| Revision as of 15:44, 16 February 2011 editEdison (talk | contribs)Administrators53,890 edits →Personal attack← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:44, 16 February 2011 edit undoEdison (talk | contribs)Administrators53,890 edits →Personal attackNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ::If you refuse to strike your personal attacks, and only add more personal attacks, then perhaps I must, reluctantly, escalate. I hate "drama," and prefer working to improve the encyclopedia, in a spirit of civility and collegiality. The ball is in your court. ] (]) 05:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | ::If you refuse to strike your personal attacks, and only add more personal attacks, then perhaps I must, reluctantly, escalate. I hate "drama," and prefer working to improve the encyclopedia, in a spirit of civility and collegiality. The ball is in your court. ] (]) 05:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::I can't strike what isn't there, chief. You claimed X, I showed !X. Move on. ] (]) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | :::I can't strike what isn't there, chief. You claimed X, I showed !X. Move on. ] (]) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Delighted to move on, as soon as you strike "Your claim is simply fraudulent" which you wrote in this edit:, labeling someone as a criminal because he has a different opinion about the significance of a couple of news articles. ] (]) 15:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | ::::Delighted to move on, as soon as you strike "Your claim is simply fraudulent" which you wrote in this edit:, labeling someone as a criminal because he has a different opinion about the significance of a couple of news articles. See ]. ] (]) 15:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:44, 16 February 2011
Meh?
Hello, There is plenty of material in reliable sources available to expand the article about William M. Feehan into a decent biography. That can't happen, though, if the article is deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "meh". You can interpret my opinion there as a "weak keep", i.e. the article subject may meet the notability guidelines, but it isn't exactly a barn-burner. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The issue, then, is whether the closing administrator will understand your "week keep". By the way, I expanded and referenced Orio Palmer, a related AfD. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As long as we don't get an admin from the much-derided WP:ARS crew, I trust a closing admin's general ability to close AfDs accurately. As for Palmer, no, you just can't squeeze that much blood from a stone. More sources talking about the same issue doesn't make the issue go away. All he is known for is being a victim of a tragedy. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The issue, then, is whether the closing administrator will understand your "week keep". By the way, I expanded and referenced Orio Palmer, a related AfD. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack
I request that you strike your charge of fraud in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson, since I consider it an unwarranted personal attack. Please discuss the merits of the article in question without resorting to this. Edison (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should consider not making up things that don't exist. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Like what? I posted a Google News Archive search result, with links to specific articles. Which of the links did I fabricate? Like anyone, I can make a mistake, but I demand a retraction of your accusation of intentional fraud. I have not spent many thousands of hours working to improve Misplaced Pages to be defamed thus. Edison (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you refuse to strike your personal attacks, and only add more personal attacks, then perhaps I must, reluctantly, escalate. I hate "drama," and prefer working to improve the encyclopedia, in a spirit of civility and collegiality. The ball is in your court. Edison (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can't strike what isn't there, chief. You claimed X, I showed !X. Move on. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delighted to move on, as soon as you strike "Your claim is simply fraudulent" which you wrote in this edit:, labeling someone as a criminal because he has a different opinion about the significance of a couple of news articles. See Fraud. Edison (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can't strike what isn't there, chief. You claimed X, I showed !X. Move on. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you refuse to strike your personal attacks, and only add more personal attacks, then perhaps I must, reluctantly, escalate. I hate "drama," and prefer working to improve the encyclopedia, in a spirit of civility and collegiality. The ball is in your court. Edison (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)