Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:37, 29 June 2006

archive contains earlier material from the talk page; August 2005 -- February 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

archive2 contains material from the talk page; March 2006 -- June 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please post new comments to the bottom of the talk page; I will almost always respond to comments on this page itself (makes comments easier to find -- I encourage you to do the same) so check back! Sdedeo (tips) 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

After a couple of months contributing to[REDACTED] in various ways, I've found that it's no longer as much fun as before. I've decided to go on an extended wikibreak, and I wish everyone luck. Sdedeo (tips) 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'm back, and working on medcabal again. I still have a great deal of faith in the[REDACTED] project. Sdedeo (tips) 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I need an advocate and help with mediation

(spam removed) Michael D. Wolok 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You have spammed so many people with this request that it is rather useless for me to reply substantively. If you wish a mediation, go to the mediation cabal page and fill out the form. Sdedeo (tips) 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is that?

Why would I be reported -- I am just trying to keep the page on an npov. ---—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Settersr (talk • contribs) .

You violated "3RR" -- i.e., you reverted an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with people you disagree with if they persist is to hash it out on the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you comment please?

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Self creation cosmology.

Thanks, --ScienceApologist 08:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CAIR

I noticed your comment on another user's talk page, who in turn spoke to me. Please do not encourage POV-driven participation, and do not make unfounded allegations of POV-bias. Please take note of WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Information in an article which can potentially be called slander if unfounded needs to be supported with highly credible sources. Too much of the information you've re-added are unsourced, others are supported by sources that don't speak to the content you're adding. Do not use content from sources and then draw your own interpretations of what they mean. Also, bear in mind that sources that come from editorials or opinion pieces need to be represented in the article as opinions, not relayed as fact. This is particularly the case when the source has a clearly partisan allegience. His Excellency... 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Tyruler/Adam f 90 are removing important, relevant and sourced material from the article. Your behavior verges on vandalism. Sdedeo (tips) 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith on your part and presume you're not misleading. The article is littered with statements which are not supported by the sources that follow them. The individuals listed in the indictments section aren't shown, by the source, to be affiliated with CAIR. Do a word search, CAIR doesn't even appear on these sources. Allegations and indictments not related to CAIR do not belong in the CAIR article, it's that simple. Other allegations you added on to the article are easily refuted by more credible sources. The government clearly hasn't 'cut ties' with CAIR if documents this year commend them for assisting in security matters domestically and abroad. The fact that your material takes up space in the article and makes blunt and serious accusations doesn't make them 'important'. That content can be considered libel if not appropriately cited and examined for accuracy. His Excellency... 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you correcting the "cut ties" sentence, and did not revert it. But the individuals convicted of terrorism charges -- the list you keep removing -- are indeed linked to CAIR in the fashions described. Instead of removing things that offend your personal sensibilities, you should strive to source. You, and Tyruler / Adam f 90, are hardly "good faith" participants in the editing of this article, given the sweeping deletions you continue to press for. Sdedeo (tips) 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Andy f 90

Andy f 90 has a post in 2004 in a web forum. So if the person is a sockpuppet, it isn't the first use thereof. Andjam 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) h

My mediation

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-17 Editorial Abuse User ccwaters. What's the status of this? The complaining party seems to have disappeared. ccwaters 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I closed it out; Mlnsports hasn't edited since creating the complaint and that was more than 10 days ago. Sdedeo (tips) 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ccwaters 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No Gaming the System

Attempting to game the system is highly inappropriate and unethical.

MSTCrow 10:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about; given your liberal accusations to other editors, I'm not sure I care. Sdedeo (tips) 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. If you do believe that inappropriate and unethical behavior is acceptable on Misplaced Pages, please find another project to be a part of.

MSTCrow 11:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, really don't know what you're referring to. Sdedeo (tips) 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You pull another stunt like that in the Mediator Cabal, and I can and will get you blocked for clear and excessive personal attacks and lack of general decorum.

MSTCrow 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out that someone with three recent blocks for personal attacks -- one of a week's duration -- is probably not a good candidate for a mediator. If it offends you, I'll bring it up on the talk page instead. Sdedeo (tips) 11:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)