Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Añoranza (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 28 June 2006 (Neutrality of operation names). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:User vandalized

Archives
July 2005 – May 2006

Welcome

Feel free to advance any advise you have, always open to suggestions.

AfD notice on 9/11 Scholars

Thank you for readding this notice, I was just about to when I refreshed and noticed it there. --Zer0faults 14:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just helping out. No problem.:) Nomen Nescio 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG

Hey. Forgive me if others have asked before. Consider removing the image in your sig per WP:SIG - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, but I don't think it is prohibited. Besides numerous editors use their flag. Nomen Nescio 07:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

a.r.s

Are you the same Nomen Nescio who posts (a lot) to a.r.s.? Or is that an impostor?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs)

What does it stand for? Nomen Nescio 07:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

alt.religion.scientology. So I take it that's not you posting under that name there?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs)

Nope, at least not that I know of, but nevertheless, happy to meet you. Hi there.:) Nomen Nescio 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sig

No probs... :) I have a couple of patients who have heard of this mucoid plaque theory... but I would want people swallowing clay and fasting for days based on what they read on WP. Good AfD. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nomen Nescio 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War Article

copied to appropriate talk page. Nomen Nescio 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

Would you consider changing your signature per this guideline? Or at least make the image smaller? I know its not required, but it would mean a lot to a number of different users. --Hetar 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, would it mean to whom? In other words, I'm skeptical anyone's being harmed by this. Not that I don't think inline images are stupid; I do. But hey, give them all the rope they want to hang themselves, I say. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Sign your posts on talk pages#Imposing signature restrictions and some of the following sections have details on many of the problems that users have with images in signatures. --Hetar 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much bothered about the image, but the superscript annoys the hell out of my browser--John24601 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then your browser must hate a lot of commonly-used things here, like this tag ({{fact}}):

What browser do you use? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited article for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mucoid_plaque

I have just done a major cleanup and have made it say that it is a health fraud right after the first name. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mucoid_plaque I'm just letting you know in case you wish to change your vote with the addition changes but I do not expect anything. Thanks! --mboverload@ 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorist_surveillance_program#Requested_move

Hi Nescio, You seem to have expressed a clear opinion on the naming of Terrorist_surveillance_program, but FYI there is now a tally at Talk:Terrorist_surveillance_program#Requested_move, if you'd like to add a vote to it. Thanks! - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War article reverts

Your presence is requested at Talk:Iraq_War#Nescio.27s_feeling_of_Undue_Weight regarding your revert. Can you please address the comment on the talk page. Thank you --Zer0faults 16:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking by bggoldie

Bggoldie didn't blank the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article. This edit added a cite and didn't erase anything. --Mr. Billion 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Did look only briefly, the diff appeared to me as blanking. I was wrong, for that I apologize. Thank you for informing me. Nomen Nescio 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NP at all, thanks to Mr. Billion. Actually I've added two citations and the way I added them split the line. Maybe I should have kept the template include on single line :-) Cheers, Goldie (tell me) 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NSA controversy: comprehensive reorganization

I've proposed a new version for the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article, which is a complete reorganization of the current version. I'd like to replace the current version with the new version (applying all changes that have been made to the current version to the new version, to bring it up to date, ofcourse). I'm interested to hear your views/thoughts on it here. Thanks. Kevin Baas 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War 2nd Paragraph

Please fix the run on sentence you created in the second paragraph. I was going to, but did not want to intiate any bad feelings as your summaries seemed a bit hostile. --Zer0faults 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser

Wist je dat je genoemd wordt op Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs? Aecis 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wat een nonsens, ook nog eens door een IP-adres dat begonnen is met deze edits. Lijkt meer een lastercampagne dan iets anders. Bedankt voor de waarschuwing. Nomen Nescio 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of translating. Sorry if my Dutch is a rough:

You knew that you are called on Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs

What a nonsense, also once more by Ip-adres that has started with these edits. A more calumny campaign seems then something else. Thanks for the warning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.20.59 (talk • contribs)

Can Mr Anonymous (Merecat (talk · contribs)?) refrain from stalking me? Nomen Nescio 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And this time a correct translation: Me: Did you know your name is being mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs? Nescio: What a load of nonsense, and from an IP address that started these edits on top of that. Seems more like a smear campaign than anything else. Thanks for informing me. Aecis 06:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on June 2 2006 (UTC) to Haditha incident

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Um, it would have been nice to know if you were warring over the incident/massacre bit; or the blockquotes bit (quite frankly I can't see why you should care so strongly about the blockquotes).

