| Revision as of 01:58, 8 October 2007 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,473 edits →look: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:44, 8 October 2007 edit undoProfg (talk | contribs)518 edits →look: tone down, and AAGFNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| :Responded to on your talkpage, as requested. Thank you. --] <sup> ]</sup> 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | :Responded to on your talkpage, as requested. Thank you. --] <sup> ]</sup> 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Your response is most unfortunate and only makes me more puzzled as to what your intents are. Why are you being so hostile toward me? What did I do to you? ] 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | ::Your response is most unfortunate and only makes me more puzzled as to what your intents are. Why are you being so hostile toward me? What did I do to you? ] 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::SA, I have no personal feelings for or against you. I have simply reviewed your contribution history, and you are for all intents and purposes presenting yourself as a POV-warrior. Perhaps you ''aren't'' one -- but your edits, comments and edit summaries make you ''appear'' to be one. My recommendation is that you tone down your crusade, maybe try ] for a while. Best wishes. --] <sup> ]</sup> 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::SA, don't try to worry too much about profg. Just look at his contributions. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | :::SA, don't try to worry too much about profg. Just look at his contributions. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I have found that simply ignoring problematic editors who look for every excuse to make the editing of the encyclopedia a pain for others is never a good technique. ], ], ], and ] are in place for a reason. We shouldn't have to put up with editors who behave badly. I'm giving profg one more chance to show me some good faith, and if he refuses I think we should go down the dispute resolution road. ] 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | ::::I have found that simply ignoring problematic editors who look for every excuse to make the editing of the encyclopedia a pain for others is never a good technique. ], ], ], and ] are in place for a reason. We shouldn't have to put up with editors who behave badly. I'm giving profg one more chance to show me some good faith, and if he refuses I think we should go down the dispute resolution road. ] 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I have found that one of the signs of a POV-warrior is his tendency to resort to ]. (There are obvious exceptions; I have reminded others of AGF, as well.) I recommend you take a look at ] which states, in part: "When involved in a discussion, it is best never to cite WP:AGF" and "The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF." Thank you. --] <sup> ]</sup> 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:44, 8 October 2007
| Greetings! |
| This is my talk page. If you have anything to say to me then do not hesitate. To keep discussions in one place, I will almost always leave all comments on this talk page.
DON'T FORGET TO SIGN YOUR NAME AT THE END BY ADDING |
Archive 1: September 2007
AGF and other issues
Per your dif a reminder about WP:AGF. JoshuaZ 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- But of course! Are you reminding others in that entire "As I had anticipated" section as well? The whole bunch sure could use your help, I'm sure! :-) --profg 21:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Creation Museum
Please take a look at Talk:Creation Museum#Recent reversions -- I think some of the recent reversions have been performed under misapprehension (caused in part by misleading difs). HrafnStalk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- LOL, you're probably right. Even the discussion of it is confusing! :-) --profg 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:True origin archive front page.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:True origin archive front page.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TrueOrigin Archive
Have you read WP:CANVAS? In general, it isn't a great idea to leave messages asking people to come vote in a deletion discussion, and especially if there is even the appearance that you are only asking people whom you might expect to agree with your position. Editors tend to really, really frown on the practice. If I may give you a word of advice, I don't think it would be a good idea to ask anyone else to join the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. Honestly, I'm not engaging in canvassing, since several of those I asked for input could not be considered to "agree with my position," whatever it may be. But again, thanks for the heads up, if it looks that way. Just trying to get as much input as possible. --profg 02:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- This matter was just brought up on my talk page and as far as I can tell the editors you have brought the matter up are universally editors who have in general favored some form of creationism with the possible exception of Crockspot. This is classic canvassing and it should stop now. JoshuaZ 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Answered at User_Talk:Yilloslime. --profg 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- This matter was just brought up on my talk page and as far as I can tell the editors you have brought the matter up are universally editors who have in general favored some form of creationism with the possible exception of Crockspot. This is classic canvassing and it should stop now. JoshuaZ 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
look
If you have a problem with me, please let me know and we can have it out. Wikistalking me to places that don't concern you is just going to make things worse. Please respond on my talkpage ScienceApologist 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Responded to on your talkpage, as requested. Thank you. --profg 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your response is most unfortunate and only makes me more puzzled as to what your intents are. Why are you being so hostile toward me? What did I do to you? ScienceApologist 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- SA, I have no personal feelings for or against you. I have simply reviewed your contribution history, and you are for all intents and purposes presenting yourself as a POV-warrior. Perhaps you aren't one -- but your edits, comments and edit summaries make you appear to be one. My recommendation is that you tone down your crusade, maybe try real life for a while. Best wishes. --profg 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your response is most unfortunate and only makes me more puzzled as to what your intents are. Why are you being so hostile toward me? What did I do to you? ScienceApologist 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- SA, don't try to worry too much about profg. Just look at his contributions. OrangeMarlin 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have found that simply ignoring problematic editors who look for every excuse to make the editing of the encyclopedia a pain for others is never a good technique. WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CON are in place for a reason. We shouldn't have to put up with editors who behave badly. I'm giving profg one more chance to show me some good faith, and if he refuses I think we should go down the dispute resolution road. ScienceApologist 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have found that one of the signs of a POV-warrior is his tendency to resort to WP:AGF. (There are obvious exceptions; I have reminded others of AGF, as well.) I recommend you take a look at WP:AAGF which states, in part: "When involved in a discussion, it is best never to cite WP:AGF" and "The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF." Thank you. --profg 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have found that simply ignoring problematic editors who look for every excuse to make the editing of the encyclopedia a pain for others is never a good technique. WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CON are in place for a reason. We shouldn't have to put up with editors who behave badly. I'm giving profg one more chance to show me some good faith, and if he refuses I think we should go down the dispute resolution road. ScienceApologist 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- SA, don't try to worry too much about profg. Just look at his contributions. OrangeMarlin 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)