This page 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. |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
For keeping calm in spite of all the nasty words you may have faced at WP:BLPN, keep up the good work! Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Thank you, Lithistman, for taking me under your wing... and for showing me (with patience and kindness) how to improve. DimeBoxFrank ( talk) 14:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
Sorry LHM, but I've gone ahead and deleted this evidence page as an Attack page. While you can keep such a list in preparation for an imminent or ongoing arbcom filing or similar proceeding, it's not an open ended thing. I did e-mail you a copy of the text of the page, wikicode and all, as it was at the time of the deletion, so you can keep it for your records. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Please note that I have restructured the layout of the RfC at List of deprogrammers. Please review and make certain your comments are in the intended section(s). Thank you, Tgeairn ( talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't remove my talk page contribution. 24.21.151.167 ( talk) 05:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't remove my comments 24.21.151.167 ( talk) 05:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lithistman. Thanks so much for soliciting help for me. Cas Liber has come on board. I'm going to further expand Andrew R. Heinze just a tad and also get Luther Adler's citations in order, and then I'll ask Cas Liber to check them out. DimeBoxFrank ( talk) 14:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Take this discussion to WP:BLPN, please. LHM ask me a question 01:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The consensus was that it was a BLP issue. Why did you close it? Atsme☯ Consult 19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
|
I do offer my apologies for all of this. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
LHM, I have avoided on-wiki political content disputes like the plague in the past, but the manipulation of process seemed so egregious in the case of The Federalist article, that I disregarded my usual good sense and got involved. Like you, I am a strong proponent of our BLP policy, but I have never witnessed anything like what I have seen in the last 12 hours -- an attempt to misuse BLP as a club to win a non-BLP content dispute. Do you have prior experience in political content discussion involving living persons? Is this a typical typical "political" content discussions? I'm especially taken aback by the degree of personalization (completely unprovoked) in ongoing talk page discussion . . . . Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess you probably already figured this out, but recent activity at that BLP thread has made me reconsider the feeling that it would be safe for me to step away from the "debate". I'm not even sure what's being argued at this point. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I knew he'd respond like that, so I just choose to ignore his ad hominems by making an actual suggestion. And no, I'm not a troll. You may want to look for these in YouTube or your garden. =) – Epicgenius ( talk) 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk page stalker: "No, I'm not a troll. You may want to look for these in YouTube or your garden." I'm going to steal that. LOL Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I added a lot to the Jody Hice page and remodeled the "Political Views" section to what I view as more a appropriate "criticism" section. I would love to get your thoughts on the changes!! CranberryCash ( talk) 22:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick (Talk) 01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I dunno if you're familiar with the attempt to delete The Federalist's entry, but Mitchell's policy response is wildly off point. The version that was reverted to is not remotely "an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". I've pointed this out, but am not expecting much. I guess he was funnin' me. Andyvphil ( talk) 21:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I linked to one of your edits in the RfC review: [1]. aprock ( talk) 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've notice your work on the List of wars involving the United States page and was wondering if you could help me on the List of wars involving Mexico page. I am having problems with the user HMWD who keeps on adding a man's expedition and a massacre to the list of wars. I keep on explaining to him why they shouldn't be there (obvious one: they're not wars) but he ignores the reasons, comes up with "both incidents involved hundreds of men and lasted from weeks to months" as a reason (they could last however long, that still wouldn't make them wars) and keeps on adding them there. I'm sure you understand why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong. This would be the equivalent of adding the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Boston Massacre to the list of wars involving the United States. I don't want to edit war with him. We've already had an edit war before on the Border War because he insisted that Mexico and the German Empire defeated the United States in that war and kept changing it. It took us a while to resolve that and I guess ever since then he's had a personal vendetta against me because he won't listen. He seems to have created his profile just for editing on the Border War and List of wars involving Mexico with his own biased editing and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I was wondering if you could help and explain to him why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong in the list of wars and end his behavior. AbelM7 ( talk) 22:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Two questions need to be asked on this kind of article:
It's really as simple as that. Now, some common sense needs to be applied, for cases like the "War on Drugs" in the United States, which was only a figurative "war", not a real one. But this isn't a complex problem, and now it needs to be taken back to the talkpage of the article. LHM ask me a question 23:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea if you replaced the "your name here" section with your user name in your Landmark arbitration evidence. John Carter ( talk) 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why you are telling me that I am wrong and I am vandalizing Wikipedia, I am simply helping you all out. Consult the link below, and thank you for allowing me to prove my point and show you that you were wrong.
