| Revision as of 22:21, 25 April 2006 editTheda (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,969 edits you are welcome← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:07, 25 April 2006 edit undoJohn Not Reid (talk | contribs)1 editNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| {{divbox|blue|] {{!}} ]|}} | |||
| {{divbox|blue|If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk ''there'', please reply ''there''.|}} | |||
| {{User:John Reid/archive}} | |||
| == WP:HORSE? == | |||
| I'm not sure that ] is the best acronym for your essay - the first place I saw it, (without having read the policy), I thought it meant "I think Statement A is horse shit". Maybe ] would be better - the point of the article is about the legs, anyway, not the horse: a cow could've been used. Maybe I have a dirty mind. I've refrained from changing it, since it's your essay :) -- <font color="#668353">]</font> <font color="#F8FCFF">]</font> 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please make any needed improvement with my blessing. You can set as many shortcuts as the rest of the community will allow you. It's certainly not important to me. Thanks for reading the essay. ]] 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I see you've made the change; and I think I understand your point. You're thinking about ''horse's ass''; that's certainly not my intent. I've added the singular, too, since I'm more likely to write something like ''Sorry, but I think that's a ].'' ]] 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your probably false claims about the template subnational entities == | |||
| *You indirectly claimed there has been at least one reincarnation, please consider to remove your claim or to provide evidence of re-] (s). If you just took the words of Willy, then I suggest to take more care with what he says. -- ] ] 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please ]. Thank you. ]] 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I did not read it, because false claims are not a matter of opinion. You may read ] . ] ] 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Okay; that's your opinion. You have not changed mine; I'm sorry. ]] 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So you still spread false claims after being made aware of it. What is the diff to ]ing? ] ] 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="below copied from: ]" style="{{divstylegreen}}"><center><b>below copied from: ]</b></center> | |||
| I direct your attention to ]. This is official policy here -- not a guideline, not a proposal, not a suggestion. I take exception to your comments both on my talk page and at TfD. I do you here the courtesy of ''not'' linking a diff. | |||
| I do not ''agree'' with you, Sir. You do not agree with me. That is perfectly acceptable to me and to most of our membership. I am entirely willing that you uphold your position. I have explained my reasoning as far as I am willing and ''that'' is acceptable to most of us. You have used language that treads perilously close to '''Calling someone a liar...'''; if indeed it does not do so directly. That is ''not'' acceptable. I don't find merit in hounding editors who speak rudely to me; but I do suggest that there are short-tempered editors who nonetheless will seize upon any incivility you direct toward them to drag you through every possible dispute resolution process. Please have a care, friend. ]] 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You made an unproven claim, you did not change it. It seems that to me spreading false claims is not as acceptable as it is to you. It is no courtesy of all not to link to diffs. I would especially appreciate that you link to diffs that bring evidence for your claims. ] ] 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sir: I hope you will try to appreciate that I am trying to avoid an uncivil dispute. If you had confined yourself to the remark above, on your own talk page, I would have been glad to ignore it. '''That is a courtesy.''' You continue to mark my talk page, too, demanding a response. ''This is it,'' the last response you will get from me on this subject. If you are unhappy with it then I must beg your forgiveness. If you feel I have ill-used you then I offer my apology. If you feel I have violated project policy then I encourage you to file an RfC for my education. I shall permit you to comment freely on my talk for a short time, uninterrupted. And now I bid you, Sir, a good day. ]] 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Is sticking to false claims civil? Then I don't care much about your idea of civilty. I don't care about your offering of appology on that I feel ill-used. I care about truth. It seems you don't, and get education more from RfC than the edit history of {{{Subnational entity}}}. Spreading false claims on purpuse is IMO ]ing. You can't put this away by starting calling me Sir. Better than switching to Sir would be switch to truth. ] ] 03:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)</div> | |||
| *Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Since we've already been though this with Conradi for two RfCs and MedCab, I'm planning on filing with ArbComm, probably this weekend (when I have more time). If you'll wait a bit, I'll be happy to notify you.... | |||
| *:--] 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Conradi == | |||
| For the specific issue of the use of "Willy", Conradi has now been blocked once, and given a sharp warning to not repeat. I have noticed the fact that he does just about everything *but* use the word 'liar" when referring to certain people he is in opposition to. I have not called him on it, but I have definitely noticed it. | |||
| I was unaware that there had already been two RfCs filed between him and William. Sigh. If this is all at this level now, even after two RfCs, then William filing an RfAr may be the only choice left. | |||
| OTOH, Conradi has, on his talk page, leveled some serious accusations of WP:CIVIL violations against William. I have asked him to provide specific proof of these accusations. We shall see. I still consider myself a neutral admin in all this, having never interacted with either of the two of them before closing the first massive CFD a week or two back. - ] 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, I can't pretend to be an uninvolved party but I will step up when called upon. It's a shame. ]] 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My RfA == | |||
| Having fully read ] as well as ] and fully accepting that you will most likely modify your vote to '''Strong Oppose''' for me even mentioning myself on your Talk page specfically in regards to my RfA, but being unable to avoid my own sheer curiosity, what exactly is silly about white text on a maroon background? I am absolutely not looking to try to persuade you to change your vote, but I would like to understand your reasoning. Thanks! ] ] 09:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : It's difficult to read. ]] 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Userpage == | |||
| I protected your userpage to stop vandalism to it, let me know when you are ready to have it un-protected. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, I don't know what to say. Protected doesn't give me much of a chance to run up my vandal counter. Oh, wait; I don't ''have'' a vandal counter. Oh well. I think I'm tempted to ask that you unprotect now and I'll hang a notice on my user page so good-willing eds don't waste their time reverting. I can always fix it if I like or just use an old version out of history. Let the annoyed user exhaust himself harmlessly; if he's playing on my page he's not vandalizing an article. It doesn't bother me. But I do thank you sincerely for the interest you've taken. ]] 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Merger == | |||
| *'''Don't merge'''. Subject of article is good humoured, articulate and easy going. There are no sources cited which prove the subject's relationship with said "bitch". I suggest a redirect and transwiki to ] - transwiki to Wikitionary ;) --] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==You are welcome== | |||
| It is five actually. It is no problem. Thanks.--] ] 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:07, 25 April 2006
