User talk:GoodCop: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:40, 9 November 2006 editBenAveling (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,148 edits POV is not vandalism← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:55, 9 November 2006 edit undoGoodCop (talk \| contribs)286 edits →POV is not vandalism: do not post libel with that convincing methodNext edit →
Line 33:		Line 33:

	Hi GC, Just because you disagree with someone does not make their edits vandalism. Regards, ] 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)		Hi GC, Just because you disagree with someone does not make their edits vandalism. Regards, ] 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

			Ben, do not libellously
			accuse your opponents of calling acts of disagreement vandalism, and certainly not with the psychopathic
			method of putting one's accusations in the convincing format of a polite suggestion on your target's
			talk page, such that it deceptively appears to address the target of the libel
			(when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties).
			The fact that you have used such an
			underhanded tactic is a strong piece of evidence of your abuses.
			The note at the top of this page warnes people not to commit that exact offense, so I see that you
			are also acting out of spite for that warning.
			I have warned that you would be
			reported, and so you will be, along with your other abuses against me.
			I welcome any disagreement, but deletion of dry superficial facts
			that are very relevant to an article is vandalism no matter what you
			call it, and you know it. Disagreement regards the conclusions drawn
			from the dry superficial facts. ] 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:55, 9 November 2006

Note: Do not use this page to post libel in the convincing format of polite suggestions that deceptively appear to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties). Such behavior violates the wikipedia civility policy and will be reported.

Admin nom

Hi, I see that you are attempting to nominate User:Ombudsman for adminship. To do this, first go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman and paste this code into the page:

{{subst:RfA|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}}

Then simply type your nomination as shown above, and add it to WP:RfA. Hope this helps!

Mike | Trick or Treat 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. GoodCop 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Any more questions you may have, feel free to drop me a message. - Mike | Trick or Treat 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And thank you, GoodCop, for the RfA nomination and the nice comments therein. Have set about trying to draft some answers to the standard questions for submission this evening, but may not have much ready 'til morning... Ombudsman 04:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks again for the nomination and your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Misplaced Pages, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Please respond to my question at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Question from Joke137. –Joke 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

done. GoodCop 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!— Saxifrage

POV is not vandalism

Hi GC, Just because you disagree with someone does not make their edits vandalism. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben, do not libellously accuse your opponents of calling acts of disagreement vandalism, and certainly not with the psychopathic method of putting one's accusations in the convincing format of a polite suggestion on your target's talk page, such that it deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties). The fact that you have used such an underhanded tactic is a strong piece of evidence of your abuses. The note at the top of this page warnes people not to commit that exact offense, so I see that you are also acting out of spite for that warning. I have warned that you would be reported, and so you will be, along with your other abuses against me. I welcome any disagreement, but deletion of dry superficial facts that are very relevant to an article is vandalism no matter what you call it, and you know it. Disagreement regards the conclusions drawn from the dry superficial facts. GoodCop 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)