| Revision as of 17:08, 3 April 2011 editBulldog123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,423 edits →Dispute with Bearian← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:57, 4 April 2011 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits responseNext edit → |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
*Each of you asked for my comment. I'm posting the identical answer on each talk p. Bearian, I've learned not to use the word vandal or vandalism with respect to any established Wikipedian, no matter how unconstructive their editing. (But it does occur fro time to time in my edit summaries when I use a so called "Friendly" template, and if there's a complaint I apologize.) Even when they are actually doing the sort of thing that we would call vandalism if done by a outsider, it tends to evoke hostility. On the underlying dispute, Bulldog, the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists and categories from articles after the categories or lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so. ''']''' (]) 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
*Each of you asked for my comment. I'm posting the identical answer on each talk p. Bearian, I've learned not to use the word vandal or vandalism with respect to any established Wikipedian, no matter how unconstructive their editing. (But it does occur fro time to time in my edit summaries when I use a so called "Friendly" template, and if there's a complaint I apologize.) Even when they are actually doing the sort of thing that we would call vandalism if done by a outsider, it tends to evoke hostility. On the underlying dispute, Bulldog, the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists and categories from articles after the categories or lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so. ''']''' (]) 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
:*Many warnings? I see NO warnings aside from ''questions'' about why I do it (and a reference to me marking an edit as minor by accident). Would you honestly support blocking me for content-related disputes? Are you being serious? I can't even tell. I have a legitimate policy-based reason for every edit I made -- including the removal of the SPAMing of "See Also" links that is used in an ''improper'' way. Where in ] does it say I can be blocked for disagreeing with your ''opinion'' on the use of ethnicity-related category/lists? ] 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
:*Many warnings? I see NO warnings aside from ''questions'' about why I do it (and a reference to me marking an edit as minor by accident). Would you honestly support blocking me for content-related disputes? Are you being serious? I can't even tell. I have a legitimate policy-based reason for every edit I made -- including the removal of the SPAMing of "See Also" links that is used in an ''improper'' way. Where in ] does it say I can be blocked for disagreeing with your ''opinion'' on the use of ethnicity-related category/lists? ] 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::*You seem to have misunderstood several points. First, many comments here and elsewhere certainly were objections to what you were doing, and would be reasonably seen as warnings not to continue, and I am pointing that out to you in case you had not realized, which I very much doubt. Second, it is not wrong to take a different position of XfD; it is wrong to try to subvert a keep decision by removing content, just as it is wrong to subvert a delete by reconstituting it slightly differently under a different title. But even that we were opposed is enough for me to explain that just this is the reason why it is not I who will block you; I learned very early on in my service as an admin never to block my opponents. That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to, but I never even do that. If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them. I remind you that you asked me on my talk page to comment on the issue. When people ask, they get the best answer I can give them, which is not always the one that they wanted. ''']''' (]) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
Just an FYI, but this category wasn't tagged during your mass "American sportspeople of European descent" categories nom, so I didn't feel comfortable deleting it. I won't have a problem with deleting it per C1 once it is empty for 4 days, however (although if someone were to recreate it, it wouldn't qualify for a G4 deletion as recreation). You may wish to do a new nom for this category if you want G4 deletion precedent to apply to this particular category. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
