![]() | 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 |
I think that was just a template, not a specifically patronizing message (the template itself is ridiculous and patronizing but that's another story). I don't know anything about this, so Wikipedia:Mediation is probably the best route. Adam Bishop 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you don't have to do anything; the Commons image shows up automatically at Wikipedia. In this case, however, you (presumably unintentionally) put an extra space (also rendered as an underscore) at the end of the file name before the extension: the image's name is Image:Ulster banner .png (or with underscores, Image:Ulster_banner_.png). You can upload it again under the name Commons:Image:Ulster banner.png if you like, but in general it's preferred to have flags as .svg files rather than .png files, as the current Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is. — An gr If you've written a quality article... 21:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fennessy. Since we should refrain from further discussion on that mediation talk page, I'll try to address your question here. I believe my position is fully aligned with Wikipedia policies, and my proposal reflects that. To summarize in brief:
Honestly, I don't see anything at all here that is a violation of policy. The one area I was struggling with is how to measure "undue weight", and I admitted that. WP:UNDUE is clear about the amount of weight to be accorded multiple views, but it (unfortunately) does not have any guidance on how to actually measure the importance of competing views. I had attempted several times to start a discussion along those lines, as I thought it was the right track to follow, but those attempts were immediately met with non-sequiter replies, torpedoing any constructive engagement. That's my frustration. I'm not afraid to come to the conclusion that the sport/media unofficial usage deserves less due weight than my current opinion, but I want to go through some process to actually support a conclusion. Other involved parties seem hell-bent on avoiding any work that might lead to an unfavorable result for them, even if it might also lead to a conclusive positive result for them. That is so brazenly contrary to the spirit of mediation, that I am left feeling rather disspirited about all my work. Andrwsc 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well all thats fine(as I'm sure you must realise by now, I consider giving the Ulster banner any weight in an info-box, etc. to be undue), the thing that concerned me more than anything was your accusation that
User:Padraig was misinterpreting
WP:LOP, which was unfounded. He may well have made reference to them in non-sequiter responses, but thats another matter. This was compounded by the fact that you didn't make any attempt to actually work out if the use of the UB was against content polices, and diverted editors to general guidelines(
WP:GUIDELINES) as a counterargument.
Finally I was very disappointed when I saw that you suggested that
this editor report my editing as an incident on the admin noticeboard &
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors even though I had nothing to do with the troubles case, & my edits were entirely in good faith. Petty & pathetic is the only way I can sum that up.
Fennessy
20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To claim that
Andrwsc is an "impartial Administrator" in regards to this particular issue is laughable. The only thing that was uncalled for were various false accusations of breachs of
WP:LOP, left both on my user talk page & on the mediation page. Slander itself is a personal attack, & adding to a mediation page after the case has been closed by the moderator is an actual case of vandalism. Going out of your way to misrepresent people won't get you very far either(no I didn't check the history on the page, that edit was part of a long list of edits).
The only reason I removed it was because, by the end of the game, Avalanche isn't particularly eco-terrorist anymore. Thus, it could be described in more detail at Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) or Characters of Final Fantasy VII where such detail is appropriate. Axem Titanium ( talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course you can change the importance of an article, especially if the editor has rated an article's importance incorrectly-- Java7837 ( talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if you do not revert the article at the moment. It would only leave to more reverts and I am trying to reason with the contributors in concern at this moment. Thanks! Herunar ( talk) 14:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Israel#Third paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Petrocaribe.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tamara.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please direct me to a policy or consensus that supports your reversions in more detail, as I have been unable to find any as indicated, and see no reason to remove the flag in this instance of its use. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Myself and I am sure some others would appreciate it if you left a note on the talk page and explained the reason you moved that paragraph from the introduction. I am aware that you hold a negative view of Falun Gong, but I would be looking for something more substantial to explain this edit. Citing WP:Lead doesn't really help us to understand that, in particular, when there is currently an edit war on the page. Please be quite transparent. Thanks.-- Asdfg 12345 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. 82.20.19.200 ( talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you mention the page has some POV statements. I'm sure you're right. Could you tell me which ones you're thinking about? Kennethmyers ( talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I undid your revision to the Christianity in China Portal. Since the portal mirrors the article Christianity in China, please address your concerns there.
