|
in re cholo
- ..Cholo is one of those words that no English translation can adequately capture. It may not be the equivalent of the "n-word", but it is also almost universily used derogatively... --Jayron32.talk.contribs
- i disagree with your characterization of it. from my experience in mexico i still maintain that it can be used without derogatory connotation, among friends. Something like vagabundo -PrBeacon
|
|
The Original Barnstar
|
| … In recognition of your recent efforts at cooperation and content creation. — NRen2k5 aka TheHerbalGerbil (TALK), 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sea Shepherds and Violence
Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| (collapsed)
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
I'm responding to you here (below) because I don't wish to clutter the ANI anymore than it already is. I see that you still have a need to get the last word in. Perhaps with some distance you can see the hole you're digging, but I doubt it based on your lapses in self-awareness.
- from ANI thread
- I've been following this ANI thread with interest, but I am not familiar with the background discussions of the image files, and I am deliberately not going anywhere near them. So I have no knowledge of the merits of the arguments. I also haven't crossed paths with J Milburn that I can remember. But, having read J Milburn's description at the top of this sub-thread, I have an intense feeling of recognition. It matches exactly the pattern of SlimVirgin's conduct towards me, ever since I was a newbie editor and committed the apparently mortal sin of editing some animal rights pages in ways with which SlimVirgin disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trypto is piling on because he too doesn't like to be disagreed with and takes it personally. His mischaracterizations are familiar and tiresome.-PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, none of that is true. You previously tried to raise this at WQA, and were told by uninvolved editors there that your characterizations of me are without substance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a separate issue & your recollection is faulty or disingenuous. You have a long history of disputes with SlimVirgin which devolve into petty bickering since, when you lose the arguments on content and policy, you resort to snide and dismissive retorts. Much like others who disagree with SV, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually your claims at WQA were exactly the same thing. I'm sure disinterested editors here can judge for themselves the tone I use, versus the tone PrB is using. But I'm sorry that this thread, about the concerns raised by J Milburn, are being sidetracked by a pro-animal rights editor. The only part of what you said that is true is that I have a long history with SlimVirgin. It started when I was a very new editor, and was not at all as you described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the unlikely event that anyone cares: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Tryptofish bullying other editors on PETA article. WQA, as I described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you felt vindicated there because one (not plural, as you say here) outside editor simply called it "usual disagreement"? You even admitted to a mistake at the WQA. The two other editors there asked for diffs, but I decided to let it rest. The "intense feeling of recognition" you mentioned at the ANI is more like vengeance against SV, and you can't seem to let it go. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
to clarify: Since there has been some speculation about this side project, here a few words to clarify: this section is a scattershot collection of bits I was working on to counter what i see as tendentious editing at the Fox News article, some of which may be initiated by the company themselves. It's not such a stretch, they've done it before -- see below.
I made the user list of my own accord in order to look into this -- admittedly, a hasty list with comments on editors' general behavior patterns. An admin stepped in and asked me to remove it, which I did. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
watchdogging..:continued from User talk:Viriditas
My argument is partly distilled into defending this addition to the lead section. I think it summarizes the controversy subarticle and best represents the primary criticism. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to ask: has anyone requested CheckUser on the half-dozen accounts camped there to defend the article from balance? I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them works at FNC. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know who they work for, but we should be keeping tabs on how often they pop up to revert. Can you make a list? Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into it, maybe someone else can help.. and perhaps there is a way to automate it. By the way, your input at talk:FNC controversies would be appreciated -PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look in a few hours. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sox, stop the patronizing: { { tb } } Some of your recent comments at Talk:Fox News cross the line of civility. You're patronizing other editors with snide remarks like "You need to read." Since you started a respectful dialogue with me earlier this year, I'll give you more slack than others who didn't. But now you're coming off just as belligerent as the hardcore FNC defenders. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I am trying to avoid another huge, unwieldly discussion such as what happened with the NC Donation section. I realize I may appear to be patronizing and apologize for that, but really I'm trying to just get to the meat of the argument, namely why you think that the material should go back in. I'll try to stop using potentially insulting language for the duration of the discussion. Soxwon (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should be on Talk:Fox News Channel where others can participate. PrBeacon, reverting is not helpful. Please focus on collecting diffs and evidence instead. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Fox News Caught Sabotaging Wikipedia Entries'
at least as far back as 2007: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/fox-news-caught-sabotaging-wikipedia-entries/5486/
'Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP'
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia-is-on.html
and currently, 2010
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fox_News_Channel_controversies in re [1] and [2]
campers, FNC defenders
- (to do: look for better subhead formatting)
| first draft, admin request
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
User lists like this can be taken as (and are) personal attacks, which aren't allowed here. Whatever data/lists you might keep elsewhere (such as offline) is, as always, wholly up to you. Could you please remove that list from your userspace? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I disagree that the list is a personal attack. I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. They can always choose not to visit this page. However, I will move it soon since you asked.
