However, a quote that he made in a public speech with the American people is VERY relevant!
You clearly have no brain. Are you GW's friend or something? --- Playnine9 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of your user page!!!

Hi. I caught that User:Playnine9 decided to vandalize your user page, here, here, here, and here. I replaced it with my welcome message I give to new users to encourage them to utilize their user page. Thought you should know. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. He got himself banned for attacking. I hope calms down when he's back. - CobaltBlueTony 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

United States

No big deal, but I don't like the way you are reverting in the United States article. The differences are very subtle, ones of aesthetics more than substance, so it isn't worth edit-warring over. But, for what its worth, three editors have expressed a preference for the version other than the one you revert to. This is not good wikiquette. I won't revert it again; really, it doesn't matter all that much. But I would gently suggest that it is better to thrash out such matters in the talk page. Thanks --Guinnog 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove content from Misplaced Pages. --Guinnog 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush talk page

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gdo01 06:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On the nature of Apologies

I own HIM an apology? I told him it was an accident, apologized, and fixed the problem all within about 2 minutes, but he persisted to keep talking about it and saying he would report me for vandalism. He's acting like a big douche, to be quite frank. If anything, he owes ME an apology. 2nd Piston Honda 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I think you owe him more of an apology than that. Especially after calling him a big douche. You acknowledged you were wrong, but you didn't make it clear that you regreted doing it. At least, that's the way I read it. Quite possibly he owes you an apology as well, if you were acting in good faith. But that's his problem, not yours. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page

Duke53, please stop vandalizing my talk page. All of your conduct is being reported. 2nd Piston Honda 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of you please take a step back and let it go. Stop issuing warnings to each other or even talking to each other for at least 24 hours. Is that too hard to ask for? I don't want to block either of you for making mountains out of molehills. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with not talking to him. Thanks for the mediation. 2nd Piston Honda 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:Wr4 "Duke53 | Talk" 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll you guys a choice. Both of you are free to remove all the warnings (including this one) you've given to each other over this whole incident so you can both walk away like nothing ever happened. I don't care who started or who's going to get the last word because this is just childish. Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith please! If you two keep provoking each other and trying to get each other blocked, I assure you I will block BOTH of you to ensure that both of you will have some time to cool down. --  Netsnipe  ►  21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)