| Revision as of 04:59, 10 February 2007 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →Personal remark on []: Please...← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:01, 10 February 2007 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →Personal remark on []: grmmrNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| Also, when editing the associated article at 18:01, 24 January 2007, you said in the edit summary: "rv, see talk, consensus is it's fine and you're trying to poison the well. please don't start disrupting this article again with this new "issue")". Please don't use the word "consensus" to describe one side of a dispute which has not been resolved. Also, please avoid saying things like "you're trying to poison the well" about other editors; please assume good faith and restrict your comments to article content. --] 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | Also, when editing the associated article at 18:01, 24 January 2007, you said in the edit summary: "rv, see talk, consensus is it's fine and you're trying to poison the well. please don't start disrupting this article again with this new "issue")". Please don't use the word "consensus" to describe one side of a dispute which has not been resolved. Also, please avoid saying things like "you're trying to poison the well" about other editors; please assume good faith and restrict your comments to article content. --] 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: ] There's a point when it |
:It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: ] There's a point when it becomes not a personal attack to call out patterns of policy violation, but simply a matter of ], so give it a rest. ] 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:01, 10 February 2007
feloniousmonk
Archives
Too many forks by Ed Poor
It is just his general habit. See e.g. Scientific study of religion. Andries 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware that Ed Poor is on the arbcom for doing that but I think the assumption of bad faith POV pushing by creating many POV forks that I have seen during the arbcom case is at least exaggerated and probably totally untrue. He does it for all subjects, not only for subjects on which there is some reason to assume that he wants to push his POV. Andries 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, FeloniousMonk. I just wanted to let you know I'm still having the same problem we talked about before- I dropped you an email earlier today. Just let me know if you regularly check it so I don't feel compelled to leave a reminder on your talk page. Thanks! --HassourZain 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal remark on Talk:Uncommon Dissent
On the above-mentioned talk page you posted the following comment: "I agree. I've pointed this out several times already but it's like talking to a wall with this guy. FeloniousMonk 04:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)". Please restrict your comments on talk pages to discussion of the article content and avoid making remarks about other Wikipedians. Note this quote from Misplaced Pages policy: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.". Please assume good faith and try to help establish an atmosphere of collaboration.
Also, when editing the associated article at 18:01, 24 January 2007, you said in the edit summary: "rv, see talk, consensus is it's fine and you're trying to poison the well. please don't start disrupting this article again with this new "issue")". Please don't use the word "consensus" to describe one side of a dispute which has not been resolved. Also, please avoid saying things like "you're trying to poison the well" about other editors; please assume good faith and restrict your comments to article content. --Coppertwig 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith There's a point when it becomes not a personal attack to call out patterns of policy violation, but simply a matter of calling a spade a spade, so give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)