This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jinxmchue (talk | contribs) at 02:51, 2 December 2007 (→Jinxmchue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:51, 2 December 2007 by Jinxmchue (talk | contribs) (→Jinxmchue)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
feloniousmonk
Archives
Template:Dominionism
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Dominionism
Hi FM. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi FM. I appreciate your recent constructive edits on Dominionism and the list. I think (hope) we are moving towards a version that we can all accept. Regarding the navigational aid, I would very much like your input on this proposal. I hope you like it; and if you don't, I think it's very important that we talk directly to find something we can agree on. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Incivility?
Please see my reply to your warning. I thought it best to keep your warning and my reply together. Frankly, I'm glad to see that someone else (besides me) cares about civility and I hope that you and many other editors will issue warnings about incivility - even though I think it was unwarranted in my case. Sbowers3 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your additional comments. Please see my reply at the same place. Sbowers3 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
lol! "Baseless allegations"
I made no allegations. I simply pointed something interesting out. Gosh, I must've really hit a tender nerve with you. I mean, you could've simply explained it politely as a bizarre coincidence or that one of you just copied the other. Instead, you chose to fly off the handle and throw out a paranoid accusation and threats. Nice. 67.135.49.158 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Your reverts on the Phyllis Schlafly article
Hello. The link I reported as broken was the one about the Gloria Steinem article, which has been much discussed by Roger Schlafly. I'm not defending him, but since there's no source for the Steinem citation, I thought it would be right to remove it.
Therefore, as I wanted to keep the balance in the article, I looked for another source. Pia de Solenni's article seemed fine. Yet you removed the source claiming it's non-notable and that it's a blog. You're very wrong. It would be good for you to check things out before editing.
Sincerely, DUKERED 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we're talking about different links. Note that when I added the link on October 14 it worked - the BuzzFlash link. When I replaced it, it wasn't working (now it is - I'll re-add it as Time magazine makes no mention of Gloria Steinem). | DUKERED 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
FM, we may have occasionally run askance of each other, but I wanted to commend you for your comments on the MONGO 3 RfC. You're right on the nose there. - Crockspot (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Eagle Forum
Hi FM. Someone else beat me to the rrv, so I'll say here (and expand on) what I was going to say in my edit summary. It is common courtesy to provide a substantial explanation when you revert. I don't mind that we disagree. I'm happy to talk about it. I provided detailed reasons for my edits. In response, you offered nothing substantial but rather accused me of a "white wash" -- as if I cared one whit about defending Eagle Forum. Let's please concentrate on correctly representing what the sources say. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- My last had an EC with your latest edit to EF. This is at least constructive. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Somebody"? Don't play coy here. You and I both know that User:Schlafly, his mother Phyllis Schlafly being the founder of the Eagle Forum, is far too personally involved per WP:COI to be editing Eagle Forum or Phyllis Schlafly. I've been selling him rope long enough, and he's done a fine job of hanging himself with it. As for my revert, your "detailed reasons" or not, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm not likely to be drawn into long talk page disputes when I feel that one side is more interested in tendentious stonewalling than compromise. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whenever someone close to the subject of an article objects to the article's content, we should consider WP:BLP right alongside WP:COI, should we not? I have no interest in defending User:Schlafly, but I do think that we owe it to any such interested person to state things fairly and accurately, and also to make clear that criticism comes from the sources we quote, not from WP.
- Are you accusing me of being "more interested in tendentious stonewalling than compromise"? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Proper sources being provided, BLP is not the issue there, but a red herring, as you and I both know. The tendentious stonewalling is coming from Schlaffy; you I can work with. But I've been dealing with Schlaffy for over a year, and his history indicates conclusively he's not interested an article that treats all sourced views fairly, as a read of his blog posts detailing his ongoing POV promotion prove. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- When the current dust-up began earlier this month, I thought Schlafly had a legitimate complaint in that the cited sources did not support the text as it was written, and thus I thought it was legitimate to consider BLP. Again, this is not an endorsement or criticism of any person; I take things on a case-by-case basis. Now I agree that the article is properly sourced. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Committee has found that Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion, but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics, and that he was blocked after a discussion on the Community Sanction Noticeboard that did not have a clear consensus. Ferrylodge is unbanned, but is put on an indefinite editing restriction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." The Community is urged by the Committee to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
responded
I responded on my talk page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Jinxmchue
Is it really necessary for you and OM to be tag-team tagging his page with a sock template? There is no rule requiring an editor to log in to edit. One IP has been blocked once, which he is not evading. He is feeling harassed, and I don't blame him. His activity does not rise to the level of "abusive sockpuppetry", and I will revert the adding of that tag myself if necessary. - Crockspot 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Jinxmchue's editing from these IPs consists of edit warring only. This has resulted in multiple 3RR vios, disruption and a block. He's using IPs to avoid having his bad behavior not associated with his main account, Jinxmchue. That falls under the defintion of sock puppetry at WP:SOCK.
- How about doing something more constructive than reverting to remedy the disruption he creates, that is instead of enabling him. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't back up your baseless accusations against me. Jinxmchue 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)