| Revision as of 03:33, 4 April 2006 editPSYCH (talk | contribs)230 edits reverted right wing fundy← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:47, 7 December 2006 edit undoSad mouse (talk | contribs)860 edits →your contributions to Misplaced Pages | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| * | |||
| == your contributions to Misplaced Pages == | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Hi Psych, | |||
| Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
| I've recently reviewed your most recent contributions. I've noticed a worrisome trend. Of your last 100 edits, 11 of them have been in the article-space (5 of those in article talk). Are you here to contribute to wikipedia? 89% of your effort is being spent on your conflict with ]. Is this because you have a grudge? Or do you find it fun? It seems to me your wasting a lot of your personal time on this. ---] 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - ] 14:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Psych and J.Smith, just as a third party comment, I am on and off wikipedia not very seriously - pretty much I only make minor corrections when I see mistakes, I don't try to write articles. As such I've never had personal encounters with editors before, yet in the last two days when I made minor corrections to two different Australian articles I have had ] constantly revert (five times) even after I put a section on the discussion pages (which so far has had positive responses outside ]). His dismissive and consistent reverting without allowing discussion has wasted more of my time on wikipedia than I have spent before, so I understand how Psych may be caught up. It is a sad indictment of wikipedia if you have to tell newcomers "don't try to improve Australian articles that touch on politics because one user will constantly revert you". ] 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't know who the other guy is, but of course I'm the anon guy. The admins (the real unbiased admins unlike yourself) told me I ned to reg to be taken seriously with a complaint. The fact that you are much like a Nazi (you seem to think it's your right to spread false truths about the lib party, and your anti-gay adoption and marriage views speak volumes about the type of person you are). Not to mention you wasted time and effort to get "some developer" (who I'm sure shares your bigoted views) to find something "out." | |||
| Seeing as how you're more interested in propaganda than the truth, this post probably won't have a long shelf life. We know you like to spin the truth to ensure yourself and your party are seen in a positive light. | |||
| I hope Mark knows where you stand on these issues. - PSYCH 06:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| How can it be a personal attack when he uses these beliefs to promote lies in an encyclopedia? He has repeatedly used his bias to change the facts on the ] page. All attempts to get the false information corrected have been fruitless. How can he still be allowed to spread propaganda without reprimand? Regardless, his accusation that I was another user can also be considered a personal attack, and mine simply a retaliation. | |||
| - ] 00:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Are you planning on editing any articles, or are you just here to make personal attacks? This is unacceptable. You really need to start contributing, or you will be considered a problem user and can be blocked from editing. ]] 09:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :At the time of my original edits on the page ], I was unregistered. Since then I have registered, as I mentioned on the talk page. It was on the TALK page; I linked to for people to actually read. | |||
| Every time I edited (anonymously, I didn't realise I had to register to edit, but my IP address shows I have) they were incorrectly removed by ] because they did not match his POV as I have mentioned countless times. | |||
| Regardless, the data on the wikipedia page is incorrect, and every attempt to change it has been thwarted. - ] 10:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ALP conflict == | |||
| First, welcome to wikipedia. I see you are involved with your first edit war, and first revert war. They happen, but aren't the best way of getting things done most of the time. It also helps not to attack people too much, because that way when you appeal decisions to others, they are more likely to see your side. | |||
| My advice on this one is quit while you are ahead - neo-liberalism doesn't mean what you think it means, it is an ideology related to ] and to some extent with ] policies and ]. <s>The ALP is neo-liberal, balanced budgets, selling off state interests, free trade and lower regulation</s>. Neo-liberalism doesn't have much to say about social issues, and in fact many economic neo-liberals are conservatives. The usage of the word comes from the late 19th century version of the word liberalism, which advocated reductions in trade barriers, and, in some cases, free banking. | |||
| >>EDIT: The Liberal Party is neo-liberal, balanced budgets, selling off state interests, free trade , including having an unethical maximum 8 year HECS quota, and increasing fees by 25%. | |||
| ==Social issues== | |||
| I like your social issue beliefs. Excellent.--] 03:04, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thankyou, - ] 10:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| i was not cautioned. read the result. it is not POV. in any case user pages do not need to conform to NPOV. please stop vandalizing my page. ] 12:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :the motion of admonishment failed. the only user who the arbitration committee made any sort of order against was you. read ]. ] 12:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| you have the gaul to tell me not to edit your talk page after you have repetedly put up false and inflamatory information on mine? you leave me alone and i will leave you alone. ] 05:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| even if i could remove it i wouldnt. ] 14:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** please do not vandalise my page once I have already deleted your abuse. Not wise to repeatedly display such antisocial behaviour on my talk page. -- ] 08:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==User page== | |||
| Hey PSYCH. Just reading over your user page and "a few of beliefs" (which I, in the main, agree with) and noticed that you have written that you "''OPPOSE government funding of all schools''" where I presume you meant all ''private'' schools. Thanks, --] 10:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::So corrected, oops! :P ] 01:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:47, 7 December 2006
your contributions to Misplaced Pages
Hi Psych, I've recently reviewed your most recent contributions. I've noticed a worrisome trend. Of your last 100 edits, 11 of them have been in the article-space (5 of those in article talk). Are you here to contribute to wikipedia? 89% of your effort is being spent on your conflict with User:Xtra. Is this because you have a grudge? Or do you find it fun? It seems to me your wasting a lot of your personal time on this. ---J.Smith 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Psych and J.Smith, just as a third party comment, I am on and off wikipedia not very seriously - pretty much I only make minor corrections when I see mistakes, I don't try to write articles. As such I've never had personal encounters with editors before, yet in the last two days when I made minor corrections to two different Australian articles I have had User:Xtra constantly revert (five times) even after I put a section on the discussion pages (which so far has had positive responses outside User:Xtra). His dismissive and consistent reverting without allowing discussion has wasted more of my time on wikipedia than I have spent before, so I understand how Psych may be caught up. It is a sad indictment of wikipedia if you have to tell newcomers "don't try to improve Australian articles that touch on politics because one user will constantly revert you". Sad mouse 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)