This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badbilltucker (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 20 January 2007 (Regarding your conduct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:02, 20 January 2007 by Badbilltucker (talk | contribs) (Regarding your conduct)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Clutter, spam, and otherwise unnecessary material on this page will be deleted or archived. Thanks.
Please e-mail me via Wiki "E-mail this user".--Drboisclair 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, I choose not to have an e-mail on file with Wiki, so I can not e-mail you.
Justas Jonas 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, some users do not like their user talk pages cluttered with messages. I wanted to discuss the Book of Concord article. Paring it down while keeping in information that characterizes it and fits it into Lutheran and Christian tradition in a way that gives more information than the usual encyclopedia entry.--Drboisclair 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, Drboisclair. What do you have in mind? Justas Jonas 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are making good improvements; however, the need for stating the corollary: that the documents of the Book of Concord were/are not the private documents of their individual authors is an important point when one cosiders the issue of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, which Melanchthon believed he could alter as he saw fit. To say that they are public documents is to say that they are not private writings. Maybe you could put that in somehow.--Drboisclair 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, Drboisclair. What do you have in mind? Justas Jonas 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the sentence was terribly worded. Just bad style. Better to make that thought another sentence. Go for it. Justas Jonas
Regarding your conduct
Sir, you have already clearly violated guidelines in moving a page without the consent of the rest of the editors. That in and of itself is sufficient cause to "follow you around", as your own behavior might well come at least close to violating the official rules regarding consensus. I note once again that you do not seem to have any real regard for that official policy of wikipedia. Also, you once again here indulged in the kind of personal attacks you have already been warned about. I would call to your attention that it is perfectly possible for any editor, myself included, to add pages to our watchlist, and to check them for recent changes. Also, I know that I had had every page I edited added to my watchlist for some time, until the list got to be over 15,000 pages long. It is standard procedure for many editors to do so. Also, given your own actions in disregarding consensus policy, it might well be possible for someone to add such pages directly to one's watchlist. It is not a violation of the harrassment rule to ensure that an editor whose own edits have been at best questionable, as at least some of yours have demonstrably been, does not do so again. On that basis, your inflammatory claim to being "harassed" is thus not supported by the evidence, is a clear personal attack, and is an explicit violation of policy for which one could reasonably be banned from editing. Once again, please refrain from the abusive behavior you have displayed or I or someone else will be forced to report your actions to the admins, and possibly lead to your being at least temporarily blocked. Also, it does seem to me that you are perhaps not aware of all wikipedia guidelines and policies. On that basis, I am including a template including them below. You should have gotten this message when you first registered, although, evidently, you did not.
|
. Badbilltucker 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Category: