Revision as of 07:25, 27 June 2008 view sourceJeffpw (talk | contribs)9,574 edits →User talk:Alison Warning: go blow smoke in somebody elses face← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:26, 27 June 2008 view source El C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,803 edits →RE:"who exactly do you think you are???": Tread lightlyNext edit → | ||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
==RE:"who exactly do you think you are???"== | ==RE:"who exactly do you think you are???"== | ||
I am the administrator who instructed you accordingly. Please note that it wasn't optional. Thanks. ] 07:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | I am the administrator who instructed you accordingly. Please note that it wasn't optional. Thanks. ] 07:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Tread lightly. ] 07:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
== ] Warning == | == ] Warning == |
Revision as of 07:26, 27 June 2008
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The assault on pederasty
They may be sockpuppets or they may be simply characters acting in cahoots with each other, gathering offsite to organize their attacks. Fact is I do not know the "parasite removal" methods at all, never bothered with all that warfare. However, for all their huffing and puffing I think they are failing: they are doing the grunt work of pointing out weaknesses in the article, helping me see where references are needed. So far I think they have strengthened the presentation of the material, and perhaps did a service by removing some stuff that was "a leap too far." I just have a bit more work to do reviewing their deletions, to make sure nothing valuable gets trashed.
That is the whole charm of the system, when it works: the harder you try to undermine legitimate material, the more irrefutable you render it. The only thing that is needed is to have more than one responsible editor keeping an eye on their shenanigans, a single player is easily overwhelmed. Haiduc (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Kim Delaney's age
Your "left the building" tags made me wary to post a comment on your talk page, even though I see that you edited Misplaced Pages yesterday.
Anyway, I am wondering if you know whether the age currently given in Kim Delaney's article (that she was born in 1961) is her correct age. It's been changed back and forth a few times. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I stated on my talk page, thank you for the help on this matter. I very much appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hoi
Welkom terug. APK 08:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Return
Its great to see you back; I always saw you as one of the more reasoned voices here. Ceoil 14:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thinking of you
I'm no doubt less busy than Alison
so I answered your question unsolicited
Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 19:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
A welcome back present
You can find it here. --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Note
Hello Jeffpw. I would advise a hands-off approach . I guess my question was answered, that the disruption article is appropriate. I'm not interested in appealing at all as I would say AnotherSolipsist does have a distinctively disruptive style. I would leave it at that. Phdarts (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- And I say stay the fuck off my talk page. Jeffpw (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I must nsist that you chill. El_C 07:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
RE:"who exactly do you think you are???"
I am the administrator who instructed you accordingly. Please note that it wasn't optional. Thanks. El_C 07:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tread lightly. El_C 07:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Alison Warning
I have reverted your comment at User talk:Alison. Pursuant to instructions from the Arbitration Committee blocks for disruption of pedophilia related topics may not be appealed or discussed on-wiki, these instructions have been recently confirmed at . If you have comments or concerns in this matter, please send them to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. If you continue to troll this subject, I will indefinitely block you from editing. MBisanz 07:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, calling an editor in good standing a troll and threats to block for asking a simple question. I am amazed at the witch hunting hysteria on this site at this time. Hopefully you will all one day return to your senses. Jeffpw (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)