Regarding the Taiping Rebellion leader, I agree that he was influenced by his own "understanding" of Christianity. However, the Boxer rebellion was also directed at native Chinese Christians as well as all things foreign - so that is why it read "a reaction in part against Christianity". Please go to Talk:Christianity in China if you would like to comment further. Thanks! Brian0324 ( talk) 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you placed tags on Christianity in China & Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China. Do you have specific issues that could be raised at Talk:Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China or Talk:Christianity in China? As it is I have little idea what the tags are for. Thanks. Brian0324 ( talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you apparently hate me? Did I ever do anything to you? I am not who I appear to be ( talk) 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. From that very article, "The only historic city with a charter in present-day Northern Ireland is Derry, which was renamed Londonderry by its city charter.". Seems correct to use Londonderry as the name of the city then. DWaterson ( talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The name of the city's article is Derry. And all available evidence points to the fact that most people call it derry so to quote WP:title:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
I know this issue is pretty divisive so I had hoped to prevent any future problems. But I should add a wiki link to the naming dispute surrounding it. ʄ!• ¿talk? 23:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What are "Wild Geese"? See my query at Category talk:Wild Geese. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove red links on pages without good reason. You should only take such links out when we clearly don't ever need an article on the topic. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
First time I've ever heard that one. But fair enough. I mostly just remove them because they looked unsightly, and I figure if there was enough material/intrest to make an article out of it... then there would already be an article. ʄ!• ¿talk? 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:79thInfMarker.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am Jaakobou's mentor. He asked me to review an exchange at Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Surely it is possible to assert that editors have a non-neutral POV without also saying they are bigots. Bigotry is a very serious accusation that's best put forth with specific evidence if at all. May I suggest that, in light of your second statement, you might modify your first? Durova Charge! 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Storm in a Teacup. Sure maybe throwing in the word bigot was a little much, regardless of how accurate it may or may not have been. ʄ!• ¿talk? 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Good on you for not getting carried away with the rampant hyperbole. Wow, that's all I can say. ʄ!• ¿talk? 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Being Jaakobu's other mentor, I would like to add that comments such as yours are violations of wikipedia's policies that cover inter-editor communication including the requirement of civility and the prohibition against ad hominem attacks. Please review the policies and guidelines that cover how wikipedians are supposed to handle content disputes. Further disregard of our core policies and guidelines may result in actions being taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Avi, I didn't once use an ad hominem attack. That is a complete nonsense. Commenting on a established pattern of activity, such as a disproportionate number of users who share a similar outlook voting on an issue is perfectly acceptable. Just because you may disagree with something I have said, which you are entitled to do, it does not entitle you to make vague threats & misrepresent me. While we are on the subject, user Jaakobu made a concerted effort to grossly misrepresent both what I said & my intentions on the admin noticeboard. He is claiming that I called him a "crying Jew". First of all, disregarding the fact that that is something I would never say because I am not a racist, is the fact that I was actually unaware that he was Jewish. It's not on really. You may pursue this issue as far as you want for all I care, but the fact of the matter is any objective user will see that I have done absolutely nothing wrong. ʄ!• ¿talk? 11:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think it's that big a deal considering the subject matter. But seeing as it is bothering people that much might I suggest you go use a thesaurus and pick out a similar word that communicates what I meant but doesn't offend you. I'm thinking something along the lines of zealot. ʄ!• ¿talk? 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well seeing as I'm not sorry then I don't see what a hollow apology would accomplish. If anything it was just a fairly poor choice of words in an off the cuff remark—I said exactly what I was thinking when I probably should have wrapped it up in cotton wool so as not to potentially agitate editors with opposing views.
ʄ!•
¿talk?
11:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fennessy,
In the future it would help if you avoid similar derogatory commentary. i.e. instead of suggesting editors with opposing views are bigots/zealots/etc. who point fingers and cry out "antisemitism" whenever someone has an opposing perspective, you could follow
WP:CIV and
WP:NPA and just discuss the merits of your position. i.e. 'stick to content, not other editors'.
