Misplaced Pages

WP:PAIN

Rather than remove Mofomojo's comment on Iraq War yourself, perhaps a report to WP:PAIN is in order. Just include in the request that if they deem it a personal attack they also remove the comment from the talk page. WP:RPA is a tricky guideline and often creates more angst than it solves. --Bobblehead 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited out the curses, however you make a good point, if its readded I will just report it. --zero faults 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, over two months after the case opened and almost two months after his last edit he is banned for a week. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is he now? Morton devonshire 07:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I asked for unprotection -- it's now free. Morton devonshire 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Lancet and statistic

Thanks for the note on my discussion page. Actually, I have no opinion on whether or not the substance of the material is a good idea to include in the article. I just reacted to what I saw as the stated reason for it being removed in the preceding edit, and it did not appear to be a good reason to remove the statement from the article. To me the statement that had been deleted from the article did not really appear to be "meaningless", and since I think Lancet is generally recognized as a high-quality source that is sufficiently worthy of appearing as a citation in Misplaced Pages, I went ahead and reverted. If the reason that was offered for removing the statistic had been different, I would not have reverted it. Also I was acting without knowledge of what others thought about the subject matter. Feel free to edit as you see appropriate. —Wookipedian 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WOT

Oops. I missed that. Thanks for the explanation. I undid that change. --Bobblehead 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

Can you please point out to me where you find editorializing in this paragraph:

It was August 1988 when all the city beaches were awash in medical waste in a record heatwave that a riot broke out in Tompkins Square Park. The police attempted to enforce a newly-passed 1:00 a.m. curfew to end drunken streetpunk rock parties that had raged through the night, almost every night. Instead, bystanders, artists, residents, homeless people and political activists were caught up in the police action that took place August 6th. In an editorial entitled Yes, a Police Riot, The New York Times commended Commissioner Benjamin Ward and the New York Police Department for their candor in a report that made clear what images already confirmed for many citizens: the NYPD were responsible for inciting a riot.

There is not one thing in there that is not a fact or observation from The New York Times. Not one. It reads cleaner, and gets the most information in as few words as possible. Please explain to me your reasons for changing it. Thank you. --DavidShankBone 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see the edit summary. Its written more like a newspaper article or book then an encyclopedia entry. --zero faults 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me how it does that, you are just rephrasing a contention I disagree with. Please tell me how, or point me to a policy or style guide that I can learn from. Thanks. --DavidShankBone 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your intro was rambling to be polite. The day is exluded, the event is suppose to be the first sentence and bolded, what you bolded was not even the article title name. The mentioning of medical waste is not relevant to the rest of the article, its simply attempting to paint an atmosphere which is more proper in an article or story then an encyclopedia. The emphasis put on the repetition on the "every night" mentioning is more in line with a story then even an article or encyclopedia. The intro needs more work as it seems to say that the targetted group was not there at all, stating "instead", however that is false even by the supplied sources. If it wasnt for the final sentence stating NYPD, you wouldnt even know the event took place in New York City. So I changed the introduction to be more informative and less editorializing. Again I like you writing style, however its not appropriate. --zero faults 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

They are right, the notice board is not the place for it. You could try the mediation that's in progress, or some other part of dispute resolution. Tom Harrison 14:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Plame

This needs to get out more. Edit section to get wiki version. I only know of Valerie Plame biography and Aluminum Tubes. It doesn't belong in the "Plame Affair" article since it's not related to uranium. I am not sure of any other articles.

David Corn of The Nation revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq.. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment.

--Tbeatty 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

Please be WP:CIVIL. Using the 'petulant children' comment to make a WP:POINT in this edit is both a policy violation and poor behavior. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, since its not uncivil to state someone is acting as they are acting, at least the user in question believes that. As for WP:POINT, its not disruption because the user does not believe its disruptive to talk frankyl and use such terms on that page in particular. Thank you for your comments though. --zero faults 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you remove your warning thingy as the concensus on the page is that its not a WP:CIVIL violation and perfectly permissable when discussing editors in a frank manner, such a manner that is permitted on that page specifically. You can read the posts directly above mine to verify the communities opinions on the matter. --zero faults 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT warning #2. Please don't pee on me and tell me it's raining. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Its not raining here btw, is it raining there? --zero faults 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Zerofaults, I have to side with Chairboy here. You see, the argument put forth is that it is not incivil for admins to say things like that. As you are not an admin your actions are not protected under that view... and 'on my side' even the admins aren't allowed to act that way. So please do stop. Regardless of whether we have an equitable system or a biased one it is not appropriate. --CBD 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, it was a WP:POINT violation done on purpose, but at least now if Chariboy says something uncivil I know I can issue him a WP:CIVIL warning as he does not believe frank talk is permitted on that page and finds thnigs like petulant child to be offensive. Also I cannot be given 2 warnings for a single posting. I would like one removed please. --zero faults 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. David Corn (September 5, 2006). "What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA". The Nation (web only).
2. Dec 2002 ODCI (CIA) Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions
3. Jun 2002 ODCI (CIA) Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions