User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Archive10

Request for Arbitration
You have been listed as an involved party in Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious. Please visit Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious/Evidence to add evidence if you wish. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent comment on "Bush Approval rating" talk page
I'm sorry that you think I am "preaching about your misdeeds". My wish is for everyone on this site to collaborate in a productive and cheerful way. Whenever I comment on a conflict, or leave a message on your talk page, it is with this goal in mind. All I am trying to do is make suggestions as to how you could better interact with other contributors. In this particular conflict, I don't really have a strong opinion either way, although the article definitely needs further work. My comment was not about the article, or your concerns about the article. It was about how you can improve your collaboration with other users. If your goal is to make this article neutral, you will have far more success through discussion. - Borofkin 02:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

money
As per our bet.


 * This email confirms that you have paid Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. $5.00 USD using PayPal.
 * This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *WIKIMEDIA".

Stupid lifetime movie network. Although I refuse to actually watch the channel to check, a search of IMDB reveals no Sago Mine Disaster lifetime movie channel movies. Since it is now past both of our timeframes I've paid half of the bet to the foundation. --Sfullenwider 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing, for 24 hours, due to breaking 3RR. Please see WN:ALERT for an discussion on this. Feel free to contact me via e-mail,IRC or your talkpage, if you wish to contest this block Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, fine then. If users want to ignore me, revert wars are what they'll get.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is jus the kind of stuff that ticks me off. You get blocked for a little 3RR but when personal attacks are made and intentionaly violating policy, then its ignored. This is one reason why I do not wish to work with some current admins. They do not work together. I agree with MrM. this just makes matters worse and causes more wars. Jason Safoutin 11:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason. You again. I don't understand at all what this paragraph is about but I have an attitude nonetheless that you and MrM are jedi. MartinGugino 12:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews Accreditation
I was told that you send the press cards for accredited editors. Could you send me one? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if I dont get them I will let you know - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could email them to me magnaboy@westnet.com.au. Cheers :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why leaving?
I notice on our ArbCom case discussion page that you are leaving in a week. Why is this? Frankly, I want to go on record stating that it will be a loss to the community. I might disagree with some of what you do (hence the reason for dispute resolution etc), but I believe that you do a large amount of good on the site - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom
You are probably sick of me spamming you today but I would like to understand a few things. Why are you opposed to ArbCom? Why do you think I am attacking you? What pi*ses you off about me? What can I do better? Frankly, I always like to hear criticism about myself, it can only help to make me work better in the community - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dang
Why don't you just do sports stories. I know you love them, and I like reading them. -Edbrown05 14:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted, but am too lazy and uninterested to see how Indymedia stacks up in readership compared to Wikinews. I think Wikinews should remain unique unto itself. I know actions on your behalf are done to hold Wikinews to standards that you believe express the wishes of the community. The question is, have you crossed that line? -Edbrown05 00:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of editorials
Hi MrM... just wondering, under what criteria of WN:SD (or other policy) do we speedy-delete editorials? - Borofkin 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response to my question. My personal opinion on this is that an article must unambiguously meet one of the SD criteria before it can be speedy-deleted. Therefore if a single person disputes the deletion (with the exception of the original contributor, I suppose) then it should be restored, and then go through WN:DR. Do you agree with this? - Borofkin 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So do you agree that if someone disputes the deletion, then it is no longer "undisputably in violation"? Or to put it another way, what would it take for you to reconsider your decision and allow it to go back to the community to decide? - Borofkin 05:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still consider this whole approach to be on touchy ground, with respect to the separation of editing activities and administrator activities. The appropriate way for NPOV or sourcing issues to be dealt with is by the community, within the main article space. Just because an article doesn't meet our policies is no reason to move it out of the main namespace - it should be tagged and worked on there. The only exceptions are articles which unambiguously meet the SD criteria. - Borofkin 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Borofkin, also source tags make a huge diffrence if we don't have a story about them already. If the source tags are good, the editorial portions of the article could be blanked instead, ideally with some effort to create a brief, but not necessarily.  Nyarlathotep 12:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I was joking about suing
but please delete my talk page, I want a fresh one. 205.177.72.66 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks
Hi MrM... I realise that these are difficult times, however you should still not engage in personal attacks. I consider this edit to contain a personal attack. No actions by other users justifies the sentence "please have your eyes checked". - Borofkin 00:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you like to know why I think that you shouldn't engage in personal attacks, or why I think that particular edit constituted a personal attack, or why I think that actions by other users don't justify personal attacks? - Borofkin 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that telling another user to "please have your eyes checked" is a personal attack because it references a physical attribute in a sarcastic and demeaning way. You quite obviously don't believe that the other contributor may have vision problems. You have a history of personal attacks, and such behaviour is not acceptable on this wiki. If you continue to make such attacks you will be blocked. - Borofkin 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran and the Security Council
Hi MrM, would you have a look at the Security Council article; I've made a lot of changes without review. I'm guessing you're an interested party. SethDelisle 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Bahrain article
I did check and there was none, it must have been publsihed at the same time. 205.177.72.66 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Podcast
Do you have the Feedburner stats for it? I'm just wondering how many people subscribe. The Latest news RSS feed has just over 4,000 subscribers, btw. Dan100 (Talk) 10:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW I must say that's great work you've done with the podcast. I'd never have thought of the e-mail update thing (when I ran the article RSS manually, I did it all myself - over 2,000 posts! Thank goodness for the automated version we have now!). Dan100 (Talk) 13:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I thought if I'm asking you to look up the stats I should return the favour - yesterday (Thursday March 30) we had 3,996 (d'oh!) subscribers (quick! we need four more!). Top story was the son who gouged mothers eyes dies one, with 359 reads. So we reach a respectable - and growing! - audience. Dan100 (Talk) 13:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation Pass
Would you mind sending it to me? My email is above - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Could I please be sent one, I was Accreditated back in Jan :), mY e-mail is  Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Academic Challenger
About four months ago someone claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator named Academic Challenger asked you to help him with his user page. The problem is that the person who created this account is not the real Wikipedia user Academic Challenger. I am the real Wikipedia User Academic Challenger. Since I see you are still an ative contributor, I was wondering how I should go about fixing this. I will post a message on my Wikipedia user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Academic_Challenger using my Wikipedia account, saying that the Wikinews account is not me. The wikinews user never made any contributions. Can I blank his user page and post my own message? Thanks for your help. 149.137.114.130 21:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Podcast stats
Hi MrM, just wondering if you could check the podcast circulation stats again for me? I'm interested to see what a week of more prominent promotion on the Main Page has done. Dan100 (Talk) 10:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tag
please mention the specifics of the cleanup tag u've added to Indian police break up hunger strike over dam project. Doldrums 13:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

source for Libby edit
can u please point to the source for this statement u added to Libby says Bush authorized NIE leaks. thanks. Doldrums 13:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: RE: Libby edits
i'm once again asking you to Doldrums 19:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * point to the text in the source article which substantiates ur edit, as i've read thro' the NJ article and have not found it.
 * place actionable objections for the hunger strike article, fix the article or remove the cleanup tag. the explanation posted with the tag is not specific enough for other editors to use.