Cordially,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has any bad faith assumptions apart from you, so again, take personal responsibility for you own actions & opinions. By repeatedly asking obvious & vague questions, and continually repeating unfounded criticism, you are acting like a troll. So I will be closing this section of the talk page; I do not want to hear from you on this issue again. ʄ!• ¿talk? 10:02, 10 July 2008 (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 |
I think that was just a template, not a specifically patronizing message (the template itself is ridiculous and patronizing but that's another story). I don't know anything about this, so Wikipedia:Mediation is probably the best route. Adam Bishop 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you don't have to do anything; the Commons image shows up automatically at Wikipedia. In this case, however, you (presumably unintentionally) put an extra space (also rendered as an underscore) at the end of the file name before the extension: the image's name is Image:Ulster banner .png (or with underscores, Image:Ulster_banner_.png). You can upload it again under the name Commons:Image:Ulster banner.png if you like, but in general it's preferred to have flags as .svg files rather than .png files, as the current Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is. — An gr If you've written a quality article... 21:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fennessy. Since we should refrain from further discussion on that mediation talk page, I'll try to address your question here. I believe my position is fully aligned with Wikipedia policies, and my proposal reflects that. To summarize in brief:
Honestly, I don't see anything at all here that is a violation of policy. The one area I was struggling with is how to measure "undue weight", and I admitted that. WP:UNDUE is clear about the amount of weight to be accorded multiple views, but it (unfortunately) does not have any guidance on how to actually measure the importance of competing views. I had attempted several times to start a discussion along those lines, as I thought it was the right track to follow, but those attempts were immediately met with non-sequiter replies, torpedoing any constructive engagement. That's my frustration. I'm not afraid to come to the conclusion that the sport/media unofficial usage deserves less due weight than my current opinion, but I want to go through some process to actually support a conclusion. Other involved parties seem hell-bent on avoiding any work that might lead to an unfavorable result for them, even if it might also lead to a conclusive positive result for them. That is so brazenly contrary to the spirit of mediation, that I am left feeling rather disspirited about all my work. Andrwsc 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well all thats fine(as I'm sure you must realise by now, I consider giving the Ulster banner any weight in an info-box, etc. to be undue), the thing that concerned me more than anything was your accusation that
User:Padraig was misinterpreting
WP:LOP, which was unfounded. He may well have made reference to them in non-sequiter responses, but thats another matter. This was compounded by the fact that you didn't make any attempt to actually work out if the use of the UB was against content polices, and diverted editors to general guidelines(
WP:GUIDELINES) as a counterargument.
Finally I was very disappointed when I saw that you suggested that
this editor report my editing as an incident on the admin noticeboard &
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors even though I had nothing to do with the troubles case, & my edits were entirely in good faith. Petty & pathetic is the only way I can sum that up.
Fennessy
20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To claim that
Andrwsc is an "impartial Administrator" in regards to this particular issue is laughable. The only thing that was uncalled for were various false accusations of breachs of
WP:LOP, left both on my user talk page & on the mediation page. Slander itself is a personal attack, & adding to a mediation page after the case has been closed by the moderator is an actual case of vandalism. Going out of your way to misrepresent people won't get you very far either(no I didn't check the history on the page, that edit was part of a long list of edits).
The only reason I removed it was because, by the end of the game, Avalanche isn't particularly eco-terrorist anymore. Thus, it could be described in more detail at Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) or Characters of Final Fantasy VII where such detail is appropriate. Axem Titanium ( talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course you can change the importance of an article, especially if the editor has rated an article's importance incorrectly-- Java7837 ( talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if you do not revert the article at the moment. It would only leave to more reverts and I am trying to reason with the contributors in concern at this moment. Thanks! Herunar ( talk) 14:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Israel#Third paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Petrocaribe.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tamara.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please direct me to a policy or consensus that supports your reversions in more detail, as I have been unable to find any as indicated, and see no reason to remove the flag in this instance of its use. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Myself and I am sure some others would appreciate it if you left a note on the talk page and explained the reason you moved that paragraph from the introduction. I am aware that you hold a negative view of Falun Gong, but I would be looking for something more substantial to explain this edit. Citing WP:Lead doesn't really help us to understand that, in particular, when there is currently an edit war on the page. Please be quite transparent. Thanks.-- Asdfg 12345 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. 82.20.19.200 ( talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you mention the page has some POV statements. I'm sure you're right. Could you tell me which ones you're thinking about? Kennethmyers ( talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I undid your revision to the Christianity in China Portal. Since the portal mirrors the article Christianity in China, please address your concerns there.
