Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:20, 14 December 2005

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, vfd comments

Daryn Kagan page protection

Thanks for putting the protection on. This seems like an awful silly argument I have gotten in the middle of, but then again, most of them must seem silly, right? --rogerd 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism update

FYI...User:Canaen has initiated a meatpuppet campaign to remove criticism from the veganism article. . --Viriditas 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably remember the anonymous attacks that Idleguy was being subject to in various places. Well, Skinwalker appears to be the latest recipient . I don't have all the facts, so I'm hoping you'll contact him if you have the time. Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WWK, thanks for stepping in. I intend to file a user conduct RfC later today. Would you be available to look over my RfC before I post it? This situation has seriously gotten out of hand. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right this situation has gotten out of hand. Viriditas and Skinwalker continue to dole out their lies and play Wiki legalese to push their agenda. You are being sucked in and manipulated Woohookitty. We have suffered too long with these guys vandalism and personal attacks. May be you are just friends with Viriditas

Time and time again we have tried to engage them in direct discussion, Viriditas just plain ignores it. All 3 just reverese any edits that do not suit their pro-meat agenda. Idleguy trying to use statistics targetted against the meat industry against veganism, Skinwalker trying to use data about anorexics which did not mention vegans at all.

This accusation of meat puppetry is the low stoop so far. They are scrapping the barrel in order to find someway of silencing the informed debate. Skinwalker has repeated his erroneous, unsustainable accusations time and time again but they are wrong - and I can write that confidently as one of the other wholly independent defenders of the vegan page from their attacks. My involvement came before Canaen's and will continue after. I have never read his journal And for the record, I do not have a fixed IP. 195.82.106.62 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK

Don't worry - its alright, just a little bit annoying. Is there any way i'd be able to have them separate? I'll be going through articles listed in the category shortly. Spum 12:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More on History of Gibraltar

Hi Woohookitty. I'm writing to you looking for directions, since I don't want to enter a new edit war.

As you can see in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, I've listed the disagreement points providing the arguments and sources why I don't think they are true. Such a list has been available for more than two weeks. Gibraltarian hasn't provided any argument but the usual personal attacks. Only Gibnews has objected to two specific points.

Having considered that, I've reworked the article, explaining what has been done .

As usual, the article has been reverted without any explanation (by a Gibraltar-based IP address that I'm completely sure is Gibraltarian) . The revertion includes, as usual, the removal of the {{disputed}} template. What can be done to prevent a new edit war?

Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am currently disputing those things asserted by Ecemam1 which I have personal knowledge of having lived the last 25 years of the history of Gibraltar as an active participant. Over the last few years my contributions ro Wikipewdia have been anonymous and have been limited to tidying up wording and expanding some sections. Communications in Gibraltar being an area of expertise. Items removed in both the English and Spanish version have been the unfounded allegations of state criminality which have offended many and were covered in the local media. This may have attracted the attentions of others less careful and experienced, there may be only one user called Gibraltarian but there are many Gibraltarians who resent continued defamation in the media by Spanish sources.

The earlier material presented by Ecemami has been sent to the president of a historical organisationEuropa Historical Society as they have experts in the period outside my competence. Because the perspective of Ecemam1 has not currently been disputed by myself does not imply its acceptance.

Regretably much of the published material in Spain is outright lies. To this day Spanish politicians continue with this practice example and locally there is a view, based on experience that anything that originates from Spain about Gibraltar is propaganda designed to support an antiquated territorial claim aimed at turning back history 300 years and imposing something on the Gibraltarians which they simply will not accept.

It is only this year that the Spanish Government have admitted that the Gibraltar Government even exists and have conceded that it must form part of any discussions - so far despite a number of rounds of talks this has not produced any tangible result and Spain continues with many of the restrictions introduced by the fascist dictator Franco. Given there are real reasons for misstrust, it is easy for people here to write off anything by Ecemam1 as 'another day, more shit' and delete it, even if he has genuine merit.

He is as much a victim of the Spanish persecution of Gibraltar as the rest of us, and truth are. --Gibnews 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:200.79.192.25

Sorry I beat you to the block - still at least they're blocked now... -- Francs2000 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BDAbramson's RfA

Thanks, Woohookitty, for supporting my RfA - I swear, I wasn't already an admin! But now I'll do my best as an admin to help the reality of Misplaced Pages live up to the dream. BDAbramson T 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fix/clean/nicer WP:NPA

Hello again. I know I wasn't the best of people, but i think that the WP:NPA should be expanded slightly, and cleaned up - it is a bit messier than you-know-what. I just think that me, of all people can actually share experience of NPA and expand the article so people actually get more info out of it. So, am i allowed to edit the article? Spum 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

You removed the {{vprotected}} from George W. Bush, but didn't unprotect it. If we protect an article, we need to explain to our visitors why. Thanks, TacoDeposit 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Persistent 1.800.Vending vandal

We've got a couple of different IPs, and possibly a registered user, working on this article, repeatedly reverting information about fines this company has received for misleading clients.

1. (cur) (last) 14:57, 13 December 2005 65.105.237.226
2. (cur) (last) 09:03, 13 December 2005 67.186.196.85
3. (cur) (last) 21:57, 12 December 2005 Alaska1050

Are you in a blocking mood? :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page and added a note to the talk page. Thanks for the heads up...always appreciated. --Woohookitty 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I would have bothered the previously-blocking admins, but they seem to be on WikiBreaks. --SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Misplaced Pages from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. The whole thing is water under the bridge to me. No hard ones.Gator (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer science

I've noticed you protected that page. I also left a message on the Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#Computer_science and waited for your response. In the mean time, a reply was made to the 3RR violation report: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_oticeboard/3RR#User:Powo. You protected the page with Powo's version, which I claimed to be unsourced, and Powo's only listed source was one about "computing" and not "computer science."

This seems to be vague on what actually is a revert or edit war. Some take revert as completely identical and others take them as partially. It is obvious Powo wanted a certain sentence stated one way even after 3 revisions. Other things were changed, so the reverts weren't "identical" reverts as policy stated. It seems people can get around the 3RR by the added little extra changes that make reverts not completely identical. The reply on the 3RR reports seems to suggest the page shouldn't be protected, but dispute resolution should still be followed.

Just my 2 cents. — Dzonatas 03:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. keep fighting the good fight, :-) Alhutch 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

lol. good job.--Alhutch 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)