Misplaced Pages

User talk:RidjalA: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:49, 12 November 2012 editRidjalA (talk | contribs)478 edits Concerning new possibly disruptive editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:23, 24 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,451 edits ArbCom elections are now open!: new section 
(48 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== ] ==
== Misquoting in LDM article ==
Hi, you have reinserted a badly translated quote in the "Women in La Luz del Mundo" subsection. You also have cut part of the quote that states that it deals with positions as ministers among women when in reality it deals with the 9 AM prayer and weather or not it is an exclusive female prayer. This is misrepresenting a source and misquoting it. Please provide a better and more complete quotation (or I could do it myself).] (]) 01:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi,<br>
===Response===
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692225944 -->
Thanks for showing me where you got the quote. It is best if you do not use Bing or any other online translator (unless its a human) when using quotes, they are highly unreliable for large phrases or complete sentences especially if those sentences are found in academic language.

As for your quote, please refer to this translation

Patricia Fortuney's words:

Passage 1 “No obstante, cada vez que he mencionado en presencia de creyentes (de ambos sexos) este servicio como la oración de las
mujeres, todas y todos han negado que sea un servicio religioso femenino o para las mujeres; me corrigen diciendo que se trata
simplemente de la oración de las nueve de la mañana” (pg 139)

My translation: "Nonetheless, every time in the presence of believers (of both sexes) that I have refered to this service as the Women's
Prayer, each and everyone of them have denied that it is a female religious service for women. They correct me by saying that this is
simply a 9 AM prayer"
Your Translation:
“However, everytime I have mentioned in the presence of believers of both sexes this service as the prayer of women, all have denied is a
female religious service or to women; I , saying that it is simply the of nine o'clock in the morning”

No need for or other interruptions when done so via a human :)

Passage 2 “'''Desde mi punto de vista''' los miembros niegan la existencia real de un servicio religioso que ha sido creado ad hoc para
la población femenina de las congregaciones…” (pg 140)

My Translation: "'''From my point of view''', Members deny the true existence of a religious service that was created ad hoc for the female
population of the congregations."
Your Translation:
“members deny the existence of a religious service that has been created ad hoc for the female population of the congregations…”

I added the bolded part because Fortuney mentioned before Passage 2 that she does not propose that her view is better than the members' view on the subject. If you noticed, she mentions that the members are denying that the service exists because in practice it makes women equal. So if they were to accept that the service exist then in RELIGIOUS matters women would be equal. Fortuney is arguing that in practice LDM women are not subordinate as a result of this ad hoc prayer, but in theory they are. (Abisag mentioned social spheres, women are considered equal in non-religious areas. Fortuney never contradicted that, she went through great lengths to point out how badly women of the church are portrayed by the public when in reality, according to her own words, LDM women can be more autonomous then other Mexican women.)

Passage 3 "Yo deduzco de esto que, si la membresía considerara este culto como femenino, le estarían otorgando autoridad a las mujeres en
el marco religioso o eclesiástico del ritual, y esto entonces las pondría en un plano de igualdad o de ausencia de subordinación frente a
los hombres." (pg 140)

My Translation: "From this, I deduce that if the membership were to consider this gathering as a female gathering, they would be giving
the women authority in the religious or ecclesiastical ritualistic framework and this would then put them on a plane of equality, or in
absence of subordination, to men"

Your Translation: "I infer from this that, if the membership considers this as female , you would be giving authority to
women in the religious or ecclesiastical framework of the ritual, and this then put on a plane of equality or absence
of subordination to men."

So in other words, if the members agreed that this gathering is what Fortuney thinks it is (A Female prayer) members would then be giving women an authority that would place them on equal footing with men (Thus on a "plane of equality or absence of subordination to men" as you translated. That is exactly what Fortuney thinks is going on, members are denying the truth because to accept it would mean that women would be religiously equal to men. So according to Fortuney, women in LDM are in a way equal to men in the church even though the church presents itself as a patriarchal establishment. Fortuney concludes that it is patriarchal, but there are contradictions to that patriarchy. One of the contradictions in practice to the Patriarchal theory is that women excersise more independence and equality with men than members feel comfortable admitting. Theologically, women are supposed to have a subordinate role to men in the church on religious matters. (Personally I disagree with Fortuney. The 9 AM prayer being a woman's prayer does not mean that women would be seen as equals with men in the hierarchy. By that I mean that women should be subordinate to their husbands and in the congregation they should reflect that, of course I can't say that on the article now can I?)

