| Revision as of 05:07, 20 April 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:This is Paul/Archive27) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:46, 26 April 2017 edit undoDresken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,058 edits →Talk:Bill Potts#See also section: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ] – January–April 2017 <br> | ] – January–April 2017 <br> | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Talk:Bill Potts#See also section == | |||
| I would like to point out to you that the 4 responses you have posted since I joined ], you have personally attacked me in all of them and I don't think its been justified: | |||
| *{{xt|I see the names have been removed again albeit by a different editor. I won't revert it because I don't wish to engage with Alex in his/her favoured passtime (i.e., edit warring), but I will note that '''I suspect meat puppetry''' is at work here, since Dresken has offered an identical argument to the one given by Alex, and like him/her, Dresken has also offered a poor interpretation of WP:DABABBREV. Bill is not an abbreviations, an initial or an acronym of William, and I think '''you're both guilty of editing in bad faith'''. Alex, your reply to my suggestion above seems to suggest you're arguing for argument's sake. I believe, though I doubt I can prove it, that you feel this strengthens your case for having Bill Potts as the primary topic. All you're doing, however, is giving Misplaced Pages a bad name, and in turn also giving Doctor Who fans a bad reputation, as your username ties you to the programme. Shame on you.}} | |||
| * {{xt|'''When an editor with less than a thousand edits, and who edits occasionally, jumps into a discussion with a near identical argument, then that's suspicious behaviour.''' Meanwhile, for the second time today your comments appear to contain the hint of a threat. Chill, cobber!}} | |||
| * {{xt|Outside opinion sounds like a great idea. I had thought of it myself, but wasn't sure what the procedure would be as it involves more than one person. Happy for you to file a request there, if you're planning to do that. As for the collusion stuff, things got a bit heated earlier on, largely because I didn't like Alex's tone, which did sound like an intent to intimidate ("The quicker you do, the nicer you might find your experience here on Misplaced Pages" being an example). I suspect it's like you say – '''a case of Whoville vs the rest.''' '''They probably need to get out a bit more.'''}} | |||
| * {{xt|My thoughts exactly, though after my earlier skirmish with them I didn't want to be the first to say it. '''I'm also starting to think they might be the Crackers 'n' Smash of Misplaced Pages.''' }} | |||
| I have prompted you to be more civil a few times now - I am sorry that I do not agree with your view on this matter. I would be happy to continue on with a civil discussion if you would like to as well. Cheers, ] (]) 02:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:46, 26 April 2017
| This is This is Paul's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
Talk:Bill Potts#See also section
I would like to point out to you that the 4 responses you have posted since I joined this discussion, you have personally attacked me in all of them and I don't think its been justified:
- I see the names have been removed again albeit by a different editor. I won't revert it because I don't wish to engage with Alex in his/her favoured passtime (i.e., edit warring), but I will note that I suspect meat puppetry is at work here, since Dresken has offered an identical argument to the one given by Alex, and like him/her, Dresken has also offered a poor interpretation of WP:DABABBREV. Bill is not an abbreviations, an initial or an acronym of William, and I think you're both guilty of editing in bad faith. Alex, your reply to my suggestion above seems to suggest you're arguing for argument's sake. I believe, though I doubt I can prove it, that you feel this strengthens your case for having Bill Potts as the primary topic. All you're doing, however, is giving Misplaced Pages a bad name, and in turn also giving Doctor Who fans a bad reputation, as your username ties you to the programme. Shame on you.
- When an editor with less than a thousand edits, and who edits occasionally, jumps into a discussion with a near identical argument, then that's suspicious behaviour. Meanwhile, for the second time today your comments appear to contain the hint of a threat. Chill, cobber!
- Outside opinion sounds like a great idea. I had thought of it myself, but wasn't sure what the procedure would be as it involves more than one person. Happy for you to file a request there, if you're planning to do that. As for the collusion stuff, things got a bit heated earlier on, largely because I didn't like Alex's tone, which did sound like an intent to intimidate ("The quicker you do, the nicer you might find your experience here on Misplaced Pages" being an example). I suspect it's like you say – a case of Whoville vs the rest. They probably need to get out a bit more.
- My thoughts exactly, though after my earlier skirmish with them I didn't want to be the first to say it. I'm also starting to think they might be the Crackers 'n' Smash of Misplaced Pages.
I have prompted you to be more civil a few times now - I am sorry that I do not agree with your view on this matter. I would be happy to continue on with a civil discussion if you would like to as well. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)