Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 23 July 2006 (→MedCab on AS: mediate or not). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Leave a message at the beep

***BEEP***

--MONGO 04:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree with you in the least, and certainly, a pause before editing after making a suggestion for a substantive change should be the norm since people from all over the world edit Misplaced Pages and this would allow everyone a chance to chime in. I don't know how we would enforce it though. I think, in retrospect that the page should have been protected from editing and the dispute could have reached some kind of concensus through discussion. This works for awhile, however, since this operation has newcommers everyday, after a few months or less, it seems, the same arguments spring back up again. Happy editing. Oh, also, post comments at the end of talk pages...I'll move your comment to me.--MONGO 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

True. Though at least with a paper trail of citations on the talk page (preferably all together in once place) it'll keep arguments focused and, hopefully, logical. I will agree that enforcing a 24 hour comment time is going to be hard to make work, unless it could be coded to take effect with an administrator flag of an article perhaps? Protection of the 9-11 articles would service, although in deference to the opposing view, perhaps an Alternative 9/11 Theories article or stub? I don't dispute the fact that most don't think it is worthy of inclusion in the main article, although it may have enough outside support to have a stub or small article of its own.

Torinir 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The are dozens of pages that discuss each building, even the four airplanes that hit the WTC, Pentagon, etc...there does exist the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is a pretty long article that incorporates, in summary style, most of the more widely held non mainstream thoughts on the matter.--MONGO 06:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. They could have started their own article, with relevant citations. No need to start an edit war, imho. --Torinir 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCab on AS

Not so fast :-) The user appears to have started that mediation for the sole purpose of harassing me, he didn't back up a single allegation, and the case needs to be closed in a way that I'm also satisfied. Sandy 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. But he initiated the action for one reason only; he gave not an ounce of evidence for anything, smeared me on AN/I, MedCab, the AS talk page, and my talk page. I have recorded the final AN/I statements on the MedCab case, and will make a final statement there, because it was not a genuine attempt at mediation. It was a smear. Sandy 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Torinir, when you read this comment you might like to note that the same editor User:SandyGeorgia insists that yet another user, asking her to "keep a cool head" is making a personal attack and later suggests he should be blocked from editing for such, is there a double standard at work here or what?

She also only posted the penultimate WP:ANI statements, and omitted the final ones because they didn't suit her and , I put the omitted statements in a minute ago and but, whatever User:SandyGeorgia thinks to the contrary there is NO WAY this should be your problem, as she said herself :

Per the instructions at the top of this page (Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.), I respectfully request that this issue be taken to proper channels, and struck from this page. This doesn't seem to have the best means of addressing the issue, or the right place for it. Thanks, Sandy 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So, it seems to me you just did what the lady wanted, or, in fact, were just too late to do it, because User:Kylu got there first? --Zeraeph 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be confusing the origin of that quote. Those instructions are from the top of the AN/I page, where you shouldn't have taken the dispute. They are clearly marked as a copy from AN/I. Taking it to Mediation was perfectly appropriate, and is what you might have done the first time. Actually, talking to me first would have been even better :-)) Now, do you want to mediate this or do you not? Sandy 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)