Is it appropriate to leave a blog link in its place? -PrBeacon (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. Please keep in mind, if you publicly post lists like that off-wiki, it could be seen as a kind of off-wiki harassment, a posting of an "enemies list" which, in some later dispute, could much thwart whatever you hope to be doing here. You might also have a look at WP:AGF, for more about the thinking on this kind of thing on en.WP. See also Wikipedia:Battle#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I appreciate your response, but I'd like to remove the reference to harassment. I could just archive this quickly, or let you refactor that part of your post. Thanks -PrBeacon (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said could be seen as. I don't see harassment here. I see personal attacks. You can remove/archive whole posts of mine as you please, it's your talk page, but I don't understand why you're not taking down the user list. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack.
- Calling other editors trolls is a wanton personal attack. You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace. Please clean it up now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Sorry, to me that seems overstating it a bit. But I will defer to your judgement. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't move it to User_talk:PrBeacon/balancing_Faux, because that's in your userspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor can you keep/update that page by blanking
, putting in more content, then blanking it again. I've deleted it as an attack page. Please don't put it back. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I blanked it, once, then you deleted the blank page (which I'm fine with), it was not an attack page which you deleted. Perhaps one might argue it was a potential one, but to me it was more like a sandbox. And since another editor is now misrepresenting your comment, I'm striking parts to clarify. I apologize if this is inappropriate. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, tranquilo. I said I would move it, then decided to remove it completely. I didn't 'put in more content,' blank it a second time, nor intend to keep it. Pardon me for being bold, but I have to say your vigilance seems somewhat misplaced here. (Note I may strike this last comment, upon further relfection -- see, thats how i do) -PrBeacon (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I don't like telling someone what they can(not) keep in their userspace at all. My belief is that you haven't
understood been aware of the policies and how things are done here to echo those policies, which in itself is ok, no big deal. If you have worries about the behaviour of some editors, ok, dispute resolution is where you should take them. You can also ask me, another admin or any experienced user for ways to deal with that kind of thing. A friendly tip: Stick to content and sources, not what you think about other editors. Most of the time, it will get you much further. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I'm familiar with the policies but I also take exception to bullies and other turf-hounds when they (a) fight to keep an unbalanced article, and (b) scare away more casual editors, as seems the case at FNC. Despite repeated intervention by uninvolved editors and admin, they continue to exert themselves with activist fervor in order to counter what they see as systemic bias. I don't disagree with that latter sentiment to some degree, but I just think most of them go too far. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, there is all of that and more, mostly on the high traffic articles. Cite sources. There is often more than one outlook on those topics and both (or all) of them can be echoed and sourced in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
while you're here: I'd just like to say I appreciate what I've read at Mr. Wales' talkpage in particular the exchange with Hans Adler, whom I respect from past discussions about Sea Shepherd et al. It made me think of the several occasions where one of the pro-FNC editors got away with a low blow, calling someone else a d!ck (with a link to a similar WP essay without admonishment. Apparently they missed the part which says, 'The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a d!ck".' -PrBeacon (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the worries about the d""" essay(s) is they get misunderstood and mis-used, a lot. I don't think it's ok to call another editor a d*** (even one who's, say, headed for a long block). I also don't think it's helpful to ask another editor if they're senile, even in idiom. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
'editor tracking others'
reply to alarmist overreaction:
- For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations [at talk:FNC] would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And calling it a 'BLP violation' is so ridiculous its (almost) funny. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the deletion log, which I think more closely echoes the outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| ruffled feathers .. "Alright, that's enough, this is simply degenerating..."
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
PrBeacon has made a list of those who oppose him ("campers, FNC defenders")in this article and on Fox News Channel controversies, and expressed a desire to have those people subject to CheckUser. Drrll (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATTACK allows tagging of "attack pages" for deletion. Collect (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok this is getting ridiculous. Wikiscanner exists for a reason people. Instead of trying to peg people who disagree with you as Fox News channel employees PrBeacon, you might wish to consider that they simply keep Fox News Channel on their watchlist. Soxwon (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, an "enemies list"!! How COOL is that!! Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the usual suspects think they're circling the wagons. For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC) revised[reply]
- only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely...The admin first said "You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace" then when it was moved to a similar page it became "I've deleted it as an attack page". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ^Wrong again- Are you intentionally mixing things up or just confused? This is the request to remove it: [3]. And that was one admin's opinion, I disagreed and said I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. The 'warning' you refer to was for calling you a troll in a previous thread, since you bring it up. By the way, your earlier remark about a 'BLP violation' might be amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-write history however you like. Even go back and strike through another editors comments like you've done. It's in the history my friend. anyone who wants can see I quoted accurately. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, you only quoted the second part accurately but that still doesn't make you right, especially since you're mixing things up. You're welcome to argue that you think it was an attack, but above you're simply misrepresenting what actually happened. The only deleted a blank page, not an attack page -- as i said there, only the potential.. If you're going to argue semantics and picky details, make sure the history backs you up, because it doesn't here.
