| Revision as of 22:16, 9 October 2008 editKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →?: re: PA← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:21, 10 October 2008 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,960 edits queryNext edit → | ||
| Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
| I thank you for the copy of the page. I have read both ] and ] and am sorry that I once again disagree with you. Your reference of these pages in response to my questioning does not in and of itself define my actions but instead has provided me with the knowledge that not only justifies the process i have executed of Not canvassing or personally attacking but was the exact way to dispute an action. I notified no user who had not already injected themselves in to the converstaion and made no personal attack with the exception of the statement of "blocking a user who deletes a page without going thru the proper channels" which is not a personal attack but is a process/statement made by a user not about another user's innate tendancies or person but a mere statement of an acknowledged process of review observed by nearly every admin.. I suggest you strike thru your allegations of alleged violations by myself and we may then talk about your use of the word "trolling" and how one may interpret this. Once again thank you for the copy of the page.--] (]) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | I thank you for the copy of the page. I have read both ] and ] and am sorry that I once again disagree with you. Your reference of these pages in response to my questioning does not in and of itself define my actions but instead has provided me with the knowledge that not only justifies the process i have executed of Not canvassing or personally attacking but was the exact way to dispute an action. I notified no user who had not already injected themselves in to the converstaion and made no personal attack with the exception of the statement of "blocking a user who deletes a page without going thru the proper channels" which is not a personal attack but is a process/statement made by a user not about another user's innate tendancies or person but a mere statement of an acknowledged process of review observed by nearly every admin.. I suggest you strike thru your allegations of alleged violations by myself and we may then talk about your use of the word "trolling" and how one may interpret this. Once again thank you for the copy of the page.--] (]) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :You're welcome, but it was calling me ''homophobic'' which was (and is) the personal attack. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | :You're welcome, but it was calling me ''homophobic'' which was (and is) the personal attack. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Orgone== | |||
| Hi, I know this comment of yours is kind of old, but I was reviewing the talkpage and just recently saw it. I was really surprised to see something like this, especially from an administrator. Would you be willing to refactor it? Or, is it alright with you if I just delete it, or take the attack out? Thanks, --]]] 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:21, 10 October 2008
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 1:53 pm, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives
 Your declined reasonThe discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and the newbie created the subpage without any consensus or prior asking. The content is duplicated, so there is no reason to have the subpage!--Caspian blue (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete my pageIf you do not know a subject or person please ask. Do not delete pages you know nothing about. Professor Walman is mentioned on a number of pages that refer to his certification as a Schillinger teacher.D2leo (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Jerome WalmanWhy did you delete my page????????????? If you are uninformed ask the experts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D2leo (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent DesignThat place is a powder keg. If I was a new user, I would've done something dumb, like reverted, and that would've gone to hell fast. I'm afraid that the "stable version" that people are talking about is a result of that, not that we've found anything remotely close to the best article that it could be. Not complaining per se, but ruminating. Things have changed, and its hard dealing with the new Wiki. Or maybe I'm remembering the old days wrong. At any rate, thanks for hearing me out and not treating me like I'm a POV pusher. I appreciate it. Separately, do you ever use the IRC channel?--Tznkai (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Sarah PalinHi! I noted the major revision under "Reception" for the Sarah Palin article. There was no consensus on that revision, and there is, as you know, further discussion about the relevance of how the media feel about Palin. I am not one to revert, but reversion would make the discussion which is ongoing have a chance of success. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have always assumed good faith. I trust that is satisfactory. Further on Talk: Sarah Palin. Collect (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the welcome, but what sparked it?I appreciate the welcome and pointers to info on editing wikipedia, but I'm not sure what sparked it. Was it the edits I just made to the Tupac Shakur page and talk page? I believe those were all done in accordance with the info you linked, including signing my talk page contribution. Electronwill (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hobartimus and minor editsAlready been there done that with telling him to be more careful with the use of minor edits., Unfortunately Hobartimus is under the mistaken impression that it doesn't apply to talk pages. Heh. Hopefully two reminders will on the same thing will be more helpful. --Bobblehead 18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Guiding Light!First of all I wanted to thank you for your warm welcome.