The problem with your quote is that it is located out of context. It is placed ''after'' the information about deaconesses when the quote deals with the 9 AM prayer (Or women's prayer as Fortuney would say it).

Your Quote:

However, Patricia Fortuny remarks that "the church explicitly denies such roles exist for women for fear that either women may be seen as
equals to males, or that it may appear as an "absence of subordination" in women.

No where in the text does Fortuney say "church" "explicitly" "fear" and the structure is completely off. One of these two translations need to be placed in it's place or the information of Fortuney's opinions should be reported clearly

My Translation: "From this, I deduce that if the membership were to consider this gathering as a female gathering, they would be giving
the women authority in the religious or ecclesiastical ritualistic framework and this would then put them on a plane of equality, or in
absence of subordination, to men"

Your Translation: "I infer from this that, if the membership considers this as female , you would be giving authority to
women in the religious or ecclesiastical framework of the ritual, and this then put on a plane of equality or absence
of subordination to men."

I will be making a subsection in the talk article about future edits that I am planing on making to clean up the mess.] (]) 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I Decided to forgo making that subsection, just letting you know.] (]) 18:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

== Source question ==

What sources do you have access with for LDM? I have borrowed Dr. Dormady's new book. He is a historian. A Colombian University master's thesis, Dormady's dissertation and his book, and Timothy Wyatt's paper, are the only historical sources on the LDM that I have been able to locate (I am in possession of all of them). I do have some of Fortuny's and De La Torre's papers as well as Nutini's, Biglieri's, and access to a book that has a small paper on the church as well. My research on the church is hitting a wall right now.

Thanks,] (]) 02:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
== Edit request ==
Hi, Please read my latest contribution to this particular section of La Luz Del Mundo talk page (Linked below). Please consider this a request done in good faith. You asked to tell you how you may be of assistance, well consider this a reply to that request. Your assistance in dealing with your concerns is requested. Also, if you read could wiki guidelines found here ( ] ) to understand why I may feel problematic with the tone and execution of your latest contribution.

Since I did share with you my intentions and motivations, it would be nice if you could do the same. I noticed that your wiki edits are limited to things related directly to La Luz Del Mundo articles. Many of them are concentrated in the controversy section of the article. Do not take this as some sort of accusation, it is curiosity in the interest of dialog. Dialog like this is most helpful in helping two strangers become comfortable with each other and minimizes misunderstandings. It also builds up trust that could be most beneficial seeing that we are virtually the only two current editors of the La Luz Del Mundo article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Plagiarism_.28original_research.29

In the spirit of cooperation and resolution of any misunderstandings, please consider this request seriously ] (]) 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
=== Response ===

Refer to the talk page, I already began instituting changes to my contributions where I am able to detect the need for it. (I do appreciate where you are coming from, thanks for your response :) ).

Anyway, Would it interest you to know the subject of the 2011 February talks? Long story short, the message was "If the Apostle's children do not follow the same commandments like the rest of the church, they are condemned (eternal damnation) and not his real children." I am not sure where the "immunity" comes from, perhaps it is perceived. I know that my father has complained about how some people use the excuse "Well I was with the Apostle's grandchild" and how that excuse is inadequate (For staying up too late during the Holy Convocation). One Pastor during last years Holy Convocation even rebuked the use of "Royal Family" stating that we don't have a king nor a prince. It was one of the two brothers with the gift of prophecy that did this. Another Pastor targeted in his talk the actions of the children of ministers. We are fully aware of these things and dealing with it. The whole church sees itself as fallible (To the exclusion of the Apostle in a religious sense).

As for the issue of modesty, please understand that we are not a totalitarian church where every member is carefully controlled and every congregation is held on a tight leash. Some congregations do more than others in following scripture in Philippians 4:10-20 in giving things to the Apostles. Some congregations got together and bought the Silver Wolf ranch and then gave it. Other congregations are responsible for his suits and a few cars. (Old pictures of the Apostle and several modern ones show him in normal casual, but clean, clothes). As to mansions, I do not know what other congregations have done, but I have heard of no such thing. I know people in my area who live in homes bigger and more luxurious than the one in Guadalajara (I don't live in a very affluent area).

As for many contradicting practices, well, that's due to the nature of each congregation and members within those congregations. For example, there were some who felt that Apostle Aaron was still alive in some form. I have heard several talks rebuking such a belief held by various ministers over the years. Such beliefs were held by some elderly members who still held on to some Catholic notions, Which according to Dr. Dormady is the root of Fortuny calling the church syncretist.