- Anyone can go see it in the history. I selected the appropriate quotes. I quoted accurately and in the correct order. Done here my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming anyone else still cares by this point, which i doubt, you repeating youself doesn't make you any more right. Now it appears that you're intentionally lying about the facts: there was no official warning about the so-called 'attack page' and your attempts to refactor it are borderline pathological. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No official warning? Ok, whatever. There doesn't have to be a template or something to be "an official warning". You might want to consider re-wording your last response. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess you weren't really 'done here,' eh? Ok: the warning was not for the user list, as you orginally stated above and seem to be sticking to. Not sure I understand your last point, are you [4] threatening something? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct, I thought I was done and probably shouldn't have responded. There is no threat. I just thought it would be sporting to give you an opportunity to reconsider something you may have said in haste without thinking just how far over the line you were stepping. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DUCK. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know why you needed that hitlist when someone else is already gathering data on editors actions.. User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Loosely tossing around terms like 'hit list,' 'enemies list' and 'stalking' shouldn't go unchecked, you guys are being overly dramatic. And I've changed this section's title because it's inappropriate, as the whole section may be. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I am not "pro FNC" , I find the new title offensive. Collect (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I've changed it again. I've asked the earlier admin to weigh in on the section's appropriateness to this talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Follow-up: is my list an "attack page" ?
indirectly related arguments, something else to consider:
FNC reverts and disruption particularly the comments from two outside editors [5] "This is ridiculous. He is completely entitled to his own opinion, especially within his own userspace."
and [6] "if a user suspects that others are editing in ways that don't benefit the project, then it's certainly right and proper for him to be allowed to document that, and he should be encouraged to do so, not discouraged. To call such documentation an "attack page" is way, way off the mark. ... So what if someone wants to run checkusers? I actually wish that would be done routinely re all frequent contributors to a given page. Socks are the bane of Wikipedia ... I can't at all fathom why anyone would feel they need to take such a suspicion as some kind of personal affront."
(unless they have something to hide)
thus, a revised list may be forthcoming. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in re talkpage trolling:
comments removed from Talk:Fox News Channel -- You know... then restored ... -PrBeacon (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
regards(?)
- My fault for failing to provide the wrong link. This is the relevant policy. Sorry for the confusion! Soxwon (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'm well aware of the policy. Especially the part that says "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and stop if there is any objection." If you recall, we'd both removed our comments from a similar subthread this past summer, but I suppose we've become more entrenched since then.. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You and I both removed ours before. It was actually a clean up to remove our back and forth from distracting from the discussion. But there was a prior agreement to do so. Honestly, not arguing etc, doesn't it look a little weird to remove half of a conversation and leave the other half up with no context? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe.. but before I go any further with that answer, I'd like to know why, since you're being honest/non-argumentative now, you've allowed the subthread in question to devolve so easily into you repeating ridiculously pointy questions? ("Do you have anything to say regarding the topic of the discussion?") And why you're so intent on mischaracterizing what happened with the user list above (aka 'attack list' in your eyes), at the Fox News talkpage? I can agree that I went a bit far with the idea which Viriditas and I were discussing, but isn't that obvious enough by now..? -PrBeacon (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not come to this thread to debate with you. I made a polite, non-sarcastic, non-argumentative, civil observation here about the removal in hopes that it wouldn't turn into some sort of debate. Apparently that was a mistake on my part. Sorry for wasting both of our time with the attempt. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, that's not quite right either. Feel free to try again. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in re userpage comments on conservative activism askew
- Howdy! I don't want to seem unwelcoming nor do I have any complaint whatsoever about any of your edits. I just noticed you userpage and wanted to point to Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE, in case you've never seen it. Be careful that editing does not tend toward advocacy for a particular belief or cause. Identifying a systematic bias is important, and addressing it is part of writing an encyclopedia. But be careful that advocacy is left at the door (especially when you think others are advocating for contrary positions). In any event, thanks for the work on Wikipedia and I hope my concern here was completely misplaced (as I say, it was only brought about by your userpage, rather than any edits). If there's anything I can help with, or if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to drop me a line. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- point taken, thanks. that was written quickly upon my return from an extended wiki-break. i know not all editors believe in the flagpole approach to balance, but i think it's a practical necessity given the entrenched activism i've seen on several controversial pages. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(newer draft) - countering Arch-Conservative Activism
(arch.., as opposed to moderate & reasonable -- as I said at FNC controversies, true conservatives and libertarians should be ashamed of what FoxNews sells under the GOP banner)
Respectfully I disagree, and being unfairly admonished like that on a talkpage seems to vindicate the pro-FNC defenders. Was this in followup to the complaints received about the edit warring?
