| Revision as of 23:34, 18 October 2006 editDerex (talk | contribs)5,818 edits response to personal attack← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:46, 18 October 2006 edit undoDHeyward (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,753 edits as I said before, trolling is removed. However, that does not mean I said you were a troll.Next edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| :It wasn't directed at other editors. Scurrilous was used to describe the accusation of those that blamed Stephenson critics for hastening his death. Please AGF. Since the statements weren't sourced, it is ncumbent to delete them. Simply repeating libelous statements because someone else said them is not acceptable. The living people are hte owners and contributors of the website critical of Stephenson. --] 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | :It wasn't directed at other editors. Scurrilous was used to describe the accusation of those that blamed Stephenson critics for hastening his death. Please AGF. Since the statements weren't sourced, it is ncumbent to delete them. Simply repeating libelous statements because someone else said them is not acceptable. The living people are hte owners and contributors of the website critical of Stephenson. --] 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Don't be a dick; being a dick damages the community and deters users. Note that continued dickage may lead to intense annoyance by others. This obnoxious recent trend of leaving warning templates on one's own behalf is the height of dickage. Please keep this in mind while editing. If there's truly a problem that absolutely requires a warning template, kindly ask an admin to apply it rather than yourself. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> --] 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| In your last edit summary, you referred to me as a troll. That is generally regarded as a personal attack. As I'm sure you are no hypocrite, I'd appreciate an apology below. For your reference, I append the standard warning template, in case you are not familiar with policy here. {{npa2}} | |||
Revision as of 23:46, 18 October 2006
- /Archive1 Created May 1. 2006
- /Archive2 Created August 24, 2006
- /Archive3 Created September 30, 2006
Please add comments to the bottom.
User talk:Morton Devonshire
Thanks for refactoring my comment; please remember to note that you have done so next time, so it doesn't just look as if I ran out of steam half way through a. Thanks. --Guinnog 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Lin Zexu
I saw that you inserted a passage in the article on Lin Zexu, claiming that his letter to Quen Victoria found its way to some London newspapers. Do you have a source on that?--Niohe 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. It was pretty common knowledge. I will add the source though.--Tbeatty 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Carcharoth's comments
See his comment re The War on Freedom Afd at . Morton devonshire 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Category:Session wrestlers
Your recent edit to Category:Session wrestlers (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Category had one erroneous entry and the bot treated it as "blanking" when it was removed. --Tbeatty 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Strange Close & Re-List
The Afd that you voted on at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Bogus 3RR report
Combining two edits twelve hours apart and trying to pass that off as one revert? Gamaliel 03:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for the mistake of the 4th edit. It was 5 reverts in a little less than 2 days. Wikilawyer it down all you like. Deleting warnings from your talk page is also a violation. --Tbeatty 03:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology, but you really need to let it go. There is no "violation" in deleting bogus warnings posted in a lame attempt to claim the moral high ground, if there is such a thing in such a sad edit war. It's also sad to lecture me about edit warring when you've been reverting just as much as I have. What's the point of that? I think you need to step back a bit. Are you really so blinded by partisanship or dislike of me to imagine that I'm trying to smear poor Jeff Gannon with a parent category? Seriously, think about this. Do you really believe I think that I'm going to convince someone that Gannon was a prostitute with clever category placement? Or are you just looking for some reason to attack me? The last bit isn't a dig at you, I'm just trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Gamaliel 03:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Switch it around. Do you really think I give a shit about Jeff Gannon? Do you really think it's worth it to risk the foundation with potential libel and defamation suits so you can inlude an insignificant person in a silly category? Do you really believe it when you say the integrity of Misplaced Pages's category system hinges on whether or not Jeff Gannon can be called a sex worker? Why not let it go? I have concerns with your editing pattern (and you have said as much about mine). My only goal is to create a better encyclopedia and part of that means opposing NPOV and BLP violations. I will continue to challenge your attempts to add negative material about certain individuals covered as WP biographies as well as your attempts to add politically critical material to organizations and/or candidates in a way that violates NPOV. I applaud your work on non-political topics and your overall contribution to Misplaced Pages but you should let go of the parthisanship and dislike of me. The percentage of my edits that you have a problem with is a lot higher than the percentage of your edits that I find objectionable so it seems rather far-fetched for you to think I am attacking you. --Tbeatty 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology, but you really need to let it go. There is no "violation" in deleting bogus warnings posted in a lame attempt to claim the moral high ground, if there is such a thing in such a sad edit war. It's also sad to lecture me about edit warring when you've been reverting just as much as I have. What's the point of that? I think you need to step back a bit. Are you really so blinded by partisanship or dislike of me to imagine that I'm trying to smear poor Jeff Gannon with a parent category? Seriously, think about this. Do you really believe I think that I'm going to convince someone that Gannon was a prostitute with clever category placement? Or are you just looking for some reason to attack me? The last bit isn't a dig at you, I'm just trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Gamaliel 03:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Andy Stephenson
Someone removed your prod from the Andy Stephenson article. You'll have to do an AfD. Crockspot 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --Tbeatty 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Andy Stephenson deletion discussion is here.--Tbeatty 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Check out the diff I posted on the AfD for a good snort. Crockspot 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Alleged Cult CfD
To help with reaching consensus on this CfD, I added categories to sort votes into reasons for Keep or Delete. You can confirm that I sorted you into the right group hereAntonrojo 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: NBGPWS
I'm leaving him a warning, but what is DU and SPA? Thanks. —Xyrael / 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- DU is short for www.democraticunderground.com , and SPA means Single Purpose Account. Crockspot 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt
Probably a good move refactoring the comments on Talk:Daniel Brandt. I shouldn't have said that, but I got the impression an anon had been vandalizing articles I'd written because I've edited the Brandt page. I usually don't let vandals bother me, and anyway there's no reason to give them a reason to do it, so thanks.--Cúchullain /c 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for not taking it personally :). --Tbeatty 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Awards
| A Barnstar! | I Hereby Award You The Tin-Foil Hat of Comeuppance
For service in the endless war to rid Misplaced Pages of Conspiracy Theory Vanispamcruftisement  Morton Devonshire
|
Your repeated deletions in the Andy Stephenson article
Rather than participating in editing the section, you just deleted a section which other editors had worked to make NPOV, such as the sentence I just added, before you did wholesale deletion of material which was documented, saying:" "It's simply unsourced. Scurrilous too." Please avoid hurling accusations like "scurrilous," which is defined as: "given to the use of vulgar or low abusive language; foul mouthed" directed at other editors' work. There was no such language in the section you deleted. Assume good faith. Collaborate rather than engaging in revert war tactics and deleting. Saying "BLP" is not a magic wand which allows you to delete sourced statements you disagree with. Which living person do you feel was hurt by the section you removed? Thanks.Edison 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't directed at other editors. Scurrilous was used to describe the accusation of those that blamed Stephenson critics for hastening his death. Please AGF. Since the statements weren't sourced, it is ncumbent to delete them. Simply repeating libelous statements because someone else said them is not acceptable. The living people are hte owners and contributors of the website critical of Stephenson. --Tbeatty 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)