Are you John Lott, a relative of his, in his employ, or in the employ of AEI? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Here we go again. ANYTIME anyone comes forward, who is apparently "pro John Lott" there's the instant accusation of "sock puppet." I guess those skeptics just can't believe that any normal person might actually take John Lott's side in the continual struggle to make the Wikipedia article on him meet NPOV standards. Then again, the skeptics idea of NPOV, is NOT NPOV. So what else is new. Al Lowe 13:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Answer to "Hipocrite": No. In addition, the corrections have only partially fixed all the myriad problems with this entry. "Hipocrite" in my reading of past postings I am amazed that you continually fought people over simple things such as a POV note at the beginning. You cannot believe that everyone agrees on this. This whole thing
Yes, she does. Al Lowe 22:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you are very close to breaking the 3RR rule on John Lott. Please consider discussing your edits with the other editors involved and try to resolve your differences. If you revert the article one more time, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. Thank you. «» Who ?¿? meta 07:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I have tried repeatedly to discuss these issues in the discussion section and all I get back is "no." If you have a suggestion, I am open to it, but I don't know what to do. Timewarp 13:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. Guettarda 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, I have tried repeatedly to discuss these issues in the discussion section and all I get back is "no." There is no desire to respond to deal with these issues. I have tried compromising, but even when I give in 100 percent on the very few concrete responses that I get, the answer is still "no." Tell me what you want me to do.
Timewarp 13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Timewarp,
my feeling is that you have had problems with the user called Guettarda. If such things occur again, we should think how to stop this person from damaging the Wikipedia community.
Thanks a lot, Lubos -- Lumidek 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lumidek,
I don't know who Guettarda is, but there are plenty of people on this website who will not discuss the issues. All the discussions on the talk page are essentially useless. If you have suggestions, I am open to hearing them. Thanks for the note. I am very new to this whole thing still so I am not even sure whether this is the right way to respond to notes that people send you. Timewarp 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
William M. Connelley has violated his parole. [1] The one case I have personal knowlegde of is his reverts in de lomborg case. [2] You can contribute if you wish.-- MichaelSirks 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have continued the quest to get enforcement on WMC's parole at [3]-- MichaelSirks 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you John Lott, a relative of his, in his employ, or in the employ of AEI? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Here we go again. ANYTIME anyone comes forward, who is apparently "pro John Lott" there's the instant accusation of "sock puppet." I guess those skeptics just can't believe that any normal person might actually take John Lott's side in the continual struggle to make the Wikipedia article on him meet NPOV standards. Then again, the skeptics idea of NPOV, is NOT NPOV. So what else is new. Al Lowe 13:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Answer to "Hipocrite": No. In addition, the corrections have only partially fixed all the myriad problems with this entry. "Hipocrite" in my reading of past postings I am amazed that you continually fought people over simple things such as a POV note at the beginning. You cannot believe that everyone agrees on this. This whole thing
Yes, she does. Al Lowe 22:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you are very close to breaking the 3RR rule on John Lott. Please consider discussing your edits with the other editors involved and try to resolve your differences. If you revert the article one more time, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. Thank you. «» Who ?¿? meta 07:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I have tried repeatedly to discuss these issues in the discussion section and all I get back is "no." If you have a suggestion, I am open to it, but I don't know what to do. Timewarp 13:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. Guettarda 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, I have tried repeatedly to discuss these issues in the discussion section and all I get back is "no." There is no desire to respond to deal with these issues. I have tried compromising, but even when I give in 100 percent on the very few concrete responses that I get, the answer is still "no." Tell me what you want me to do.
Timewarp 13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Timewarp,
my feeling is that you have had problems with the user called Guettarda. If such things occur again, we should think how to stop this person from damaging the Wikipedia community.
Thanks a lot, Lubos -- Lumidek 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lumidek,
I don't know who Guettarda is, but there are plenty of people on this website who will not discuss the issues. All the discussions on the talk page are essentially useless. If you have suggestions, I am open to hearing them. Thanks for the note. I am very new to this whole thing still so I am not even sure whether this is the right way to respond to notes that people send you. Timewarp 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
William M. Connelley has violated his parole. [1] The one case I have personal knowlegde of is his reverts in de lomborg case. [2] You can contribute if you wish.-- MichaelSirks 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have continued the quest to get enforcement on WMC's parole at [3]-- MichaelSirks 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)