![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There was originally a sentence in the lead describing Santos as the first Brazilian-American in congress. It was removed for unknown reasons (despite several other "firsts" listed) and the page has since been edit-protected. Please return this to the lead paragraph. 173.244.8.254 ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Your my-way-or-the-highway attitude (frankly, you sound like you could start a fight with an empty room, and for all I know probably have ... I wouldn't be surprised if you get regular Christmas cards from every drywall hanger in the Salem area) notwithstanding, this discussion has not established the necessary consensus for inclusion, as you have been spectacularly unsuccessful at persuading anyone else to take your side, much less participate . But I would propose anyway that this discussion could be summed up in an endnote as it once was. Maybe that will make you happy? Daniel Case ( talk) 19:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You have characterized my arguments as "backtracking your requirements for inclusion"; that to me is what is usually called "pointing out the deficiencies in my argument" by people who can't accept that they have not prevailed. If you "don't care what [I] think the definition of reliable sources is", then you really ought not to be editing Wikipedia as that has more or less proved a battleground mentality on your part.
As for your wild claim that I may have been the editor who removed that claim from the article originally, that is clearly disproven by this 14-month-old diff which I posted upthread. Either you didn't bother to look at it, which is kind of reckless on your part if you're going to make allegations such as these, or you did and made the allegation anyway, meaning it was willfully and knowingly false. If you are insinuating sockpuppetry on my part, that is not an allegation to be made so casually; people have gotten blocked indefinitely for doing things like that. You had best be prepared to back it up. At the very least it is getting very hard to assume you are editing in good faith.
Since it's actually rather easy to look up your IP, I don't see what that says about me; I had to be certain you weren't working for someone with an interest (which you still may be; I don't know). I wonder what you think it says about you that, over a week after my response, you came back all full of piss and vinegar. To me it says that you were, perhaps, balled up in a fetal position on the floor for most of that time, too terrified to go out, avoiding nearby windows out of some fear that I had commissioned an elite assassin of the kind usually found only on movies and TV to take you out with a single shot from a great distance. That was certainly not my intention.
Honestly I thought you had decided to walk away from this without saying so, which was the smarter move. But instead you screwed up your courage and came back a week later so, as far as I can tell, to prove to me that a hit dog hollers. You are so determined to prove that that you completely ignored the reasonable compromise offer I made of an endnote, an offer that is still open if you want to work out the wording.
And lastly I highly doubt that we're done here. If we were, you would have just left as I thought you had. You posted this to get a response and salvage your wounded pride. I hope that latter aspect worked for you. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Santos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following categories:
Category:21st-century American politicians Category:21st-century American LGBT people 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 01:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There was originally a sentence in the lead describing Santos as the first Brazilian-American in congress. It was removed for unknown reasons (despite several other "firsts" listed) and the page has since been edit-protected. Please return this to the lead paragraph. 173.244.8.254 ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Your my-way-or-the-highway attitude (frankly, you sound like you could start a fight with an empty room, and for all I know probably have ... I wouldn't be surprised if you get regular Christmas cards from every drywall hanger in the Salem area) notwithstanding, this discussion has not established the necessary consensus for inclusion, as you have been spectacularly unsuccessful at persuading anyone else to take your side, much less participate . But I would propose anyway that this discussion could be summed up in an endnote as it once was. Maybe that will make you happy? Daniel Case ( talk) 19:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You have characterized my arguments as "backtracking your requirements for inclusion"; that to me is what is usually called "pointing out the deficiencies in my argument" by people who can't accept that they have not prevailed. If you "don't care what [I] think the definition of reliable sources is", then you really ought not to be editing Wikipedia as that has more or less proved a battleground mentality on your part.
As for your wild claim that I may have been the editor who removed that claim from the article originally, that is clearly disproven by this 14-month-old diff which I posted upthread. Either you didn't bother to look at it, which is kind of reckless on your part if you're going to make allegations such as these, or you did and made the allegation anyway, meaning it was willfully and knowingly false. If you are insinuating sockpuppetry on my part, that is not an allegation to be made so casually; people have gotten blocked indefinitely for doing things like that. You had best be prepared to back it up. At the very least it is getting very hard to assume you are editing in good faith.
Since it's actually rather easy to look up your IP, I don't see what that says about me; I had to be certain you weren't working for someone with an interest (which you still may be; I don't know). I wonder what you think it says about you that, over a week after my response, you came back all full of piss and vinegar. To me it says that you were, perhaps, balled up in a fetal position on the floor for most of that time, too terrified to go out, avoiding nearby windows out of some fear that I had commissioned an elite assassin of the kind usually found only on movies and TV to take you out with a single shot from a great distance. That was certainly not my intention.
Honestly I thought you had decided to walk away from this without saying so, which was the smarter move. But instead you screwed up your courage and came back a week later so, as far as I can tell, to prove to me that a hit dog hollers. You are so determined to prove that that you completely ignored the reasonable compromise offer I made of an endnote, an offer that is still open if you want to work out the wording.
And lastly I highly doubt that we're done here. If we were, you would have just left as I thought you had. You posted this to get a response and salvage your wounded pride. I hope that latter aspect worked for you. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Santos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following categories:
Category:21st-century American politicians Category:21st-century American LGBT people 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 01:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)