| Revision as of 16:59, 20 January 2008 editAnappealtoheaven (talk | contribs)560 edits →RE: Just The Facts Ma'am...: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:10, 20 January 2008 edit undoThuranX (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers20,147 edits →RE: Just The Facts Ma'am...: you're not alone, diligentNext edit → | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
| As for me I will continue to promote wikipedia as a free medium where by the lobbyests and special interests do not have a corrupting advantage over the rest of us. This is not in violation of any wiki rules and is in fact extactly what we are supposed to be encouraging in this free and open forum where the well referenced facts rule. As for you... Just the facts Ma'am ] (]) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | As for me I will continue to promote wikipedia as a free medium where by the lobbyests and special interests do not have a corrupting advantage over the rest of us. This is not in violation of any wiki rules and is in fact extactly what we are supposed to be encouraging in this free and open forum where the well referenced facts rule. As for you... Just the facts Ma'am ] (]) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :So you know, I too have tried to speak to him about his obvious POV editing, and he left me exactly the same message, with the same implied gender-based insults. I am considering preparing a WP:AN/I report about his behaviors. thoughts? ] (]) 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:10, 20 January 2008
Welcome to the Talk page of Diligent Terrier!
|
Diligent Terrier is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|---|
Messages from 2007 are now archived
SSP
On your SSP report, granted they are not new users and edit sequentially, but where's this disruption/vio of WP:SOCK, aside from that? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would have been voter fraud. And just as an update — I filed for checkuser and all three of the accounts MaidService (talk · contribs), ThaCleaningLady (talk · contribs), and BombBuilder (talk · contribs) were confirmed as well as three other accounts as stated at the checkuser page. All were blocked. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Excellent Userpage Award | |
| For having such a cool layout page and the fact that your page beats mine for a whole lot. Something you should be proud of. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
And thanks for signing my autograph page and you're welcome. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. And I will be sure to ask you for help with my page. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You have new messages
On Commons. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:27, 07 January 2008 (GMT)
Mike Huckabee user box
There might be some who point out that it's inappropriate to advocate for particular candidates on your user page. Just thought you should know. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should check out this page, and take a look at 'What Links Here' for a given userbox. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, there certainly seem to be a lot of those. Take care. By the way, the "talk" link in your sig I think takes one to your user page rather than to user talk. Dunno if that's what you intended. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Civil War list
I'm glad you like it. Thank you for the barnstar! The Transhumanist 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For excellence in article writing, wiki-project involvement, and dedication to Misplaced Pages, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. --Sharkface217 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the barnstar. It means a lot. --Sharkface217 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Autoblock
It was the same user, User:George in Australia. The block was extended, which was why the Autoblock activated again. Woody (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Now I understand. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Just The Facts Ma'am...
Hello Diligent...
Adding well documented statements of fact that directly contradict a candidates own current "Official Position" is healthy in a free and open forum like wikipedia. Like with others who are critical, I don't see you being critical of editors who only make reference to un-encyclopedic sources such as a candidate own controlled web page or an un-referenced list of "official positions". According to your reasoning, the political positions section of each candidates page might as well be a direct link to their own web site or positions list from their own hard drive.
As for me I will continue to promote wikipedia as a free medium where by the lobbyests and special interests do not have a corrupting advantage over the rest of us. This is not in violation of any wiki rules and is in fact extactly what we are supposed to be encouraging in this free and open forum where the well referenced facts rule. As for you... Just the facts Ma'am Anappealtoheaven (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you know, I too have tried to speak to him about his obvious POV editing, and he left me exactly the same message, with the same implied gender-based insults. I am considering preparing a WP:AN/I report about his behaviors. thoughts? ThuranX (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)