Mr Anonymous, I know you are misrepresenting the facts. Please do not call everything I do a revert. Yesterday! Come on. Nomen Nescio 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|Three edits do not constitute a violation of 3RR}} Since 3RR only applies in case of more than three, I ask you to unblock me since I evidently did not violate the 3RR. Please point out the more than three reverts! Also, since this block is incorrect I ask you to remove it from my history. Nomen Nescio 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.220.54 (talk • contribs)

They are as listed on the 3RR page William M. Connolley 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact it is listed by Mr Anonymous should ring a bell, but in any case does not make it true. The first is not a revert. It is a normal edit. Clearly this is a misrepresentation of what I did. Even so, the block was years after I made an edit, please unblock. Nomen Nescio 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The first is a revert. Here is another revert from you from the day before: So this is obviously not a plain edit.

Even assuming that "years" was figuratively speaking: How fast do you expect these things to happen?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.220.54 (talk • contribs)

Mr Anonymous, I do not know what your reason is for misrepresenting the facts, but this has a strong reek of Merecat (talk · contribs). Since the first edit is just that I again ask to be unblocked. Nomen Nescio 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting any facts. You did (at least) one revert yesterday and four today. Why would the first revert today not be a revert?

No, I'm not Merecat. I once used a regular username, but I can't remember ever meeting you before yesterday at Haditha. This is no tit-for-tat. --217.235.220.54

Could William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) look into this matter and confirm the first edit was NOT a revert. And can he also confirm that at the time of him blocking me I had not made any edit to the page for some time, so blocking seems a bit superfluous. Nomen Nescio 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I get you on the time issue. Of course you didn't do any reverts then, because I followed 3RR and you had no reason to revert again. --217.235.220.54

I stopped editing since I had made THREE reverts, therefore I had to stop. Mr Anonymous you did your job, childishly made a false report and now you got what you wanted. Please stop visiting my page unless you are now making a request to unblock me. Nomen Nescio 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, your first edit listed by anon is not a revert, but the "previous version reverted to" is: William M. Connolley 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I thought the block was inappropriate. I commented to that effect on the referral page. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read the three revert rule please note that it says you are not entitled to three reverts. Any edit warring or disruption can be blocked. However, if you would agree not to continue edit warring, I'm sure you could be unblocked early. As a side note, you might want to take that image out of your signature; the signature guideline has recently been changing from discouraging images to stating that images are no longer allowed. Thanks! Shell 11:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the signature guidlines. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. Shell 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the entire policy page, specifically, the section called Intent of the policy which I referred to earlier. If the administrator feels you are engaged in an edit war and a short block will stop said war, they may block regardless of the actual number of reverts. Personally, I find it more helpful to avoid reverting anything but vandalism, and discuss any concerns I have about changes made to an article. Shell 11:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, but in reviewing this you might have noticed that at the time of blocking I was no longer working on that page. I find it disturbing that an admin blocks someone without considering that it is more likely (as evidenced by my edit summary) he will not revert again. In my mind this block was in violation of WP:POINT Nomen Nescio 11:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand, but unfortunately we cannot read minds. I'm glad you moved on to work on something else and hopefully in the future you can find other ways to resolve editing differences. Also, if you have a 3RR posted and have stopped editing, you can make a note on the 3RR report to that affect and the admin reviewing the situation will take that into consideration. Shell 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He can not read my mind, but he can read my edit summary, and notice that the anon suggested my first edit was a revert while it was not, and he can try and think about why a block is necessary (15:12h) according to Mr Anonymous when no revert has occured in a long time (14:30h). Nomen Nescio 11:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am not interested in arguing with you over the situation. I'm sorry you felt unfairly blocked and I've tried my best to explain ways to avoid it in the future by not even appearing to be edit warring. I hope that helps; happy editing! Shell 11:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:AN3:

• Premature block in my opinion too. User:Nescio is an experienced editor with a positive history of contributions. While the block is within policy, would have been good if there was discussion with Nescio prior to block. -- Samir धर्म 11:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, first of all I never asked for a block anywhere. I was surprised that you got one, but assumed that it would be just procedure. I agree that a block is a disproportionate reaction.

However, the case stands as decribed.

You say that you did only three, not four reverts and claim that the first change quoted in my report is a normal edit. There is no basis for this claim. Your change did not create a new version of the article in question but reverted to a version which existed before. This is made perfectly clear by your changes to the same formatting made in the two days before. It was your fourth revert.

