| Revision as of 23:13, 5 January 2009 editBackin72 (talk | contribs)5,347 edits gone daddy gone← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:14, 6 January 2009 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits clarifying with a couple diffsNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| :Thanks! Yeah man, I've been on the road to where good intentions lead for too long to turn around now. ;-) Hope your New Year brings peace and good times. --] (]) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | :Thanks! Yeah man, I've been on the road to where good intentions lead for too long to turn around now. ;-) Hope your New Year brings peace and good times. --] (]) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Request== | |||
| Hiya, regarding the latest discussions on pseudoscientific topics, I have no opinion either way on what should go into the list. However, to make my job as an administrator easier, could I ask that you please try to keep the discussions and edit summaries a bit more neutral? Comments should focus on the article, not on contributors, and ditto with the edit summaries. If you do have concerns about any particular editor, there are better venues to express them (such as the arb case). That way the list talkpage can be kept strictly for discussion of the list itself. Or at least that is my fond hope. :) Thanks, --]]] 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:14, 6 January 2009
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of January 2009.Therefore, please do not release or repeat
any personal information connecting me with this account.
(Bummer, but what can I do? Goodbye.)
--Backin72 (n.b.) 23:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Remember when WP:No personal attacks was an actual policy, not merely a guideline to be ignored if you're on a righteous crusade?
There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: ...
- Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
I made the mistake of assuming this policy was taken seriously on WP.
Game over. Bad behavior won. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Citizendium. We are looking for expert editors. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Got that right. As usual your timing is exquisite. :-) BTW, sorry to redact, but I'm including no personal information on WP anymore. For purposes of this site, I'm a brain in a vat using an advanced augmentative and alternative communication device. cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Greetings. I hope you stick around. I understand your decision and will still support you as an honest and well-meaning editor. Good luck. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yeah man, I've been on the road to where good intentions lead for too long to turn around now. ;-) Hope your New Year brings peace and good times. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Request
Hiya, regarding the latest discussions on pseudoscientific topics, I have no opinion either way on what should go into the list. However, to make my job as an administrator easier, could I ask that you please try to keep the discussions and edit summaries a bit more neutral? Comments should focus on the article, not on contributors, and ditto with the edit summaries. If you do have concerns about any particular editor, there are better venues to express them (such as the arb case). That way the list talkpage can be kept strictly for discussion of the list itself. Or at least that is my fond hope. :) Thanks, --Elonka 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)