Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VeryVerily (talk | contribs) at 03:15, 3 November 2004 (→3 revert rule broken at []: archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add new messages at the bottom.

I reserve the right to post replies on this page instead of your user talk page, although I often don't.

File:B 097.jpg

/archive

Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M

Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak

Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.

;-) -- VV 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KR

User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

your thoughts might be usefull over at Talk:Khmer Rouge PMA 22:47, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I didn't even notice until just now, when I checked the history. Meelar 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rigged"

I like your latest wording best. I hope Meelar agrees. Cecropia 01:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VV, I'm in my own little drama right now and I'd rather not step into the middle of another one. Sorry. RickK

lousy English

I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!

If your work on Continuation War wasn't enough (and frankly, that very article is far from ready with respect to factual content and NPOV, imho), or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))

/Tuomas 08:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grammer fix

I don't mind the Grammer fix, as a matter of fact I encourge you to fix my grammer because I have a habit of typing fast. Thanks Comarde Nick

compliments

I wanted to compliment you on your civility, something which should be standard on the wiki, but in practice is rare enough to earn my compliments. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Mediation re

Indo-European

The article says "The Basque language is unusual in that it does not appear to be related to any known languages." Why do you insist in inserting "living"? Basque does not appear to be related to any known languages, period. It is of course true, that if we go back two or three thousand years, there may be languages to which Basque would then seem to be related, but we don't have any remains of such languages and hence "living" is unnecessary, as Basque does not appear to be related to any dead languages either. Vice 21:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See "aquitanian" at . VV 21:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point - I was unaware of that. Perhaps then you should include a short reference to Aquitanian in the sentence? Vice 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see the point. It's just an offhand reference in a list of non-IE languages in Europe, a bit of a tangent. Deeper details belong in the Basque article, which the reader seeking further information can click on. VV 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfA Nonsense

Thank you for the kind words on RfA. I'm not going to dignify the attacks with a response, but I appreciate that you stepped up to speak.

If you're curious: I first became active during the Quickpoll saga. I grew interested in the administrative workings -- but I saw that people tended to vandalize each other's pet articles, so I decided it would be wise to maintain separate accounts for contributing versus talking. The community has affirmed this practice on numerous occasions, so I feel I'm on solid ground -- and I use my real name and valid email for voting and controversial discussions, so I daresay I've got a better claim to legitimacy than certain other users.

As I said, I won't dignify the personal attacks on RfA, because they're irrelevant to the merits of the nomination. But thanks again for stepping to my defense. I noticed it, and I do appreciate it. Cribcage 17:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

...for fighting the good fight against Shorne/Hanpuk/whateverhisnameistoday. I just saw his long diatribe on RfM...*sigh* I don't know how you do it. It's nice that there's some people willing to continually take on this nutjob in order to stop all our articles on the subject from being trashed. Ambi 10:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne

I'm afraid Shorne is not going to stop. Shall we open a discussion about user conduct in Misplaced Pages:Request for comment ? What do you think? Boraczek 13:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you should go right ahead. Shorne 13:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily, I hope you can participate productively in this RfC and the associated Mediation. I think it will do us all some good. I have in the past sometimes edited without providing adequate references, perhaps you have too, but Shorne has essentially no other way, and accords no respect to references provided by others. Fred Bauder 13:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

What Kafkaesque poppycock! Shorne 14:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Shorne is Hancuk who was in between. Shorne's first edit was September 25; Hanpuk's last edit was May 7. Fred Bauder 15:29, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC). User:GayCommunist seems unlikely, see his user contributions: .

Still looking for reds under the beds, are you? There could only be one person in the world with any opinions different from yours? Shorne 23:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment Shorne

A few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:49, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

DIALOGUE?!? Are you kidding? I've made all the steps in the direction of negotiation. You're completely off the beam if you think that this stubborn VeryVerily has any intention of engaging in dialogue.