Regarding the Taiping Rebellion leader, I agree that he was influenced by his own "understanding" of Christianity. However, the Boxer rebellion was also directed at native Chinese Christians as well as all things foreign - so that is why it read "a reaction in part against Christianity". Please go to Talk:Christianity in China if you would like to comment further. Thanks! Brian0324 ( talk) 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you placed tags on Christianity in China & Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China. Do you have specific issues that could be raised at Talk:Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China or Talk:Christianity in China? As it is I have little idea what the tags are for. Thanks. Brian0324 ( talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you apparently hate me? Did I ever do anything to you? I am not who I appear to be ( talk) 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. From that very article, "The only historic city with a charter in present-day Northern Ireland is Derry, which was renamed Londonderry by its city charter.". Seems correct to use Londonderry as the name of the city then. DWaterson ( talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The name of the city's article is Derry. And all available evidence points to the fact that most people call it derry so to quote WP:title:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
I know this issue is pretty divisive so I had hoped to prevent any future problems. But I should add a wiki link to the naming dispute surrounding it. ʄ!• ¿talk? 23:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What are "Wild Geese"? See my query at Category talk:Wild Geese. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove red links on pages without good reason. You should only take such links out when we clearly don't ever need an article on the topic. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
First time I've ever heard that one. But fair enough. I mostly just remove them because they looked unsightly, and I figure if there was enough material/intrest to make an article out of it... then there would already be an article. ʄ!• ¿talk? 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:79thInfMarker.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am Jaakobou's mentor. He asked me to review an exchange at Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Surely it is possible to assert that editors have a non-neutral POV without also saying they are bigots. Bigotry is a very serious accusation that's best put forth with specific evidence if at all. May I suggest that, in light of your second statement, you might modify your first? Durova Charge! 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Storm in a Teacup. Sure maybe throwing in the word bigot was a little much, regardless of how accurate it may or may not have been. ʄ!• ¿talk? 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Good on you for not getting carried away with the rampant hyperbole. Wow, that's all I can say. ʄ!• ¿talk? 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Being Jaakobu's other mentor, I would like to add that comments such as yours are violations of wikipedia's policies that cover inter-editor communication including the requirement of civility and the prohibition against ad hominem attacks. Please review the policies and guidelines that cover how wikipedians are supposed to handle content disputes. Further disregard of our core policies and guidelines may result in actions being taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Avi, I didn't once use an ad hominem attack. That is a complete nonsense. Commenting on a established pattern of activity, such as a disproportionate number of users who share a similar outlook voting on an issue is perfectly acceptable. Just because you may disagree with something I have said, which you are entitled to do, it does not entitle you to make vague threats & misrepresent me. While we are on the subject, user Jaakobu made a concerted effort to grossly misrepresent both what I said & my intentions on the admin noticeboard. He is claiming that I called him a "crying Jew". First of all, disregarding the fact that that is something I would never say because I am not a racist, is the fact that I was actually unaware that he was Jewish. It's not on really. You may pursue this issue as far as you want for all I care, but the fact of the matter is any objective user will see that I have done absolutely nothing wrong. ʄ!• ¿talk? 11:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think it's that big a deal considering the subject matter. But seeing as it is bothering people that much might I suggest you go use a thesaurus and pick out a similar word that communicates what I meant but doesn't offend you. I'm thinking something along the lines of zealot. ʄ!• ¿talk? 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well seeing as I'm not sorry then I don't see what a hollow apology would accomplish. If anything it was just a fairly poor choice of words in an off the cuff remark—I said exactly what I was thinking when I probably should have wrapped it up in cotton wool so as not to potentially agitate editors with opposing views.
ʄ!•
¿talk?
11:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fennessy,
In the future it would help if you avoid similar derogatory commentary. i.e. instead of suggesting editors with opposing views are bigots/zealots/etc. who point fingers and cry out "antisemitism" whenever someone has an opposing perspective, you could follow
WP:CIV and
WP:NPA and just discuss the merits of your position. i.e. 'stick to content, not other editors'.
Cordially,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has any bad faith assumptions apart from you, so again, take personal responsibility for you own actions & opinions. By repeatedly asking obvious & vague questions, and continually repeating unfounded criticism, you are acting like a troll. So I will be closing this section of the talk page; I do not want to hear from you on this issue again. ʄ!• ¿talk? 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)