But I am most curious as to what the other gaffes are, that you referenced. Perhaps I already know about it and they have been rebuked by ministers and members alike in the church already. So how did you come in contact with information of the chruch? Relative? Internet? Member/exmember? Feel free to state your desire to keep that private, and do ask me questions. I think it would be best to pursue conversation. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== fordx12 ==
Hi, it has been brought to my attention by a helpful wiki editor that one of my recent contributions to La Luz Del Mundo talk page may seem antagonistic. I will be working to edit it once I get the chance and apologize for any negative feelings that my "actions" may have caused. I would appreciated a continued dialog on all things about the article as the need arises. I am not yet fully familiar with all the wiki policies and do require your assistance. Your continued edits are welcomed and helpful. I have added to the edit reversion section of the talk page on two discussion points that require your assistance regarding recent edit reversions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#.22Researchers.22_vs_naming_said_researchers_reversion

Please assist me, if you wish, in developing a healthy and productive consensus. I am a very "talkative" person which means that I require a lot more discussion than the average person. Please do not take that as a sign of hostility or aggression but rather as a sign of inexperience and deficiency of tact on my part.

Also, if you desire to do so please provide any comments, objections, and changes to a proposed addition to the article in question that I have provided in the talk page here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Dr._Jorge_Erdely so that my planned contribution may represent a consensus and be inline with wiki standards and policies. Please understand that I ask questions and will respond with the desire to fully discuss things. It is how I am best able to find the best solution or discover that there is no solution and my planned actions should be aborted (I tend to be slow in that area).

If I seem offensive, I would also like to apologize.

I would also wish to provide you with my intentions as to be clear and transparent. I understand that a controversy section is inevitable. I also understand that wikipedia is not a PR website, but a 💕. I desire to add as much sourced information as possible, and this also includes the controversy section. To avoid going overboard, I do rely on your contributions. My primary goal is to increase sourced information in the "Beliefs and Practices" section, but the omissions of other points of view in the controversy section have been quite distracting and on a personal level (Of which is irrelevant to wikipedia) I find it and its history disturbing. This is why I have developed a side tracked interest in editing that section so that it best represents different views. To be honest, It would be nice if I could ignore it and add to the beliefs and practices section.

I also wish to add more information on the architecture section about of other houses of prayer around the world. Then I would like too expand the history section to provide more detail. My secondary original goal was to give this article the scope of similar religious articles as well as their organization. I have a personal interest here, yes, but don't all editors, especially of religious articles?

I have refrained for section blanking, unilateral deletions, and hostile reversions because I do not wish to, as one editor said, "beautify" the church. If my actions conflict with these words, then I need another editor to correct, and discuss these actions with me. I wish to follow all wikipedia policies as well and eventually move on to other articles.

Thank you for your time ] (]) 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

== Your revert of an edit I made in ''La Luz del Mundo'' ==

Re , after reviewing ] I agree that the content belongs in the article. I excised this when I saw it in passing during a ] session. It looked like a possible BLP issue so I erred on the side of caution, but didn't stop to look at the details at the time. Thanks for the second look. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 05:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Hey no worries. Thanks for your message, and thank you especially for your dedication. Cheers. ] (]) 05:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

=Concerns regarding user conduct=

I have become concerned about your conduct and wish to come to an agreement of sorts as opposed to resorting to dispute resolution. Your self acknowledged bias against LDM is evident in statements you have made where you express that what LDM is accused of is factual in its entirety. While this bias is not a problem in and of itself, it is a problem when it has adverse affects on conduct.

What has pushed me to bring this up is what I read today in the Luz del Mundo thread. Apparently you have accused me of sock puppetry solely based on my POV. This falls dangerously close to ] especially since I nor the other users were informed as wiki policy states you should. This is what is found in WP:WIAPA:
Using someone's affiliations as an ] means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations
are mainstream. An example could be "''you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?''" Note that although pointing out an
editor's ''relevant'' ] and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not
considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute [[Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting of
personal information|outing]], which is a serious offense.
You did this by using my beliefs to cast doubt and discredit my actions in the sock puppet investigation page. But that really isn't what it says. You have lumped another user with me pre-accusation and claimed him or her to be the same as me and a member of the church which thus constitutes "Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor" and outing ]. I will inform the other two editors of this so that they may deal with it since it is an attack against them (especially ajaxfiore). They can decide if they wish to just ask you to stop or to pursue other options as per wiki dispute resolution policies. I have decided to bring this to your attention without resorting to such actions.
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of
] presented on wiki.
You did this by not informing those involved and basing your accusations on no evidence. Your accusations of plagiarism have not been removed and I have yet to see a completed list of closely paraphrased sentences that would allow me to edit out the material in question.

