User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Archive9

Dispute resolution

MrM, as you have probably noticed, I have added a section [1] to the dispute resultion page outlining issues that I have with your behaviour on this wiki. While these issues were mostly already mentioned on article talk pages, I do not feel that they have been cleared up in any satisfactory way. There is only a certain subset of your behaviour that I actually take issue with, and I value your contributions to writing articles and constructively improving the quality of articles that I have seen from you. Especially lately I have discovered that I am having an increasingly difficult time to assume good faith on cerain edits you made and found acting more agressively than I would like (and probably should). Maybe we can use this dispute resulution process to strenghten our mutual respect and smooth our interaction in the future. To this end I welcome you to comment on my statement and lay out issues you see with my behaviour. --vonbergm 22:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are fascist

It was not vandalism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.164.192.22 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright owner

Hi,

 I am the author of the articles two articles submitted. I am also the sole owner/editor of the content published on the website (http://www.motorsporttoday.com). What is the problem with the articles? MT 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"speculation" in Bush told before war ...

reg. Bush told before war 'Saddam unlikely to attack US', please point to the statements which you believe are speculative. Doldrums 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

please point out statements in the article that u believe are non-neutral & any actionable objections. going by the edit summary, if the neutrality concerns are the same ones listed under "speculation", these have been responded to. pls read the responses and comment. Doldrums 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remove your custom user templates

Yes, I understand they are not templates but elements from your user space. Their purpose is to mimic user templates, something which has proven to be highly divisive elsewhere. Please remove them. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed

I fixed your template on this page. Just FYI. ironiridis 07:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Alleged disruption by Neutralizer

I have looked at the issue of date pushing and find only one incidence of this in the article BBC global poll finds majority feel the US led Iraq invasion increased likelihood of terrorist attacks [2]. The others you have cited were changed when the article was published, something which is common on WN.

As for your objections with BBC global poll finds majority feel the US led Iraq invasion increased likelihood of terrorist attacks Neutralizer asked on the article talk page for you to clarify your objections yet you failed to do so. From my POV, your cleanup tag was an attempt to delay the publication of the article with no solid basis (much like my NSW cannabis article a few weeks ago).

With Bush told before war 'Saddam unlikely to attack US' your argument seems to be valid except that you originally applied a cleanup tag where npov should have been used. Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately bumping the dateline to the date which is published is common contrary to your belief. I dont see you complaining about others when they do it. As with the cleanup tag, I understand you do not have to put your reasons on the talk page, but it is polite and best-practice that if someone can not understand the problem and asks for clarification to reply. You placed the tag you should help them understand why and help to fix the problem. Where did I say it was policy to comment on the talk page with a cleanup?

As for your vote against my administratorship, I have no problem with that, despite your very reasoning being flawed (as your claim that I said it is policy to comment on cleanup).

I am not defending Neutralizer's actions, there seems to be issues between the two of you which are going to have to be sorted out - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - apology

Hi Mrmiscellanious. I owe you an apology. I assumed at the time that this edit was sufficient notification of the dispute resolution process, but in hindsight that is obviously not the case. I've never been involved in such a process before, and have never paid much attention to them. I hope that the lack of notification has not annoyed you. I started Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Users Borofkin, Mrmiscellanious, and others thinking of myself more as mediator than dispute participant, but that also obviously isn't the case, so I have confined my contribution to a single statement, and attempted only to encourage other participants to be constructive, rather than to "gang up" on you. I hope that you can acknowledge that there is a problem (not necessarily a problem with you), and I hope that we can work towards some kind of a consensus as to how we can prevent further problems. You are welcome to discuss this further on my talk page if you like, however I think that considering four people have now made statements on the dispute resolution page, partitpation there will also be important. - Borofkin 23:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

dispute resolution

I have made a statment here and are among others waiting in good faith for your participation to solve this dispute. International 18:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - joint statement

Hi Mrmiscellanious ... I've started a draft joint statement as part of the dispute resolution process. You are welcome to participate. - Borofkin 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