You say that you was blocked "years" after the fact. Actual it's 43 minutes, and I think this a perfectly good time frame. You can't expect every editor to know the procudeures for 3RR by heart, and you can't expect admins to stand by in seconds.

You say that you made clear that you would stop editing in your comment. There are two answers to that: First, I a can only assume you refer to the phrase "my 3rd". Now assuming this could easily be interpreted as "I will abstain from editing in the future", why would anyone believe this if in fact this was your 4th revert? Second, just going away would be no help. If I had reverted the article then I would have broken 3RR myself. So some measure was required; I didn't ask for a block but (on the original report) to "revert to pre-3RR state and tell him to use the discussion page".

You accuse me of misrepresenting facts, making false reports and even lying. Now of course since I'm anonymous you can libel and slander me with impunity, that, however, doesn't make it true. I never lied, I made no false reports and I never misrepresented any facts. (I made procedural errors though.)

Again, I think a block is disproportionate and was surprised about what then seemed to be the standard response. (In fact, admin-revert to blockquotes and a pointer to the discussion would have been more useful.) --217.235.239.71

Thanks

Apparently not every editor is as enthousiastic as William M. Connolley, as evidenced here. Thanks for the support, your comments are exactly what I was thinking. There was no reason to react like he did without even reviewing the accusation, which he later admitted was false. Nomen Nescio 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

van Bergen

Cpied to relevant page. Nomen Nescio 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

As a user you know, too, refuses to solve conflicts reasonably, I would like to ask for your comment. Añoranza 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I appreciate your neutral position over the situation with Gorgonzilla. While we may not see eye to eye, I would not hate another person over that, it would leave me very lonely. However unfortunatly it seems this user has resorted to attempting to insert themselves into my current RfC as they are now posting on the discussion pages the dispute with Anoranza was over. I have decided to drop this username and begin another one soon, till then I will edit the wiki from an IP as to not create an obvious username that will also be followed by this user. While you will undoubtly see me again, this username will be gone and I want you to know that I did not hate you, nor have any bad will toward you. Differences of opinions are just that. --zero faults 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to keep my username, but once again want to say thank you for diffusing the situation with Gorgonzilla, my deepest apologies for anything that may have been said in the past that offended you. --zero faults 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC against Commodore Sloat

Hi, I'm contacting you to ask that you take a look at the conduct RfC brought against me by TDC (talk · contribs). I'm contacting you because the RfC involves some pages that you have edited on in the past. I value whatever contribution you may make to the RfC page, if you are so inclined. Thanks.--csloat 07:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

After the fact

Your edits to what the topic is addressing after people have already voted is misleading, please refrain from doing it. People voted on the information as it was presented, changing it later misrepresents what they voted for. Thank you. --zero faults 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct. They however did not vote, but I realized they were incorrecdtly informed. I added information to make poll represent the facts. They wiull see it and be better informed. Nomen Nescio 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are engaging in misrepresenting peoples votes. I ask you once again to stop. People have participated in a poll and you are changing the contents of that poll to make a political point. WP:POINT, what you are doing is disruptive. Please stop. --zero faults 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • How many times are you going to attempt to misrepresent the facts? stop vandalizing the page. WP:POINT--zero faults 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you or are you not asserting Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism? Nomen Nescio 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We will take the lack of response as an admission he feels Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism. By not explaining this in this poll he admits that the poll was not fairly presented. Oddly enough even reference to previous discussions and their results are being deleted. How about manipulating a poll! Nomen Nescio 13:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a job, relax yourself. One of the stated reasons in Res 114 as well as one of the previous UN resolutions is about saddams links to terrorism. Some people do work you know, maybe you should be more patient. --zero faults 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero

I didn't mean to remove him. Things get chaotic on AIAV at times. Anyway, it's been restored. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Woohookitty 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Only wanted to know how to proceed, since reverting my comments back inevitably leads to 3RR, and we do not want that. Second, I was not sure about him being allowed to remove my comments. Was ab but impatient so I also posted at AN/I. Thank you anyway. Nomen Nescio 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are changing the basis of a poll, do not misrepresent what you are doing. You are also changing the content after 20+ have already weighed in. YOu do not want to participate then that is your perogative, however vandalizing a poll to make it something you do want to participate in, is not appropriate. Cease your vandalism. --zero faults 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Confused

I am aware that it's already been at AN/I; that's still where it needs to go. AIV is for simple vandalism in progress. More complex issues including such activity as content disputes, etc., that require admin intervention go to AN/I; personal attack intervention is WP:PAIN; etc. Your report was not a case of simple vandalism. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Answered at editor's page. Nomen Nescio 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

With apologies, this is why the noticeboard exists. I'm occupied elsewhere. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply?

