| Revision as of 00:58, 6 February 2006 editAgapetos angel (talk | contribs)2,142 editsm →Misunderstanding← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:04, 6 February 2006 edit undoKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →Misunderstanding: yes, and it is you who are misunderstanding, apparentlyNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| Please delete your attempt to sign my name to a poll ''immediately''. Your deceitful behaviour is not appreciated. ] 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | Please delete your attempt to sign my name to a poll ''immediately''. Your deceitful behaviour is not appreciated. ] 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| : I did not, as I explained in talk, commit 'forgery'. It was a summary of opinions, not a signature on a poll. ] 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | : I did not, as I explained in talk, commit 'forgery'. It was a summary of opinions, not a signature on a poll. ] 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Names on a list ''is'' a forgery unless the owner's added their own names. What is so hard to understand about this? There is a misunderstanding, but it is yours. Remove the names. All of them that you added, except "Agapetos angel". ]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:04, 6 February 2006
New day dawns ....
No more red-link!
You have a shiny new user page, congratulations! I appreciate your discussing the article in detail, and I note your concern over the 3RR and "over-implementation" thereof. If you feel you're being treated unreasonably again, drop me an email (via my user page) and I'll take a look at it, and prevail upon the blocking admin if it seems to me there's a bad call. Alai 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Answers in Genesis incorporation information
Hi. I'm responding to the message left at User_talk:Calcol. I tried to leave the source on the page, but it looks like that has been removed. It is from the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Kentucky Secretary of State, and I don't believe it is available online. This is all I could find that's online: and . Calcol 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I guess another editor thought it didn't need to be there, or perhaps deleted it because it was unsourced? I don't know. Maybe add it with the sources, or go to talk and ask if it shouldn't be there. agapetos_angel 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Dispute tag
AA, sorry about the dispute tag removal, that was one Wiki rule I was unaware of, so thanks for pointing it out. (I suppose there are still things to learn about Wiki for all of us). I intended no vandalism, as that's just not part of my modus operandi. Sarcasm, yes, vandalism, no. Jim62sch 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No worries agapetos_angel 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- That was added to the Vandalism page Jan 14, 2006. As such, it is quite new and I would not expect everyone to be aware of it. KillerChihuahua 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- And I appreciated that Jim apologize rather than flying off the handle :) agapetos_angel 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Adding dispute tags
Adding dispute tags to a page, where there is clear consensus that it is fine, in this case because you disagree with the WP:NPOV policy, is vandalism. Explain your objections on the talk page. And that means proper explanation, not whinging that you want a section removed because it notes criticisms of someone with extremely unorthodox views. Oh, and remember the 3RR, won't you? — Dunc|☺ 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dunc, that's just it. There is no clear consensus (see Talk). Editors are still working on a respectable version, from both 'sides' of the debate over that section. Therefore, removing the tag is vandalism. And I didn't revert the last one; just left you a note so you would see it (since you don't appear to be reading the Talk). Thanks agapetos_angel 13:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- "want a section removed because it notes criticisms" is not the issue, as explained in talk. Verifiability is. agapetos_angel 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well it appears that only you dispute it. Your "verifiability" is a rather transparent subversion of policy to remove criticism. How's about this for policy: WP:NPOV is non-negotiable (?). Do you recognise m:MPOV? btw, you do know the Flintstones isn't based on real events don't you? — Dunc|☺ 14:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sarcasm, cute. Verifiablity is being attempted/added and edits are being currently being discussed in talk (if you look there, you will see that even Alai is getting frustrated with your reverts that are removing valid links and edit that he made). How about this? Please read talk, please stop vandalising the article by removing tags, and please stop accusing me of failing to follow NPOV when you aren't even in the ballpark of the dispute discussion, k? Furthermore, please see your talk where I outlined that your last revert wasn't a revert of anything. agapetos_angel 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Misunderstanding
not Forgery
Please delete your attempt to sign my name to a poll immediately. Your deceitful behaviour is not appreciated. Guettarda 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I did not, as I explained in talk, commit 'forgery'. It was a summary of opinions, not a signature on a poll. agapetos_angel 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Names on a list is a forgery unless the owner's added their own names. What is so hard to understand about this? There is a misunderstanding, but it is yours. Remove the names. All of them that you added, except "Agapetos angel". KillerChihuahua 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)