By the way, go ahead with your silly RfC. I welcome the opportunity. I shall also quote this passage to show what you're up to. Shorne 23:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the ongoing dispute with Shorne generally, but with regard to the one article I've seen, Human rights in the United States, is there anything actually wrong with the paragraph:

The US has also detained US citizens without charges, as most recently in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who in September 2004 was also compelled to forfeit his US citizenship. While the Bush administration claimed that such treatment was justified for an "enemy combatant," critics regarded it as a violation of Hamdi's civil rights. In addition, the US routinely detains non-citizens, who do not enjoy the same legal protections.

This is all true, is it not? Evercat 12:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dead end road

I have recused myself from the arbitration cases which affect you due to your jumping in to help with the disputes I have been involved with user Shorne. It is nice to have more than 3 reverts, but to be more than a POV warrior you have to be willing to do research and cite sources which support the information you feel needs to be included in an article. I fear you are focusing too much on reverting as some kind of an all purpose weapon, when, in fact, it is frowned on by Misplaced Pages policy, and ultimately grounds for a ban. I wish you would slow down and reconsider your attitude and focus more on basic research and citing of credible references than on reverting edits on the basis of point of view. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerily

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation was moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Serving notice

I have filed a request for arbitration against user VeryVerily at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration.

Do conduct yourself accordingly.

Shorne 10:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

cc: Ruy Lopez

• Welcome to the vast "right wing conspiracy" VV. Want some similar fun, come check out ACORN. Wgfinley 14:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

fair enough

sorry bout the deletions... I was making the sections into pages of their own, keeping the text the same. Just thought it would be easier to navigate if "history of anarchism" wasn't the same page as "anarchy" and "schools of thought"

as it says at the top, "This article is 75 kb long, (and it really does seem kinda long to me)

actually the more I think about it.

Actually the more I think about it, that page really should be condensed. It is incredibly hard to navigate, and while I really don't have any problem with the deinitions held within, I think it really should get organized a bit.

okay... I'll stop there, I'll just make "anarchy" (which really isn't the same thing as anarchism, and deserves to be an outside link in my opinion) and "history of anarchism" separate links.

if you don't like it you won't hurt my feelings.

I have no problem with the content, it is just very difficult to navigate as it has expanded to quite a tall page. Sliding that scrollbar a half inch, in my opinion should not whizz by 5 screensfull of text.

Rest assured, I am not deleting, just organizing.

Conflicting Misplaced Pages philosophies : Neutrality

This section was added by Chalst and should not be construed as being endorsed by me.

Ah, indeed, I should have said so myself. But since the matter is aired, what do you think of what I wrote? ---- Charles Stewart 07:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'm not sure it counts as an underlying value difference that results in conflicts. VeryVerily 07:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PNAC, blah blah blah

I know the survey is pretty pointless, but I don't think you're helping yourself much by adding in the "beating your wife" bit.

What's your gripe about the prior version with this?

From my perspective, it read like something Rex would have come up with in his day - a paragraph based on something sensible, but then twisted around to imply silly things. That PNAC have tried to take advantage of 9/11 is a common accusation, and should be represented in the article. But that current section is either deliberately implying sinister things, or very badly worded. In any case, I've been talking with Bryan on IRC, and I'm curious as to what your exact concerns are. Ambi 09:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion?

I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on my last comment in the discussion that started under the header "Your tools for preventing edit wars..." Do you plan on responding? GuloGuloGulo 05:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've had my hands full. VeryVerily 05:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that means that you will respond eventually; I hope so. GuloGuloGulo 05:50, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I just did. VeryVerily 06:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit War with Shorne

Last night I just so happen take a look at the United States article and noted it was protected! I seen this edit summary made by Shorne: (cur) (last) 19:44, 12 Oct 2004 Shorne (Not to worry. VeryVerily is just being an asshole, as always. See the talk page.) From my perceptive that is a personal attack, may I suggest doing a Request for Comment?--] 05:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ohh, ok I'll check out the Arb. requests, if you have and problems just contact me on my talk. :)--] 06:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)