User talk:72.0.180.2 - Revision history

MalnadachBot: Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

2022-07-17T22:18:43Z

Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

Mono: Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)

2010-01-19T00:10:43Z

Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:10, 19 January 2010
Line 261:		Line 261:
	Thanks and best regards,		Thanks and best regards,
	Mike Lyons ] \| ] 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)		Mike Lyons ] \| ] 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

			==] case==
			{\| align="left"
			\|\| ]
			\|}
			You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. <big>]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub><span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;"><small></small></span></big> 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyonspen: /* Editing survey */ new section

2009-07-06T22:24:00Z

Editing survey: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:24, 6 July 2009
Line 252:		Line 252:
	] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:Talk:Barack Obama\|, such as the one you made to ],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)		] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:Talk:Barack Obama\|, such as the one you made to ],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
	:''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make any ] edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.''		:''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make any ] edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.''

			== Editing survey ==

			Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Misplaced Pages. I have noticed in the talk page archives at ] that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

			Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

			Thanks and best regards,
			Mike Lyons ] \| ] 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Friginator: General note: Vandalism on Talk:Barack Obama. (TW)

2008-11-04T06:21:21Z

General note: Vandalism on Talk:Barack Obama. (TW)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 06:21, 4 November 2008
Line 248:		Line 248:
	\|}		\|}
	<small>Small Text</small>		<small>Small Text</small>

			== November 2008 ==
			] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:Talk:Barack Obama\|, such as the one you made to ],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
			:''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make any ] edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.''

Davumaya at 08:07, 20 July 2008

2008-07-20T08:07:08Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ] Please stop making test edits to Misplaced Pages{{#if:|, as you did to ]}}. It is considered ], which, under Misplaced Pages policy, can lead to ''']''' of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-test3 --> ] (]) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 242: / Line 247: @@
 * You previously !voted (]) on what language to use at the ] page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially ]) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at ]. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Misplaced Pages's most prominent articles. Thank you. ] (]) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 |}

Noroton: /* Request for your opinion */ new section

2008-06-06T23:56:54Z

Request for your opinion: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:56, 6 June 2008
Line 231:		Line 231:

	Also, rather than insulting other editors, please read ] - ] (]) 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)		Also, rather than insulting other editors, please read ] - ] (]) 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

			== Request for your opinion ==

			{\| style="border: 2px solid gold; background-color:
			\|rowspan="2" valign="top" \| ]
			\|rowspan="2" \|
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em; color: green" \|'''Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article'''
			\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; color: black" \| '''Requesting your final opinion on the ] language'''
			* You previously !voted (]) on what language to use at the ] page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially ]) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at ]. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Misplaced Pages's most prominent articles. Thank you. ] (]) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			\|}

Ahunt: F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators

2008-05-27T00:45:34Z

F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:45, 27 May 2008
Line 224:		Line 224:
	::well that paragraph is so merrily ridiculous that I think a semi-ridiculous wiki link shouldn't scare us... my good reason is just that the page is a long page, with lots of sources, which is very clear that they are fringe theories (just like wright lol)... I just think it is the exact subject being discussed, so wiki link is hard for me to avoid putting in... and it furthermore gives context without any additional words in the article. Wright was no where near the first or best educated person making these comments over the past few decades, and rather than ''say'' that, we can let the link explain itself. There is in fact a whole 'nother page called ] which I agree is a better ''sounding'' link but seems less related to Wright's comments.		::well that paragraph is so merrily ridiculous that I think a semi-ridiculous wiki link shouldn't scare us... my good reason is just that the page is a long page, with lots of sources, which is very clear that they are fringe theories (just like wright lol)... I just think it is the exact subject being discussed, so wiki link is hard for me to avoid putting in... and it furthermore gives context without any additional words in the article. Wright was no where near the first or best educated person making these comments over the past few decades, and rather than ''say'' that, we can let the link explain itself. There is in fact a whole 'nother page called ] which I agree is a better ''sounding'' link but seems less related to Wright's comments.
	:::ps I just want to apologize for all the hyperbole over the page yesterday. I'm glad a good compromise was worked out. Its frustrating when we are having to have "proxy" discussions on those issues and guess where third-parties who haven't posted, stand on the issue. It makes us regulars get a bit more involved than we always should be. Glad in the long run it worked out. ] (]) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)		:::ps I just want to apologize for all the hyperbole over the page yesterday. I'm glad a good compromise was worked out. Its frustrating when we are having to have "proxy" discussions on those issues and guess where third-parties who haven't posted, stand on the issue. It makes us regulars get a bit more involved than we always should be. Glad in the long run it worked out. ] (]) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

			==]==
			Your edit adding "Some US-owned jets were flown directly from Mediterranean Fleet carriers to Israel, still carrying their original markings." has been removed for the second time, by a second editor, for again lacking sources.

			Rather that adding insulting edit summaries such as "...actually its on the "operation nickel grass" wp, smart guy", please cite your ] in an in-line citation in the article that you are adding text to, as required in the policy at ].

