Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:21, 11 February 2006

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)

False accusations

I have moved the false accusations by Guettarda to their own page for moderator review. I have asked Guettarda to stop trolling my Talk with false accusations and twisting of facts that are unsupported by the review of the diffs for the article, yet he is continuing to do so. Any future posts by him on this talk will be removed without comment. agapetos_angel 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My accusations are not false. Please remove these further dishonest accusations, and apologise for your previous false accusations. Guettarda 06:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you're being just dishonest. I suggest you apologise to Guettarda and settle this matter like an adult. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the evidence of False Accustion

Guettarda, you have falsely accused me, and I have shown that by the evidence. Posting the two diffs above, and adding commentary to them now in retrospect that does not match the chain of events, does not support this false accusation.

• originally version and diff is your edit to my text
• KillerChihuahua became involved
• I stipulated it was not another poll, but a summary list AFTER the poll
• KillerChihuahua objected
• you made the first strike out in my text
• I replied again that 'poll' was a mistaken assumption
• I apologized for any misunderstanding caused by my formatting of the summary
• KillerChihuahua said "Never place names in a list like that, ever ever."
• I edited the text as KillerChihuahua required, under protest, comment: '(revised as demanded 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC))'
• THAT removed your strikeout. KC required it; I complied under protest. Your most recent false accusation does not stand up to the context of the evidence.
• AFTER THAT: Guettarda: strikeout # 2 to my revised post
• Guettarda: rolls back 12:25, 8 February 2006 Revision
• Guettarda: reinstates the strike out # 2 after fixing closing strike out tag
• Guettarda removes postings by several editors
• You made a second strikeout, Guettarda, after which I had no further edits to that section before you made the delete which removed the context to show I was not lying, and left your false accusation.
• I would chalk this up to a misunderstanding, had you not kept accusing me falsely, even after I presented the diffs to show you that you were wrong. After posting those diffs, you replied, then later said you didn't see the evidence (i.e., the diffs).agapetos_angel 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lampchop

"Do I really look like Lambchop to ewe?"

I sheepishly came to check out your ewe-ser page. I'm not trying to ram my opinion down your goat. Hopefully we can shear the POV leaving articles that will not be subject to future lamb-poons. ;-) David D. (Talk) 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Well done, mate! agapetos_angel 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)