Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkGallagher (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 12 March 2006 (Unblocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Personal attacks

Don't make personal attacks either directly or indirectly towards other editors or you will be banned. There is no joking about it, no discussion, and no compromise. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I will put in a complain about users ganging up to harrass me. Xtra links to an article indirectly ATTACKING PSYCH. I don't care, I'll fight for my right to edit my user page no discussion, and no compromise, and there is no such rule on linking to articles. Lefty on campus 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

This is almost entirely one sided and it is against you - two wrongs don't make a right. You will garner no respect or support by flouting clear advice from an admin. What you will get is a ban from editing. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

All I have said is "I don't like certain behaviour" and link to articles about john howard and my own talk page and a beliefs page! Xtra still accuses me of being another user (a personal attack in itself) I have the right to link to whatever page I want. Xtra links to brag about a demise of another user through arbitration, but I don't see you vandalising his page. Regardless, you don't speak for all admins, I'm sure there are people who will defend the right to link on user pages. If you don't like it, fight to have it removed, like I will fight to leave it as is. And to correct your statement, there is no policy on the personal attacks page about linking to articles. Lefty on campus 08:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is considered bad form to delete discussion on your talk page as it shows how you are viewed by other editors and sugggests you have something to hide. Of course they can always look in the history to see those deletion. Oh and you didn't answer the question you deleted from my comments: do you have a vested interest in a disagreement between two other editors that you should be disclosing? And you deleted my guidance: there is a policy regarding the edits at issue on your user page - it is called WP:NPA. You can obscure direct references but NPA is also about intent. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

More attacks against me? There was an edit conflict and I pasted over old posts. I did reference that. Please read carefully before you accuse me of not answering your question. As above, Xtra still accuses me of being another user (a personal attack in itself) He has it in his head I'm another user, and has disliked me since I edited Costello's page on anti-gay comments. I'll risk a ban in in some form of third opinion or arbitration if it comes to that, because I feel anyone has the right to link to other articles. Lefty on campus 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

I'm not attacking you - I'm use strong language because you seem to think this is all black and white. You are exhibiting strong bad faith immaterial of what another editor did or didn't say. At the very least you are demonstrating poor form by making POV comments on your user page and linking to another user's page as an example of your point. I think you're two feet tall and fat. Are you going to launch an assault on me or be sensible and ignore it? Editing can get hot and you either walk away or use cool logic to incrementally make your point and overwhelm those who disagree by gathering consensus from other editors. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the linked articles, This is a BELIEFS page, I am not making any POV, the user admits to anything I infer in his beliefs page, for example, "OPPOSE people who are not married, within the Biblical meaning, recieving IVF." That's pretty easy to understand on the face of it, namely, only those who obey his bible are entitled to those rights. NPOV because the other user admitted. That would be like saying it's POV to say Hitler hated Jews, even though he often admitted it (and there is much evidence to go along). Regardless, I'm not directing an attack, I'm just linking to an article, and one can read it for themselves. With all due respect, can you make sure you've typed everything before submitting, I'm getting a lot of editting conflicts, and am pasting over your updated comments. Lefty on campus 09:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've given it over to a third opinion in DisputeRes.. Too tired to stand up for my rights tonight, and I have places to be, pages to read .... and miles to go before I sleep. :) Lefty on campus 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Now that that's sorted, can you please remove your attack against me. Xtra 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would you repost the third opinion knowing full well I'd removed it? You give me more and mroe evidence to use against you each and every day. Lefty on campus 10:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what's on your page at the moment: "I am forbidden to link to this page , though for evidence of right-wing vandals, please look on my talk page, there is quite a lot." I take it you haven't got much thought to why we worry about civility and not making attacks. To be a successful editor on Misplaced Pages, you must be willing to play nice with others and co-operate with people you think are idiots.

Now, if you're unable to see the long-term consequences of your attitude, then I will give you some short-term consequences to think about. I will not be removing the references to Xtra from your userpage — but I will expect you to do so yourself next time you're 'round and editing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In that statement above, I maintain complete and utter NPOV. I am forbidden to llink to this page. Fact. Tird opinion fact. I have not made any comments about the content of that link whosoever, just referring to right wing vandals on my talk page (also fact). There is no judgement made about that link, no inference whatsoever. Regardless, if we're supposed to play nice, ask Xtra to remove the link to his "successful" arbitration. How "nice" is it to rub a so-called successful arbtration in anothers' face? Lefty on campus 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A link to an arbitration case (successful or no) is a very different issue from a blatant personal attack one someone whose ideology you (and I) dislike. I suggest that, since Xtra is not making any snide remarks about you on his page, you concentrate less on what his userpage says, and more on making sure that your own userpage no longer includes any inappropriate content. Now. Please. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again. Please remove your personal attack against me. Xtra 00:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please think again about persuing this line of immaturity. I have better things to do. Lefty on campus 00:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I was about to make this block myself, and if you wish to consider it as a block by me, then feel free to do so. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A Melbourne student who's studying law at melb, the same place as Xtra, that's your beacon of impartiality? Like I said, I will ask other admins, because I have a right to defend my user page, and made no such personal attacks, no appreciate biased blockings my Xtra's friends. Please don't vandalise my user talk page either, comments were deleted for a reason. Lefty on campus 01:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per your promise to Danny, I've unblocked you. I'll expect the following removed from your userpage now:

I am forbidden to link to this page , though for evidence of right-wing vandals, please look on my talk page, there is quite a lot.

I'd also like you to remove the reference to Xtra in the bullet point immediately above that section. Thank you. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)