Your consistent reversions of my edits especially in the Controversy section despite them being backed up by wiki policy regarding issues of neutrality, original research, and unsourced content give me the impression of article ownership. When you revert edits that are not "exlpained" as you did here (for example) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=prev&oldid=518416541 when there was an exlpination here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=515180690&oldid=515091491 can be considered an example of what is found in http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#On_revert which is indicative of article ownership.
"This edit wasn't discussed first"
This is not the only act indicative of article ownership. As evidenced in the Luz del Mundo talk page you have made several unjustified edit reversions that I had to resort to third opinions for two groups of said reversions. Most of your reversions are done to the vast majority to my edits in the Controversy section, almost as if you are attempting to preserve a specific appearance as per http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Actions:
#An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether
openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine
correction of formatting errors or the preservation of established ] or ].)
#Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain
version, stable or not.
You have done both. the first one here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=509698642
And the second one is evidenced here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Edit_reversions

You also quoted me out of context in the sock puppet page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fordx12/Archive:
"would like for it to go away"
When I clearly mentioned in the full paragraph that I have refrained from doing any such thing in the interest of honesty and following wiki policies.

I hope you can see why I am concerned. It would be best to examine our own actions and weigh where our bias is conducing us. I have recently requested editor review on myself, and asked for advice elsewhere to see if my actions are in bad faith (in the past). I suggest you take similar steps. I also suggest that to reconcile our efforts, recanting your accusations would be for the best. I also suggest that you decease from invalidating the edits of other users because they do not share your POV. ] (]) 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Hey Fordx12, I truly appreciate you bringing this to light. I cannot overemphasize the importance of having a balanced wiki lldm; I try to do my best to ensure this page is not a publicity page. I have a feeling this irks the lldm faithful like yourself, but rest assured I am not trying to be antagonistic in any way nor by any means. If you decide to receive a review, then that is your prerogative. But for the meantime, I feel that the way for us to go is to maintain good faith in the volunteering we do for lldm wikipedia. For the past few months now you have ambitiously tried deleting the same information on the controversy section using a multitude of excuses. So please know that this is not a pattern of good faith editing. Lets not turn this into another personal issue, because I certainly don't plan on it. Know that I am here to help in every way possible, and that I'm here to stay as a curator for lldm wiki. As I mentioned before, our disagreements are the simple sign of progress. Have a wonderful day. ] (]) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::When have I deleted content from the controversy section other than deletions covered by wiki policy? On the contrary, at first you deleted many of my edits that provided other POV's and challenged them until a third editor provided his or her opinion. You have continually done this for each and every edit where I have '''added''' (not deleted) content to that section. My very first edit was reverted by you on bogus grounds (at the time I didn't know any better so I didn't challenge you on it). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&diff=next&oldid=469741018 and subsequent edits.

::This pattern includes defending unsourced content in the infobox (the claim about "outside" sources stating that membership is below 1 million). See diff here:

::At any rate, these "multitude of excuses" are wiki policies. If you cannot confirm to wiki policy, perhaps an administrator can provide you with advise on how to edit within wiki policy. There are places one can go to ask, outside of dispute resolution. Until then, your constant reverting of edits made in accordance to wiki policy must stop. Those edits that I have made are in accordance to said policy, thus cannot by definition be "bad faith." Unjustifiable removal of sourced content, consistent reversions of edits that do not violate wiki policy, and reverting a third party's revert of your initial reversion of an edit complacent with wiki policy directly violate wiki policy and may be considered edit warring.

::I am not trying to chase you away from this article, my attempts are geared towards getting you to see how you are not inline with wiki policy and helping you make edits that are not adversely affected by your bias against the LDM church. I could very well have gone off and done section blanking a long time ago, but I didn't because it would violate wiki policy and lead to nowhere. Your behavior right now is doing just that. Please understand my intentions are to keep both of us on this project. We need serve as each other's checks and balance, however this must be done in accordance to wiki policy. ] (]) 22:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
=Copyright Violation Notice=
] Your addition to ] has been removed, as it appears to have added ] material to Misplaced Pages without ] from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read ] for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''article content'', such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''. Please refrain from adding deleted content. Refer to the article's talk page under the section "Copyright problem removed." Please also refer to ]<!-- Template:uw-copyright --> ] (]) 00:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