Although I don't think the term 'faux news' is that big of a deal, I've struck it out of deference. But more importantly, the term 'disruptive' seems to be at least somewhat subjective in this case -- especially since I've made it clear that I'm here to improve the articles with balance. I would encourage any of those editors top take it to WQA to get an outside opinion if there is any semblance of a 'pattern' of such behavior, but I'm not going to invite this on any one article's talkpage because that just continues the distractions from improving the article -- distractions being a common tactic of stalling and killing discussion, btw. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[8] "simply b/c you're not getting the response you wanted..."
- First of all, you're not really in a position to moderate the talkpage & I don't appreciate how you characterize a simple refresh. What WP policy supports your assertion that I'm not allowed to follow-up on a topic? You and other FNC-defenders may consider the thread 'dead' but as I said in my edit summary, "follow-up due, election cycle re-starting." [9] If the topic got archived anyway I'd resurrect it, as is any editor's prerogative. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in re premature Archive [10] and revert [11] -- You don't get to give orders telling others where to post their responses. You are NOT the talkpage moderator. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[12] "..no one responds and they simply talk in JML's post."
- Maybe so, but that's not for either of us to decide. While normally i can appreciate housekeeping efforts to clean up talkpages, when there is disagreement you know that you should discuss it instead of charging forth. James' follow-up post does not act as a replacement for the previous discussion. If anything, his new thread should be folded into the existing one. Still, I might have also considered summarizing the older post (and linking its archive) in a new comment in James' thread, if I had been approached in a more diplomatic way than dismissive assumptions like "not getting the response you wanted." But I suppose that you didnt notice the small gesture of changing the "Bump" comment to something more specific/appropriate. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[13] "Do not post here again."
- Looks like he'd rather bury his head in the sand. Some folks just don't know how to disagree without being disagreeable. And then can't handle it when they get what they give.
- in re Other editors' qualifying remarks.. (To T.A.aka.M.A)
- In the future, please feel free to remove the SPA tags that another editor places after your comments simply because s/he doesn't agree. A month or so ago I noticed the tags on comments from IP#69, some of which signed Mr Anon so I assume it's you, at the then-current talkpage for Media Matters, now in Archive 6 and Archive 7. The editor who placed them has demonstrated a lack of sufficient NPOV and therefore is in no position to play moderator or pass judgement. btw I've posted this note at the talkpage for IP#69, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creepy stuff. How do I found out who did it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can check the edit history of the talkpage -- I think they were all added by Rapier (a.k.a SeanNovack). I was going to either remove them when the threads were still active, or at least comment on it at the talkpage, but first I asked about it at Talkpage:SPA and the only reply there was that you didn't object so it didnt seem to be an issue. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing shows up on the talk pages. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it was Sean. I don't have a problem with it, and think it was all in good faith. Thanks. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well of course it's your call. But I have to say I'm surprised to hear that. Since SPAs are generally considered a big problem on Wikipedia -- because of "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas", thus tagging someone's talkpage comments is NOT in good faith. Accusing someone of such, then going so far as to label every one of their talkpage posts with the comment, "69.228.156.201 has made few or no other edits outside this topic" he seemed to be trying to discredit your contributions. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the info The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No malicious intent there, and I don't appreciate the implication. At the time of those edits, the WP:SPA tag was accuraate and appropriate. Since further edits to establish the account have been made since (after all, before that T.A. was editing from an anonymous IP address) then I have no issue with the tag being removed. Rapier (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Baloney. You didn't agree with his edits or his talkpage discussion so you attempted to frame them as less than equal to your's or any other (regular) editor. MrAnon may not care but that doesn't make it okay. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beacon, our history is well documented, except of course for the portion of your talk page that you wrongly claimed was vandalism and that I had to repost on my talk page so the full story was there to be seen. I know that you feel that I am the kind of editor that flings dispersions and then pulls back claiming to be without fault. You've accused me of hypocracy on several occations, yet never provided examples when I've asked. You don't like me, and honestly I don't lose a lot of sleep over that. However...attempting to project a sinister motive on behalf of an editor that you don't like on a neutral third party is completely out of line. If disagreements with my point of view have so poisoned your ability to assume good faith that you cannot accept a reasoned explanation that the individual being tagged has no issue with accepting, then I submit to you that a Wikibreak may be in order. Rapier (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept Rapier's explanation, and also have no problem with the tags getting yanked. I'm just too lazy to care about it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
