| Revision as of 08:40, 6 March 2012 editFkpCascais (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers72,533 edits →ANI notice: AE← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:04, 24 July 2023 edit undoRreagan007 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,728 edits →Charles III requested move discussion: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (334 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |maxarchivesize = 70K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 13 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = User talk: |
|archive = User talk:WGFinley/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {| width=60% style="padding: 5px; background:#ffffff; border: solid 3px red;" | |||
| {|class="wikitable" width="60%" col="3" | {|class="wikitable" width="60%" col="3" | ||
| |- align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" colspan="3" | |- align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" colspan="3" | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| |- align="left" | |- align="left" | ||
| | | | | ||
| If you choose to email me using the email user function my rules are as follows: | |||
| # I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki. | # I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki. | ||
| # If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you '''do not''' have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so. | # If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you '''do not''' have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| |bot=MiszaBot III | |bot=MiszaBot III | ||
| |search=yes | |search=yes | ||
| |age= |
|age=30 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Quotation|The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.|Thomas Jefferson}} | {{Quotation|The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.|Thomas Jefferson}} | ||
| == Charles III requested move discussion == | |||
| == Topic ban == | |||
| There is a ] in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. ] (]) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| How does comply with ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :The event described in the article predates the Arab-Israeli conflict by at least 50 years. Thus, it's not a topic-ban violation. --] (]) 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == MONGO comments == | |||
| Would you mind asking ] to stop going after me in multiple places? Due to some recent issues I have had with another group, some editors were pushing to ban me from raising concerns about the group. Although MONGO was not involved in that dispute at any time, he all the same to support the proposed ban while focusing almost entirely on my participation in the 9/11 topic area. Even though I asked him to come to my talk page so we could settle the dispute amicably (he has barred me from commenting on his talk page) MONGO accusing me of being on Misplaced Pages "primarily to create drama and cause anarchy" and pushing a ban or block, claiming that I never drop an issue without such action.--] (]) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, have been occupied in real life, do you still feel you are being ]? --] (]) 16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::He has given it a rest for now, but I have a feeling he will do it again if he is not warned.--] (]) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wgfinley...The Devils Advocate was topic banned for 30 days from 9/11 pages, is under a threat of a topic ban if he fails to produce an Rfc related to his arguments over the Article Rescue Squad and is currently arguing at Intelligent Design...its one thing to be ''the devils advocate'' on issues and another to be going from one venue to another and picking a fight with everyone. I have noticeboards watchlisted so if I see he's disruptive at these places, I am sure as hell going to chime in if the evidence demonstrates he is causing further issues.] 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you think my behavior is so problematic then you should file a report, not go around everywhere telling people that I am a very bad person that should be banned.-] (]) 19:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I never said you are a "bad person"...but your name keeps popping up on boards I watchlist...and the reports are filed by others I have never worked with before..so its pretty obvious you're creating issues in multiple venues.] 19:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I haven't had a chance to look at this but TDA, you know I previously cautioned you about the places you have been wading in to. If you go in to these highly flammable content areas with your very tenacious and sometimes tendentious editing behavior you can wear out your welcome quickly. --] (]) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not going to avoid getting involved in an issue because things might get sticky with people defending the status-quo. Whenever you challenge the status-quo people are going to go after you and accuse you of disruption. Should every editor adopt the attitude you suggest nothing will ever be done to improve Misplaced Pages where it needs improvement the most. We might as well abandon all hope and throw this place to the wolves if the "gatekeepers" of these contentious topic areas are going to be allowed to dictate how these subjects and the editors involved in them get handled.--] (]) 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Say two construction crews are constructing a building and they can't agree on if the door should be on the east or west side of the building. For two weeks they shout at each other screaming about how the door should be on one side or the other, after a while they finally come to an agreement the door should be on the east side of the building. Then, a few days later you come along and say it should be on the west side the building, both of those construction crews are going to kill you because they just spent days reaching an agreement you want to throw out in two seconds. This is why you have come to the attention of these folks. You could be entirely right the door should be on the west side, nobody will listen to you though because of how you did it. --] (]) 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, that is not the appropriate analogy. It implies there are two sides with equal strength debating only two options that reach a mutual agreement. The reality is that when it comes to these fringe theories the "debunkers" dominate the topic area and are more than willing to revert like crazy to insure their preferred version gets implemented. They tend to get away with it too because each one can just hand the baton on to another comrade. Most of the editors trying to balance the article have been blacklisted as advocates of the fringe theories and driven away. If someone ''is'' an advocate then the reaction is to completely ignore all of that editor's objections and make no effort to compromise. The ID article seems to have this affliction even worse than the 9/11 CT article. Topic areas like ARBPIA are not so bad because at the very least you have equal numbers on both sides so no one can get one over on the other.--] (]) 15:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your reply (i.e. "two sides", "equal strength", "debunkers revert like crazy", "they get away with it") is consistent with a ] and is why you frequently find yourself at odds with people. --] (]) 15:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay...I'll make good faith overture now...I'll refrain from commenting at any noticeboard the next time someone else posts a complaint about The Devil's Advocate.] 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you.--] (]) 16:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No promises on the time ''after'' that though...who knows though, I might even post then in your defense...stranger things have happened.] 17:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Dude, are you seriously suggesting that you would just avoid going after me one time? If so, I am thinking I shouldn't be thanking you at all.--] (]) 21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI notice == | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems the matter has been concluded, I would suggest ] as a better venue to appeal your ban, going to AN/I and admin talk pages is going to look like ] and is unlikely to get your ban reduced. --] (]) 16:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I followed your advice and I made an appeal at AE as you suggested. I apologise to you WGFinley for all the recent inconvenience, but I was extremelly sad and disapointed with all that happend. Best regards, ] (]) 08:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:04, 24 July 2023
 My Email Rules |
|
If you choose to email me using the email user function my rules are as follows:
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.
— Thomas Jefferson
Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)