Again, thanks for your insight! Tehkrayon (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Women, femaleApparently "assume good faith" isn't a rule of thumb with you. Next time you disagree with an edit, try a little more tact. SchutteGod (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
SchutteGod is disruptive and silly. The word “female” is a completely acceptable adjective. The word “woman” makes a better noun. For example: first female president, or, first woman to serve as president etc. Please knock it off SchutteGod. Hello4321 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
talk:Sarah PalinI just added a lengthy section about how policies relate to this article, can you go over it and make sure I didn't make any mistakes? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Query about giving warnings shortly after vandalism has stoppedWould you please take a look here where I warned a user for 3 vandal edits, but my warning took place shortly after the last vandalism, and another editor removed them as the vandalism had stopped. From my perspective, it could have been just a 'lunch break', so I felt it useful to leave the warnings so they were clear that continuing would lead to a block. I'm not sure what the normal behaviour here would be. I probably would have blocked her if she came back and started vandalising again, whether or not the warnings had been removed. Maybe that would have been wrong, but we block to stop vandalising, and if someone's on a spree... Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Science-Based Medicine (blog)Hello, do you remember this article I put up for CSD? The creating editor has stated that they can't WP:V it and has said that it can be CSD'ed. My question is, should I put it back up for CSD, or should it be PROD or AFD now that it's gone through CSD once? Thanks! fr33kman -s- 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
AAU reminder notice
IAREndorse. (And I don't really view it as IAR anyway.) Frank | talk 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
RE PsychokinesisThank you for this edit. Thus far, AFAICT, there is no scientific evidence that, say, the flight of a ball hit by a baseball batter's bat has been affected by the psychic disposition of a completely silent 50,000 member "home-team crowd". This despite our ability to fairly precisely measure bat speed, ball speed, speed of the pitcher's arm/forearm/wrist/hand, etc. etc. Perhaps a more empirically verifiable parameter might be produced by, say, the combined sound of fifty-thousand massively audible "boos", or whatever they typically do at the ballparks. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks......for your very helpful advice! ;). Thanks, Spencer 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC) ?Do you have any idea what the issue really is? I encourage you to find something useful to do with your time and restrain yourself from actually typeing your thoughts on anymore pages or subjects. I've read a few of your tid bits of knowledge and I'm rather embarrased for you. Either you are an incomplete thinker or just too fast of a typer. Take a moment & maybe a deep breath before straining that abstract mind of yours any longer.--MDnews2u (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
see ] and you will see that the page should have been given 5 days. I'm glad your spell checker is working-thanks for the "snippy" comment. see also ] it's one of your personal favorites. --MDnews2u (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please remain calm. Although you don't HAVE to look at someone's talk page it would have certainly helped you to understand that the page was under intelligent review and discussion prior to its unwarranted deletion. It should have had a normal deletion process based on the mitigating circumstances of the newly presented articles of notability. An attempt to make a case for a "proper" regular deletion of any page is not, or should not be considered spam-when writing on another user's talk page in an attempt to question an innapropriate deletion becomes spam this site has lost all credibility and peer review (and NO, the inclusion of a healthcare clinic that provides a vital/novel service does NOT reduce this site's credibility). I will once again request that the ICW page be reinstated and the 5 days of a regular deletion process be observed so that interested parties may contribute/discuss its place, if any, on this site. As it is now the public are unable to weigh in.--MDnews2u (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect- The initial speedy was contested and removed by Largoplazo leaving either a regular deletion process or a call for more sources concerning notability. redvar or whoever placed the speedy and subsequent deletion of the page ignoring the previous actions and therefore was in violation of the numerous guidelines outlined in the links you have posted. please review this history b/c i'm unable for even the talk/discussion history was deleted. --MDnews2u (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
My attempt to question your actions (actually redvers) has been executed with respect for and indifference to your sole opinion. this is the process of a discussion. Where else does one seek help or opinions than discussion pages of other users (admin.). Your pattern of Crying "spam, spam" when you disagree with another user has not gone unnoticed even by other admin.'s. I will once again ask you to attempt to remain calm and try, if at all possible to look at this situation objectively without ganging up on any user including myself in the future. I am requesting that you step back and turn this issue over to another admin. based on your emotional responses and homophobic slurrs. Thank you for your consideration and I would like a copy of the original page made available so that the appropriate changes can be made including the article's name if necessary. Thank you. --MDnews2u (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Evidence: What on earth do you expect to accomplish by trolling here? Do you even realize that you are trolling? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I hope that you are not referring to the gay slang term when you say "trolling" for this would be inappropriate and warrant some serious discussion and possible actions concerning your homophobic rhetoric.--MDnews2u (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I didn't even know there was a gay slang term which used the word. See Troll (Internet) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Oh hell, I looked it up, and it just means trying to pick up someone. A)if you're trolling (in the gay slang sense), you suck at it, because spamming someone's talk page with complaints is hardly the best way to flirt, and B)if I thought you were trolling (in the gay slang sense), that might make me confused about how to pick up people, but it wouldn't make me homophobic. Jury's in; you are trolling, in the internet sense, and I'm done with your nonsense. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Redvers" "puppy has spoken; puppy is done". is a very "constructive" discussion. Please stop belittling this issue and ignoring the actual requests of a copy of the original page as well as a 5 day regular review and deletion process. This is not an unreasonable request. --MDnews2u (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please send or post on my talk page a copy of the original page so that I may make the changes necessary (including the page's name) for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I do not have access to the original and spent a good deal of time trying to make it acceptable. Once again this is not an unreasonable request and this is certainly not disruptive. --MDnews2u (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for the copy of the page. I have read both WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA and am sorry that I once again disagree with you. Your reference of these pages in response to my questioning does not in and of itself define my actions but instead has provided me with the knowledge that not only justifies the process i have executed of Not canvassing or personally attacking but was the exact way to dispute an action. I notified no user who had not already injected themselves in to the converstaion and made no personal attack with the exception of the statement of "blocking a user who deletes a page without going thru the proper channels" which is not a personal attack but is a process/statement made by a user not about another user's innate tendancies or person but a mere statement of an acknowledged process of review observed by nearly every admin.. I suggest you strike thru your allegations of alleged violations by myself and we may then talk about your use of the word "trolling" and how one may interpret this. Once again thank you for the copy of the page.--MDnews2u (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OrgoneHi, I know this comment of yours is kind of old, but I was reviewing the talkpage and just recently saw it. I was really surprised to see something like this, especially from an administrator. Would you be willing to refactor it? Or, is it alright with you if I just delete it, or take the attack out? Thanks, --Elonka 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||||||||