You were notified a week ago that I had listed some objections with your actions at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Users Borofkin, Mrmiscellanious, and others. Seeing as you have ignored the informal process I have listed them at WN:RfAr - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice you claim that there have been personal attacks made against you during the two processes above. Can you provide evidence of this? I think the community has been fair in attempting to resolve their differences with you directly, but you fail to even acknowledge this. - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see these personal attacks being levied at you. There certainly hae been none on my behalf. What is being claimed are statements of fact, backed up by evidence. I would also urge you to take a look at w:WP:HAR and think about that in relation to some of your comments towards Neutralizer - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at WN:DISPUTE all steps except maybe WN:TEA have been followed. You decided not to participate in them. Your failure to participate has not negated any actions on my behalf. Your failure to co-operate with processes which have been establised on Wikinews only further reinforces my point - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is any favourtism on my behalf. You will notice that I have on occasion actually agreed with you where Neutralizer is concerned but at the same time some of your actions serve to damage your own arguments. I am well aware of [[WN:PG] but thanks for the link. - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal)

I think it is time for this

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Google in BIG trouble

Please don't delete it, just fix it up. I'm not a very good writer but the story is news worthy. 205.177.72.66 20:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure of US troop field locations in stub

I was startled to see what appeared to be current US troops in the field locations and US military vehicle signage info on a stub U.S. Forces Bases . Chiacomo speedy deleted this for me but now I am wondering about the author of the stub and what our protocol should be. I'll leave it in your hands but please have a look and see what you think because it did not look like a hoax to me and I am pretty sure public disclosure of current US troop locations is a major crime. The contributor should definitely be watched or blocked, I think. I can't imagine Wikinews would be a place for sending "insurgent" intel messaging? I imagine a chat room would be better; but it sure looked strange to me. I alerted Amgine but he did not respond, but I am sure you will not ignore this if you have a look at the article. Neutralizer 03:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrators protest Condoleezza Rice's trip to Australia

Hi MrM.... I support your renaming of this article. Can you please participate on the talk page, as nicely as possible, to try and generate some goodwill? - Borofkin 00:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit on Condi article

Hi MrM. I wanted to talk to you about This edit. The sentence "The only people who make that claim are those who are too lazy to even attempt to achieve neutrality" is quite clearly a personal attack against Elliot. The likely result will be for him to become angry, and lash out at you in response. The point you were trying to make could have been made without getting personal (i.e. calling other contributors "lazy"). Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you would like to discuss this further. - Borofkin 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OFFENDED BY YOUR COMMENT

Lazy? Approx 100 articles contributed by me since October? Please don't attack me for putting forward an argument in justification of a title. Or label me as "too lazy". Get a grip mate. I was merely explaining my actions. To use Ad Hominem is to resort to the lowest form of argument. I feel you are attacking me. --elliot_k 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How MrM, could you make such an allegation as lazy? -Edbrown05 08:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit on Condi talk page

Hi MrM... I am very dissapointed by this edit, where you refuse to apologise to Elliot for a personal attack. Wikinews:Etiquette tells us that we should "Be prepared to apologize." This doesn't mean you should admit that you are wrong, it means that we are all part of a community, and communities function through politeness and small gestures of goodwill. An apology could show that you care about his feelings, without compromising your position in the discussion. I would be happy to discuss this with you further, so feel free to respond on my talk page. - Borofkin 03:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The attacks on me are insulting and disrespectful. I am very angry about this. --elliot_k 04:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Mrmiscellanious. It seems to me that if Elliot misunderstands some aspect of policy, the best approach would be to engage him in a discussion about that policy, rather than throwing up a brick wall. The thing about approaching a disagreement in an aggressive way is that the effect is often opposite to that which was intended. In other words, it causes people to "get their back up", and reinforce their position, even if they were originally unsure about it. A little bit of non-confrontational discussion and explanation can achieve a lot. - Borofkin 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

relax

, coooool Jacques Divol 12:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush attempts to give reason for Iraq war

Please explain how an article consisting entirely of two quotes is an editorial. --vonbergm 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have issues with the title, you can try and resolve these on the talk page. If you don't like long quotes, you can do the same. As none of your concerns justify your actions to remove the article from the main namespace, please revert your move of the article. --vonbergm 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)