| Revision as of 07:24, 4 November 2008 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Last time I'll say this: please don't personalize disagreements← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:25, 4 November 2008 edit undoJaneyryan (talk | contribs)263 edits rem trollingNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ::'''''I don't have a beef with you.''''' I think this is a good proposal for reasons unrelated to your POV. I don't know how many times I can say this: I don't have a dog in the ring here. I'm no POV warrior. because I thought it was better than Here I removed some that doesn't belong in the article. I would appreciate it if you can assume good faith. ] '']'' 07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | ::'''''I don't have a beef with you.''''' I think this is a good proposal for reasons unrelated to your POV. I don't know how many times I can say this: I don't have a dog in the ring here. I'm no POV warrior. because I thought it was better than Here I removed some that doesn't belong in the article. I would appreciate it if you can assume good faith. ] '']'' 07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Janeyryan, please don't personalize disagreements. ] (]) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:25, 4 November 2008
Last time I'll say this
I'm sorry, I only mean "trolling" in the sense that you're trying to provoke a reaction. That's what it seemed like at the time:
- You claim I'm "attempting to ban editors from an article who disagree..."
- You again claim that the proposal is in bad faith—"brandished to gain advantage"
- You then chastise me for discussing myself, Mantanmoreland, ect., and again claim that the proposal is in bad faith
- After claiming that the conversation is not suited for talk, you imply that the proposal is a "bludgeon in a content dispute"
- "Oh please... I think you should cool off and desist, and take this to the appropriate forum"
We are in agreement that this sort of dialog does not belong on the talk page. At the time, this dialog did seem like trolling. I'm sorry, but I will say for the last time that I sincerely think this proposal is a good idea, and I would continue to believe it if a pack of editors with the reverse of your POV showed up. It's a good idea because it permanently removes the incentives to violate the ArbCom probation.
I've agreed with many of your edits in the past, so I would appreciate if you not continually cast aspersions on my motives.
As for my COI, a look at the Mantanmoreland case should tell you what it is. That is the entirety of my conflict of interest. It's inappropriate to write about a real person after being instrumental in events that presumably got them banned from the forum. Cool Hand Luke 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- But you are trying to topic ban editors that have been a burr under your saddle. We have had major issues in the past, with you accusing me, in effect, of being a banned editor, and I see now that you have crossed swords with JohhnyB256 too in the past. Under the circumstances, assumption of good faith is difficult if not impossible.
- Again, I ask you to take your beef with me and JohnnyB to the appropriate forum,as it is disruptive in Talk:Naked Short Selling.--Janeyryan (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a beef with you. I think this is a good proposal for reasons unrelated to your POV. I don't know how many times I can say this: I don't have a dog in the ring here. I'm no POV warrior. Here I reverted to JohnnyB's version because I thought it was better than Macken79's. Here I removed some pro-lawsuit SYN that doesn't belong in the article. I would appreciate it if you can assume good faith. Cool Hand Luke 07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)