			Also, rather than insulting other editors, please read ] - ] (]) 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

72.0.180.2: /* Wright, take 382 */

2008-04-11T20:40:43Z

Wright, take 382

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:40, 11 April 2008
Line 222:		Line 222:
	I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in ], and I'd be interested in your thoughts at ]. Thanks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)		I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in ], and I'd be interested in your thoughts at ]. Thanks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	:I've reverted this change you made under your fancy cats account because the linking of ] to the words "Assertion that" is confusing. A link should really only be used in connection with words that are associated with that link or else they give false impressions and will result in people that follow the link being confused as to how they ended up where they did. ] does not have any guideline about linking words outside the quote in order to avoid the linking, but it does provide for linking within a quote if there is a good reason. I just couldn't think of a good reason as to why there needed to be a link within the quote to the article. Now, if you have a good reason, you're more than welcome to provide it and link directly from the quote, but just be aware that it has the effect of highlighting certain words and giving them more importance than unlinked words. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)		:I've reverted this change you made under your fancy cats account because the linking of ] to the words "Assertion that" is confusing. A link should really only be used in connection with words that are associated with that link or else they give false impressions and will result in people that follow the link being confused as to how they ended up where they did. ] does not have any guideline about linking words outside the quote in order to avoid the linking, but it does provide for linking within a quote if there is a good reason. I just couldn't think of a good reason as to why there needed to be a link within the quote to the article. Now, if you have a good reason, you're more than welcome to provide it and link directly from the quote, but just be aware that it has the effect of highlighting certain words and giving them more importance than unlinked words. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
			::well that paragraph is so merrily ridiculous that I think a semi-ridiculous wiki link shouldn't scare us... my good reason is just that the page is a long page, with lots of sources, which is very clear that they are fringe theories (just like wright lol)... I just think it is the exact subject being discussed, so wiki link is hard for me to avoid putting in... and it furthermore gives context without any additional words in the article. Wright was no where near the first or best educated person making these comments over the past few decades, and rather than ''say'' that, we can let the link explain itself. There is in fact a whole 'nother page called ] which I agree is a better ''sounding'' link but seems less related to Wright's comments.
			:::ps I just want to apologize for all the hyperbole over the page yesterday. I'm glad a good compromise was worked out. Its frustrating when we are having to have "proxy" discussions on those issues and guess where third-parties who haven't posted, stand on the issue. It makes us regulars get a bit more involved than we always should be. Glad in the long run it worked out. ] (]) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead: /* Wright, take 382 */ fix link.

2008-04-11T20:33:07Z

Wright, take 382: fix link.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:33, 11 April 2008
Line 221:		Line 221:

	I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in ], and I'd be interested in your thoughts at ]. Thanks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)		I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in ], and I'd be interested in your thoughts at ]. Thanks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	:I've reverted this change you made under your fancy cats account because the linking of ] to the words "Assertion that" is confusing. A link should really only be used in connection with words that are associated with that link or else they give false impressions and will result in people that follow the link being confused as to how they ended up where they did. ] does not have any guideline about linking words outside the quote in order to avoid the linking, but it does provide for linking within a quote if there is a good reason. I just couldn't think of a good reason as to why there needed to be a link within the quote to the article. Now, if you have a good reason, you're more than welcome to provide it and link directly from the quote, but just be aware that it has the effect of highlighting certain words and giving them more importance than unlinked words. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)		:I've reverted this change you made under your fancy cats account because the linking of ] to the words "Assertion that" is confusing. A link should really only be used in connection with words that are associated with that link or else they give false impressions and will result in people that follow the link being confused as to how they ended up where they did. ] does not have any guideline about linking words outside the quote in order to avoid the linking, but it does provide for linking within a quote if there is a good reason. I just couldn't think of a good reason as to why there needed to be a link within the quote to the article. Now, if you have a good reason, you're more than welcome to provide it and link directly from the quote, but just be aware that it has the effect of highlighting certain words and giving them more importance than unlinked words. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead: /* Wright, take 382 */ revert explanation

2008-04-11T20:28:45Z

Wright, take 382: revert explanation

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:28, 11 April 2008
Line 221:		Line 221:

	I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in ], and I'd be interested in your thoughts at ]. Thanks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)		I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in ], and I'd be interested in your thoughts at ]. Thanks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
			:I've reverted this change you made under your fancy cats account because the linking of ] to the words "Assertion that" is confusing. A link should really only be used in connection with words that are associated with that link or else they give false impressions and will result in people that follow the link being confused as to how they ended up where they did. ] does not have any guideline about linking words outside the quote in order to avoid the linking, but it does provide for linking within a quote if there is a good reason. I just couldn't think of a good reason as to why there needed to be a link within the quote to the article. Now, if you have a good reason, you're more than welcome to provide it and link directly from the quote, but just be aware that it has the effect of highlighting certain words and giving them more importance than unlinked words. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)