Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:42, 19 July 2006

Buna,

A inceput un vot pentru stergerea "Wikipediei Moldovenesti", o creatie a unui American, cu origini suspecte in Basarabia si care nu vorbeste limba wikipediei la care pretinde a fi sysop. Il cheama Node ue si pentru a crea impresia ca lumea doreste aceasta wikipedie, a apelat la toti utilizatorii rusi care au venit sa voteze de partea lui desi nu cunosc bine subiectul si li s-a spus ca voteaza pentru supravietuirea alfabetului chirilic. Asa a ajuns ca votul sa fie 31 pentru stergerea Mo wiki, si 42 impotriva stergerii - deci in alte cuvinte pentru pastrarea wikipediei in limba "moldoveneasca". Vino si voteaza aici , ca sa sergem acesta creatura cu miros bolshevic, care insulta toti romanii de pe ambele maluri ale Prutului. Node ue le-a spus rusilor sa traduca mesajul lui in limba rusa si sa-l transmita mai departe. Trimite si tu mesajul acesta la toti utilizatorii romani-unionisti sau romani-moldoveni unionisti pe care-i cunosti pe en.wiki sau ro.wiki. Dapiks 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Good job on the picture. One thing, make sure you always include where you got the picture. I saw on the still that the clip is from A&E, so you have to note that if that is where you got it. Otherwise the autobots (lol, that's a funny name) will come and mark it for deletion. Bignole 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got it. I saw it the first thing when I opened my inbox, literally two minutes after waking up. My brain is still a shriveled up decaffeneited prune, thanks for the catch! rootology 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Don't copy and paste what I have written in someone else's talk page to the article talk page...don't do that again. You can keep the link, but you never move my commentary around...next time, simply link to it.--MONGO 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will redo it with a link. Is it allowable to edit/remove comments? rootology 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link

In the ED deletion page, I fixed your GNNA link, changing it to GNAA. hope that was alright. By the way, what MONGO said above is not true, there's nothng wrong with copypasting comments, unless you removed them from the original location. People do it all the time; it's even recommeneded on a guideline to keep conversations in context. Karwynn (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. And I did not know that was true, thank you. Going to update deletion vote comments with that.rootology 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry, look at my diff. the last entry was someone blanking 90% of it, so I just went back into the history to the last substantial version. I didn't mean to remove whatever you added, just to restore a massive deletion. SchmuckyTheCat 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Hipocrite just nuked the article AGAIN. rootology 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ED

Regarding your edit summary: Reverting MONGO edit. Per AfD do not torch this page. These links been removed MANY times in edit war. Take it to talk page to hash out. Otherwise, vandalism. Follow policy. The AFD boilerplate itself says: You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. Also the Guide to deletion says that you can edit the article during an AFD. What policy are you referencing? Guettarda 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, calling his edit vandalism appears to be a violation of the policy on personal attacks. Maybe you should review WP:VAND to clarify what constitutes vandalism. Guettarda 06:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The afd one has been referenced all day long--sorry if thats not the right one? MONGO and Hipocrite, despite having an open complaint versus them for bias--see the Talk page--continue to relentless attack everything put into the article despite us all but begging them to discuss the points they disagree with on talk pages. Does their incessent editing without addressing concensus of the editors to discuss before changing not count as vandalism? Other editors have been willing to take it to the talk page or roll back changes when asked, except these two "admins". Can admins freely edit pages without addressing concerns (if repeatedly voiced) on the talk page? rootology 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have committed no vandalism. I simply removed links to the wesbite that are used as examples only and are essentially spam...(advertising). They do not comply with reliable sourcing since they are not from a reliable third party source. Calling my edits vandalism is a personal attack...also, in case you are unaware...read the policy on the three revert rule.--MONGO 06:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What "AFD one" are you talking about? And no, good-faith edits cannot be called vandalism. MONGO and others have made the basis for their edits very clear - the fact that information in Misplaced Pages articles needs to be supported by reliable sources. Have a look at the policy pages I have linked to. And please stop calling edits vandalism unless they are indisputably vandalism. A lot of your edit summaries on that page make rather wild accusations. It's a bad idea to violate policy (on personal attacks) while making spurious accusations of policy violations. You should really familiarise yourself with policy before fighting about it (ok, ideally no one should be fighting at all, but that's another story). Remember, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, it should be written using verifiable secondary sources. We shouldn't be writing things based on primary sources. Do have a look at the pages I have linked to. Guettarda 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)