Moved to relevant page. Nomen Nescio 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Poll & Your Accusations

You are attempting to manipulate the poll by adding your POV to the statements people have already voted and discussed. You cannot cahnge a poll after 20+ people have voted on it, changing the contents of that poll, adding statements to it, is misrpresenting the people who voted. Its even misrepresenting the issue. Cease your vandalism. YOu have been asked and warned 3 times already. Stop editing the contents of the questions for the poll. YOu do not like it, then do not participate or say so in the comments section, you are being disruptive and vandalizing to make a political point. See WP:POINT. I am tired of saynig this to you as you continue to do it anyway and attempt to lie to people about what you are doing. --zero faults 14:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sillyness, commenting on a poll is what it is there for. You removing other editors comments is vandalism and manipulation of the poll. Nomen Nescio 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You can comment, you just cannot change what the poll is about. --zero faults 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also your personal attacks was accusing me of removing Kizzles comments from the WP:WOT page, something you still have not provided a dif for. --zero faults 14:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

False, you removed my comment on the votestacking in that poll as a personal attack. This was not related to Kizzle. I will provide the diff, be patient. Nomen Nescio 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation on the CfD page said I removed Kizzles comments, provide a dif, do not change the subject. --zero faults 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How can someone who filed an AN/I report and complained about their comments be so consist in attempting to remove mine? I comment where I did, and you have no right to move it, the comments were in direct relation to the vote being cast. Its where its appropriate, much like your comment on the CfD. Stop moving it and debate the facts. --zero faults 15:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also stop attempting to reclassify my comments as votes, they clearly state that I do not recognize your voting questions. You are attempting to mislead people as to my intentions. --zero faults 15:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Stop reverting the article. My comments are not votes, and they have a right to be noted where they are. Odd you would fight against this same thnig when its conveinent for you. --zero faults 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To find a middleground with your persistence, I created a subsection regarding the NPOV of your questions, and put my comments there. Cease attempting to have them count as votes as if I am supporting your questions. --zero faults 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I am also waiting for you to provide more questions you would like answers to. --zero faults 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your summary of the past polls are disregarding the questions, I have added comments I know you will want to remove, however I will just put them back unless you specifically stop lying about what the polls were about. Feel free to remove the entire summary however as misrepresenting the issues that were taken up is not a way to conduct a poll. --zero faults 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for (a rather symbolic six hours, next time it will be 24) for breaching the 3RR rule (please review it). Please cease revert warring. I'll keep an eye on the page in case you wish to discuss the block with me. Thanks. El_C 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Does this mean you blocked the editor who kept removing comments too? And, how do I solve the problem of mass deletion when reporting to AV and AN/I resulted in nothing? Nobody stepped in. Do I simply accept these deletions? Nomen Nescio 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it means that. You needed to wait until an admin would have stepped in — there appears to be a bit of a backlog. Note that once the block expires, you are prohibited from reverting any article for 24 hrs, except for obvious vandalism (i.e. unrelated to this dispute). El_C 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War article consensus

Hi Nescio.

I'm kind of a newcomer to the Iraq War article - I guess you've been working on it for a while. I wonder what you think of the idea that's being tossed around now, of putting "War on Terrorism" in quotes in the infobox, and then explaining in the text what's problematic about that label. Does that seem to you like a good solution? -GTBacchus 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please tell us what would make you happy, 4 people voted against it, 1 being you, 1 being kizzle who we managed to work with. What would you see as a fair middleground? --zero faults 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you fel you need to group everyone who voted by one sentence? They didnt all say that. Are you going to participate here with us so we can find a middelground?--zero faults 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the questions and the vote count, your interpretation of those votes is misleading. You cannot say all 10+ people voted in the way you are stating it. Stop attempting to slant the poll. --zero faults 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please advise regarding Zero

To be honest, I really don't know, but WP:AIV is for cases of clear vandalism when the vandal needs to be blocked immediately. Right now, you have something in WP:ANI. Enough admins will be looking at it, but I'll make sure Zero doesn't delete it or anything, okay? --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT template & Iraq War

I decided I'll stick to the current version of the WOT template, but thanks for the tip... Esaborio 02:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

at 2003 Invasion of Iraq.Larry Lawrence 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of operation names

Please note the discussions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions and Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid. Añoranza 01:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)