| Revision as of 00:11, 29 November 2008 editTracyMcClark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,852 edits →WP:ALSO and Stephen Colbert: happy holydays← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:19, 29 November 2008 edit undoTracyMcClark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,852 edits →Removing categories from Matt Drudge: Holyday spirit?Next edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| Hi, I had a look at ] but did not see an obvious reason why the categories you removed were unacceptable. Please explain. ] 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | Hi, I had a look at ] but did not see an obvious reason why the categories you removed were unacceptable. Please explain. ] 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Watch out. He might label you as a "bad faith editor" in the spirit of the Holydays. (See above).--] (]) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 00:19, 29 November 2008
Welcome.......
Do YOU know what the word outwith means???
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. I will respond to you in here AND copy and paste the thread onto your talk page as well. Thank you. - Tom
Seeking to have you blocked
Unfortunately, after so many attempts to get you to stop deleting this material, I don't see any other practical course of action other than to seek administrative action. Please be advised I have requested that you be blocked from editing the Palin article due to your ongoing and repeated deletions. Sorry it had to come to this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Factchecker atyourservice, why don't we seek some type of dispute resolution rather than this? --Tom 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- At no time have you given any indication that you were amenable to discussion or compromise. You have simply deleted it over and over and over again. Even while "seeking comment" in an RFC you have just continued to delete the material. Frankly, I only have limited time to edit Misplaced Pages and cannot afford to waste time in arbitration with someone who is simply trying to toss out roadblocks with no intention of stopping the problematic behavior. Your conduct has warranted blocking multiple times, and I have let it slide -- and the result has just been more work for me, undoing your continued deletions. On top of that, we held discussion on this for weeks and all you really said was "this goes in the Fannon bio" while repeatedly deleting it. It's disingenuous to now claim that you seek discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I still think that we should get others involved, especially dis-interested parties if possible. --Tom 20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- At no time have you given any indication that you were amenable to discussion or compromise. You have simply deleted it over and over and over again. Even while "seeking comment" in an RFC you have just continued to delete the material. Frankly, I only have limited time to edit Misplaced Pages and cannot afford to waste time in arbitration with someone who is simply trying to toss out roadblocks with no intention of stopping the problematic behavior. Your conduct has warranted blocking multiple times, and I have let it slide -- and the result has just been more work for me, undoing your continued deletions. On top of that, we held discussion on this for weeks and all you really said was "this goes in the Fannon bio" while repeatedly deleting it. It's disingenuous to now claim that you seek discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Seek and ye shall find" did not work for FCays. Per Mr. Connolley : Many of the edits that you adduce as evidence of misdeed predate the consensus you point to. No vio. This is a content dispute; both sides are reverting and are equally liable to block. Your consensus can be re-opened; sorry if thats frustrating. Further discussion on the article talk, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC) " Collect (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
edit warning at Sarah Palin
Be aware that you are edit warring at Sarah Palin, and if necessary, you may be blocked to stop the disruption. Note that edit warring does not include exceptions for being "right", so that is no defense of your actions. Stop repeatedly reverting the article, and instead use the talk page to work out your differences. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jayron32, I have tried to use the talk page with very little success. I have also tried a RFC. Could you please suggest other dispute resolutions? Thanks, --Tom 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- You never use the discussion page for discussion. You just keep repeating the same stuff about a non-existent Fannon page. You talk about discussion just for show.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The RFC is meaningless when you continue deleting the material you are seeking comment on. I also want to point out that when you say you "tried" the talk page, you simply stated your brief opinion over and over while deleting the entire section yourself, ignoring the discussion the rest of us engaged in, and ignoring the compromise the rest of us reached -- which you have been deleting ever since. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Factchecker, you keep repeating that consensus was reached and the archives just don't support that. --Tom 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The RFC is meaningless when you continue deleting the material you are seeking comment on. I also want to point out that when you say you "tried" the talk page, you simply stated your brief opinion over and over while deleting the entire section yourself, ignoring the discussion the rest of us engaged in, and ignoring the compromise the rest of us reached -- which you have been deleting ever since. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:ALSO and Stephen Colbert
I'm not sure how the layout guidelines would require removal of the section. I'm not a regular editor on the article and saw it on my watchlist. I figured I'd ask you if there's been a change in policy or what the scoop was in regards to the revert. Ramsquire 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ramsquire, the 1st entry is listed above the lead and is unneccessary. The 2nd entry should be worked into the article if relevant. I will review this and use the talk page. Unfortunately, a bad faith editor, not you, doesn't like my editing so. --Tom 13:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Bad faith editor" and that on Thanksgiving day? You might want to distance yourself from such "bad faith" statements. See you after the long Holyday-weekend if not sooner.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Removing categories from Matt Drudge
Hi, I had a look at WP:CAT but did not see an obvious reason why the categories you removed were unacceptable. Please explain. ► RATEL ◄ 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Watch out. He might label you as a "bad faith editor" in the spirit of the Holydays. (See above).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Sarah Palin
Could you please explain how reinserting clear personal attacks onto a talk page does anything to help improve the encyclopedia?--AniMate 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)