Revision as of 17:31, 14 April 2006 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →re: Dembski: you're likely to end up in arbitration sooner than you expect← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:31, 14 April 2006 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 editsm →re: Dembski: grmrNext edit → | ||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:IMO, threatening people is far more likely to be interpreted as "intimidation" than is and edit summary which says "occasionally aggressive is not a reasonable subsitute for being polemical" (with regards to an attempt to subsitute the word "polemic" with "has on occasion been aggressive". Or, in other words: pot, to kettle "black". ] 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | :IMO, threatening people is far more likely to be interpreted as "intimidation" than is and edit summary which says "occasionally aggressive is not a reasonable subsitute for being polemical" (with regards to an attempt to subsitute the word "polemic" with "has on occasion been aggressive". Or, in other words: pot, to kettle "black". ] 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
:With your POV campaigning backed threats like this spammed across numerous user talk pages, you're likely to end up in arbitration sooner than you expect. ] 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | :With your POV campaigning backed with threats like this spammed across numerous user talk pages, you're likely to end up in arbitration sooner than you expect. ] 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:31, 14 April 2006
feloniousmonk
Archives
|
|
Enforced silence
This is the second time you have been involved in enforcing silence in an effort to keep the Undue weight section vague. Just to prove you are out-of-line I am willing to let the matter rest until yet another user requests the section be clarified. Bensaccount 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Which I'm sure is being arranged as we speak... FeloniousMonk 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in. I've let temptation to continue a pointless argument get the best of me more than I like lately. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
re: Dembski
felonious, you continue to intimidate, insult or ignore those who do not agree with you and don't follow your agenda in the pages you watch. I will not step back from my complaints about this article. The article is extremely POV, and the "response" section is filled with selected quotes and blatant generalizations. I will take this all the way to arbitration, if necessary, and I suggest you compromise. Trilemma 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, threatening people is far more likely to be interpreted as "intimidation" than is and edit summary which says "occasionally aggressive is not a reasonable subsitute for being polemical" (with regards to an attempt to subsitute the word "polemic" with "has on occasion been aggressive". Or, in other words: pot, to kettle "black". Guettarda 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- With your POV campaigning backed with threats like this spammed across numerous user talk pages, you're likely to end up in arbitration sooner than you expect. FeloniousMonk 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)