http://mccks.edu/new-athletic-tradition-begins
Hey Lithistman, as a request for being adopted to a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia, should I make a request via WP:RFB? -- Allen ( talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 04:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This page 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. |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
For keeping calm in spite of all the nasty words you may have faced at WP:BLPN, keep up the good work! Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Thank you, Lithistman, for taking me under your wing... and for showing me (with patience and kindness) how to improve. DimeBoxFrank ( talk) 14:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
Sorry LHM, but I've gone ahead and deleted this evidence page as an Attack page. While you can keep such a list in preparation for an imminent or ongoing arbcom filing or similar proceeding, it's not an open ended thing. I did e-mail you a copy of the text of the page, wikicode and all, as it was at the time of the deletion, so you can keep it for your records. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Please note that I have restructured the layout of the RfC at List of deprogrammers. Please review and make certain your comments are in the intended section(s). Thank you, Tgeairn ( talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't remove my talk page contribution. 24.21.151.167 ( talk) 05:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't remove my comments 24.21.151.167 ( talk) 05:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lithistman. Thanks so much for soliciting help for me. Cas Liber has come on board. I'm going to further expand Andrew R. Heinze just a tad and also get Luther Adler's citations in order, and then I'll ask Cas Liber to check them out. DimeBoxFrank ( talk) 14:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Take this discussion to WP:BLPN, please. LHM ask me a question 01:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The consensus was that it was a BLP issue. Why did you close it? Atsme☯ Consult 19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
|
I do offer my apologies for all of this. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
LHM, I have avoided on-wiki political content disputes like the plague in the past, but the manipulation of process seemed so egregious in the case of The Federalist article, that I disregarded my usual good sense and got involved. Like you, I am a strong proponent of our BLP policy, but I have never witnessed anything like what I have seen in the last 12 hours -- an attempt to misuse BLP as a club to win a non-BLP content dispute. Do you have prior experience in political content discussion involving living persons? Is this a typical typical "political" content discussions? I'm especially taken aback by the degree of personalization (completely unprovoked) in ongoing talk page discussion . . . . Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess you probably already figured this out, but recent activity at that BLP thread has made me reconsider the feeling that it would be safe for me to step away from the "debate". I'm not even sure what's being argued at this point. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I knew he'd respond like that, so I just choose to ignore his ad hominems by making an actual suggestion. And no, I'm not a troll. You may want to look for these in YouTube or your garden. =) – Epicgenius ( talk) 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk page stalker: "No, I'm not a troll. You may want to look for these in YouTube or your garden." I'm going to steal that. LOL Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I added a lot to the Jody Hice page and remodeled the "Political Views" section to what I view as more a appropriate "criticism" section. I would love to get your thoughts on the changes!! CranberryCash ( talk) 22:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick (Talk) 01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I dunno if you're familiar with the attempt to delete The Federalist's entry, but Mitchell's policy response is wildly off point. The version that was reverted to is not remotely "an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". I've pointed this out, but am not expecting much. I guess he was funnin' me. Andyvphil ( talk) 21:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I linked to one of your edits in the RfC review: [1]. aprock ( talk) 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've notice your work on the List of wars involving the United States page and was wondering if you could help me on the List of wars involving Mexico page. I am having problems with the user HMWD who keeps on adding a man's expedition and a massacre to the list of wars. I keep on explaining to him why they shouldn't be there (obvious one: they're not wars) but he ignores the reasons, comes up with "both incidents involved hundreds of men and lasted from weeks to months" as a reason (they could last however long, that still wouldn't make them wars) and keeps on adding them there. I'm sure you understand why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong. This would be the equivalent of adding the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Boston Massacre to the list of wars involving the United States. I don't want to edit war with him. We've already had an edit war before on the Border War because he insisted that Mexico and the German Empire defeated the United States in that war and kept changing it. It took us a while to resolve that and I guess ever since then he's had a personal vendetta against me because he won't listen. He seems to have created his profile just for editing on the Border War and List of wars involving Mexico with his own biased editing and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I was wondering if you could help and explain to him why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong in the list of wars and end his behavior. AbelM7 ( talk) 22:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Two questions need to be asked on this kind of article:
It's really as simple as that. Now, some common sense needs to be applied, for cases like the "War on Drugs" in the United States, which was only a figurative "war", not a real one. But this isn't a complex problem, and now it needs to be taken back to the talkpage of the article. LHM ask me a question 23:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea if you replaced the "your name here" section with your user name in your Landmark arbitration evidence. John Carter ( talk) 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why you are telling me that I am wrong and I am vandalizing Wikipedia, I am simply helping you all out. Consult the link below, and thank you for allowing me to prove my point and show you that you were wrong.
http://mccks.edu/new-athletic-tradition-begins
Hey Lithistman, as a request for being adopted to a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia, should I make a request via WP:RFB? -- Allen ( talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 04:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)