=Edit warring warning=

It would be best to stop any future reversions or edit modifications in ] for the time being as this may constitute as edit warring ]. It may be best to seek dispute resolution at this point. The third editor of said article will receive this same message ] (]) 01:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section in the talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Edit_Issues so we can all discuss this issue ] (]) 01:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


== RFC/U discussion concerning you (RidjalA) ==
Hello, ]. Please be aware that a ] has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry is located at ], where you may want to participate. ] (]) 16:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC) <!-- Template:ConductDiscussion -->

== 3rd Opinion for Rape Accusations in La Luz del Mundo ==

Hi, I'm your 3rd opinionator. please see the article's talk page. ] (]) 07:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I am letting you know that I have also joined in the conversation. Please respond to RobertRosen. I believe that he may be able to help us all. ] (]) 01:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

== About your concerns ==

Hi, I am responding to your concerns that were expressed here . I cannot speak for Ajaxfiore's actions regarding the 3RR rule. I already gave him a friendly warning on his talk page about it before. Rest assured that I am not purposely conspiring him to make your edits here difficult. Our opinions tend to coincide, yes. Since we have similar views this is bound to happen. You asked for arbitration assistance, perhaps we should both seek it out together.

I have expressed my willingness to go along with your compromise here regarding RA and to merge the Criticism and Controversy sections so that it has the same title as the section in the LDS Mormon church here . I also noted the response from the two third opinion editors that you were concerned about. According to them, we did not ignore them or go against their opinion. I have also added a 3RR warning on Ajaxfiore's talk page here . Please remember to use neutral language when contacting. In your post you already condemned me and lumped Ajaxfiore's actions with my username, which is why they did not wish to be involved. Had you approached them with neutral language, they may be assisting us all right now.

If you wish to get outside input into this situations (since no one is responding to the RfC on user conduct) we could both jointly file a request for assistance here .

However I must mention on thing. I am picking up here hostility aimed at me. As this states "It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is ]." Please keep in mind that you did not inform me of your actions, and you accused me of being a member of a tag team behind my back. Ajaxfiore is a DIFFERENT person and any beef you have with him/her has nothing to do with me. What can WE do to change the situation between YOU and ME? ] (]) 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:I just merged the Controversy and Criticism sections. ] (]) 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:The quote we discussed before on your talkpage was deleted by Ajaxfiore. I have rienserted it using the translation you provided on my talk page . ] (]) 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

= Concenring Church Acronym =

Hi, you expressed your concerns about my use of "LDM" instead of "LLDM." I do not wish to link the RfC since that may violate wiki policy, but I am sure you know what I am talking about. Allow me to explain myself.

'''The following sources use "LDM"'''
The church itself uses LDM for one of its magazines . If you look carefully at this video produced by a congregation in the United States you will see the LDM acronym . Jason H. Dormady uses LDM as the acronym A Mexican scholar uses LDM as the acronym here on page 177. On page 63 of this Colombian source in the footnotes Patrica Fortuny is quoted using "LDM" as the acronym. Fortuny uses "LDM" again on this source on page 30 and three times here Starting on page 20.

As you can see scholars do use LDM as an acronym for the church as well as the church itself. I prefer to use that acronym myself because it reminds me of the LDS Mormon church acronym. My intent was not to subvert a Google search. I hope this helps a little. ] (]) 01:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=Concerning new possibly disruptive editor=

Hi, it turns out that RobertRobertson has just deleted half of the controversy and criticism section as well as entire sections including the history section. I will attempt to contact other editors to provide advice since I have no idea how I should react to this. Both of us are "single purpose accounts" since the majority of my edits are LLDM and all of yours are LLDM. This isn't bad or against wiki policy. the strange thing is that he accused Ajaxfiore of this even though he has edited many other pages unlike you and me.

Ajaxfiore has decided to stop editing the article, that just leaves me and hopefully you're still interested in editing it. We need to work together to restore the missing sections. ] (]) 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:If you seriously think that RobertRobertson is disruptive and that you are going to "restore the missing sections", then you are incredibly mistaken. I stand by RobertRobertson's recent edits. I think RobertRobertson is a stellar admin and his recent edits are perfectly justified. I should also state that if anyone tries any of this funny stuff again (i.e. fluffing up the LLDM wiki page with useless information, and using PhD theses to back it up), then you will be banned from editing on wikipedia. With best intentions, ] (]) 01:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:23, 24 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)