| Revision as of 22:45, 24 January 2008 editCunado19 (talk | contribs)8,885 edits →request: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:17, 25 January 2008 edit undoGeneral Disarray (talk | contribs)3,764 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| *] -01 January 2006 | *] -01 January 2006 | ||
| *] -24 January 2007 | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| These edits. , , , , , , , . Amount to vandalism. Please stop. ] ] - ] 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please cite verifiable sources== | |||
| These edits , , & do not provide ] sources per wikipedia policies. | |||
| Your "reference" *Lamb, J.T. (2004). Over The Wall, Page 10 Publishers, Missoula Montana 59802 isn't published and doesn't meet the requirements of this policy. | |||
| Would you please take the time to read it. This has been at the crux of virtually all of your edit disputes. The burden is on ''you'' to provide sources for your information. ] 06:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration == | |||
| You can make your comments regarding your opinion. ] ] - ] 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == divisions == | |||
| Before you embarrass yourself, read over the very last section of ]. It has links to several personal websites in text. In particular, look at Allison Marshall's link which goes to a badly made personal website. ] ] - ] 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| Thank you for your kind note on my talk page today. This medium does indeed present many difficulties in effective communication. It's a written medium, but treated often as a spoken one. We're all new at it and learning. ] 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jahbulon RFC== | |||
| Sorry I wasn't clear that the user had deleted the entire contents of the article :) That's what the RfC was suppossed to be about, the existance of the article :) <font color="FF3399">]</font> 09:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==original research on Messianic related articles== | |||
| As I see that you have dealt with some original research issues on ], can you take a look at ] and ]. Thanks for your help. --] | ] 22:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Messianic prophecies BUPC === | |||
| Jeff, I have set up the article ] and removed most of the non-BUPC stuff. I also redirected Messianic prophecies to ]. Although I will be doing some more documentation on ] it is largely complete. | |||
| :'''] 05:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)''' | |||
| == User notice: temporary 3RR block on ] == | |||
| ]You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. <!-- Template:3RR3 --> The duration of the is 24 hours. ] 11:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :William, in the interest of avoiding problems in the future, I was hoping you could offer some advice for me should similiar situations in the future arise. You suggested to "make an effort to discuss your changes". The edits which led to these four reverts involved me removing what I felt was a contribution to a section which undid the balance of the two views being presented there. The addition is an opinion of one of the two sides being discussed to which both views already had equal say, and the fair and sympathetic views of both sides is now being undermined. The reason for removing the contribution Cunado added was stated in the "summary of changes", yet Cunado chose to ignore the concern and restore, again and again. What's one to do, for it seems all the contributor need to do is restore thrice and he can ignore the stated concerns? It's not my wish to be involved in such things, yet I feel obligated as a contributor to the article to defend it when I see fit. How can this be done when 3rr can be levied by a contributor who had at the article first, and can then restore three times to have his way? Thank you in advance. ] 07:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Really, you need to step back a bit: having two sides prepared to revert indefinitely won't help the article. The first thing to do is discuss this on the articles talk page; if that doesn't help, try to find others interested (page ]) and after that, ] ] 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ==Please be civil== | |||
| Jeff, I know the topic is dear to you, but your recent edits on ] really cross the line. ] there. This should probably apply to ] too. ] 15:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == bias == | |||
| Regarding: | |||
| :'''for not upholding their vow to "carry out every aspect of the Guardian’s expressed wishes and hopes"''' | |||
| It's in both our interests to make the article look like a factual and unbiased article, and not some kind of pamphlet or personal webpage. It seems like you're just putting down whatever you want to, preceded by "Jensen taught that..." I've never seen a decent reference for what he wrote about what and when, only a link to the introduction of a book which was e-published. If you want to have sentences like the one mentioned, I suggest referencing it straight to what Jensen wrote, or removing it. The way it's written is sloppy, and that's why I removed it. ] ] - ] 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =="Drainage ditch"== | |||
| ] 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:3RR == | |||
| Just a warning, the next revert crosses the ]. -- ] 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stay cool== | |||
| Regarding suite of edits: {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on ]: }}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> ] 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your comments== | |||
| Are much appreciated. Feel free to inform me when you're being ganged up against. My email settings are also turned on btw :) ] 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, on your user page, your have a section "Backround". I think you mean "Background". :) ] 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your recent revert == | |||
| The blog that I linked to on the ] article is hardly a blog in the conventional sense of the word. is a collection of well-sourced and documented essays on various topics within the scope of ]. The "blog post" that I linked to on the ] article is hardly a blog post, it is a well-sourced academic paper with 50 footnotes that happens to be hosted on blogspot.com and the content is formatted in blog form. ] | ] | ] 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I responded on my TALK page. --] | ] | ] 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why did you undo my edit == | |||
| That was not nice. Now I have re-add it. If you have a problem with it state it. Otherwise fix up the grammar and other minor problems you may have with it. ] 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Warning: Be Civil and Assume Good Faith== | |||
| Be advised: repeatedly refering to others' edits | |||
| , | |||
| , | |||
| , & | |||
| as ], when ], is ]. (] w/o discussion are ].) And repeatedly referring to your own edits as "honest" | |||
| , & | |||
| is counter to ]. | |||
| You're frustrated, but tone it down. You're both skating close to ]. ] 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == September 2007 == | |||
| <div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' in accordance with ] for '''Edit warring on ]'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
| == see ] == | |||
| please see my comments at ]. thanks. ] (]) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == request == | |||
| I've noticed that you re-edit the talk page a lot. you made was almost 6 hours after your first comment. I'm sure you can see why that becomes a problem for people following. It is also a lot easier to follow the history if you make a comment in a single edit. Try using preview and re-reading before saving. | |||
| Also, please change your signature back to something that is less controversial. ] is about user names, but it would not be a long stretch to apply it to changed signatures. ] ☼ - ] 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:17, 25 January 2008
Please DO NOT post comments about on-going discussions here. Post them to the discussion page. I don't like behind-the-scenes talking as I have nothing to hide; plus they don't benefit anyone being closed off to this page. I'm archiving previous "discussion oriented" comments, along with other items of no pariticular value. Please add all thanks and praises below, but if you have nothing nice to say, maybe just bite your tongue <:0) ~Jeff