| Revision as of 21:16, 24 January 2008 editArnabdas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,310 edits →Request to Engage in Discussions Before Removing Content← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 25 January 2008 edit undo71.226.200.200 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| <s>Hi Blaxthos. On your edit in ] , I had put in a reference to Bob Kohn's book Journalistic Fraud that details Kohn's perceived bias in the hard news pages of the paper. On the article's talk page, I had put in a discussion about it and asked it not to be removed. You removed it anyway claiming it did not belong in the intro paragraph. That may be true, but if that was your opinion I ask that next time you do not delete it completely from the article without discussing the issue. People may perceive it as vandalism. ] (]) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</s> | <s>Hi Blaxthos. On your edit in ] , I had put in a reference to Bob Kohn's book Journalistic Fraud that details Kohn's perceived bias in the hard news pages of the paper. On the article's talk page, I had put in a discussion about it and asked it not to be removed. You removed it anyway claiming it did not belong in the intro paragraph. That may be true, but if that was your opinion I ask that next time you do not delete it completely from the article without discussing the issue. People may perceive it as vandalism. ] (]) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</s> | ||
| :I apologize completely. I did not see your response to the issue for some reason. Once again, I apologize. ] (]) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | :I apologize completely. I did not see your response to the issue for some reason. Once again, I apologize. ] (]) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==rynort here== | |||
| You did a nice job pinning me to that one dude (lulz). In truth, that wasn't me at all. Not sure who that was. But while i'm back on here, I might as well have some fun ZOMFG | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 25 January 2008
|
|
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
Request to Assume Good Faith
Please assume good faith by talking about any objections you have to issues regarding an article on the discussion page of that article before giving out warnings. By assuming good faith, we can make wikipedia a better place for everyone. Thank you. Arnabdas (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response to this matter. There was nothing controversial IMO on the Edwards edit. I was just trying to distinguish that he was in support of partial-birth. There are people whom are pro-choice and against partial-birth. It seems legitimate enough an issue to distinguish upon. I am not commenting on your page to discuss the Edwards' issue, but merely saying you should have made an post on the discussion page of the article before just sending out a warning. Had I not addressed the discussion there and proceeded to engage in the edit, that would justify the warning then. Is that reasonable? Arnabdas (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have responded to your reply. Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people. response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnabdas (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Request to Engage in Discussions Before Removing Content
Hi Blaxthos. On your edit in Criticism of The New York Times , I had put in a reference to Bob Kohn's book Journalistic Fraud that details Kohn's perceived bias in the hard news pages of the paper. On the article's talk page, I had put in a discussion about it and asked it not to be removed. You removed it anyway claiming it did not belong in the intro paragraph. That may be true, but if that was your opinion I ask that next time you do not delete it completely from the article without discussing the issue. People may perceive it as vandalism. Arnabdas (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize completely. I did not see your response to the issue for some reason. Once again, I apologize. Arnabdas (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
rynort here
You did a nice job pinning me to that one dude (lulz). In truth, that wasn't me at all. Not sure who that was. But while i'm back on here, I might as well have some fun ZOMFG