User talk:PrBeacon

Feedback: Start a new section. (Whether or not you wish to ignore the following)

WP guidelines on No personal attacks (NPA):

• "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." (in WP:NPA - Avoiding personal attacks)
• "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" (2nd bullet point of What is considered to be a personal attack?

Archives: 2009 <> 2010 2011 A new editor's 1st exchange on Talk:Whale Wars. ..and something else to continue reflection, absorption.. wp:Balancing influences ' nil desperandum ' backburner to-do: clean up this topheavy mess past clips 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 ..or cabron, even (though sparingly) The Original Barnstar … In recognition of your recent efforts at cooperation and content creation. — NRen2k5 aka TheHerbalGerbil (TALK), 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 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) index, potential to-do list Index of my userspace pages PrBeacon/Anti-whaling PrBeacon/Status PrBeacon/archive1 PrBeacon/monobook.js PrBeacon/sscs PrBeacon/userpg archive 1 PrBeacon/Archive PrBeacon/Archive2 PrBeacon/Archive3 PrBeacon/Archive 1 PrBeacon/Archive 2 PrBeacon/Archive 3 PrBeacon/Archive 4 PrBeacon/sandbox (source of borrowed code [1]) --from SuggestBot-- SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs MV Greenpeace MV Esperanza Brazilian Independence Cup Operation Crossword A Mix Up in Hearts Rainbow Warrior (2011) MV Sirius Sam Mercer Greenpeace Foundation Animals Count Steve Capps Greenpeace Design Awards Yūshin Maru No. 2 Hy Myers Harry Myers Party for the Animals Guadalajara Cartel Billy Ruge The Midnight Prowlers Cleanup Southern bluefin tuna Miguel A. De La Torre BP Merge Pacific bluefin tuna Hillary Clinton presidential campaign developments, 2007 IWoz Add Sources MY Ady Gil Media bias in the United States Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations Wikify Orlando Health Mid-Erie Counseling and Treatment Services Capital Ethiopia Expand Blinding Edge Pictures BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant Geologic temperature record SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC) A new thread at SPLC talk page? At this point, PrB, I would suggest that you start a new thread at the SPLC talk page to discuss edits by me (or other editors) which you have questions about. The "more questionable edits" topic is now buried in the middle of a long page and it brings up edits which were made 2 to 3 weeks ago in a busy article. Some of those edits have probably already been modified, so it would probably be better to restart with a new thread and be quite specific about particular copy NOW found in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC) No I don't think so. I'd like the record to show that you have refused to answer to your POV-pushing edits, in that current thread and the previous one started by Dylan. And hopefully someday soon someone will prompt you to properly respond without your usual snide comments, or else take the issues up at an admin noticeboard. That someone may be me when I can get around to collecting the diffs. Until further notice I do not want your nonsense posted here. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) • From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." Apology I'm writing this apology because while Beacon and I disagree on virtually all topics we've crossed swords on, at the beginning of our relationship I wronged him, thus setting a tone that has been both unpleasent and unproductive since then. I am not a person that believes in biting the newbies, or in speaking harshly to people without trying to reason with them first. Beacon provided the example of our first interaction, where he came in on the end of an argument, and rather than acknowledge that he was new to the argument and treat him with the respect he deserved I simply snapped at him and dressed him down. The issue was highly contentious and had been going on for some time, but that isn't an excuse for poor behavior on my part, only an explanation. I've given this one a lot of thought, and while I have no doubt that Beacon and I will continue to disagree, in this particular case he is absolutely correct and I admit to treating him badly when we first encountered each other. For this, PrBeacon, you have my most sincere apology. Rapier (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Appreciated. Unfortunately your camp buddies are still flinging sticky harshmallows, if you'll pardon the strained metaphor. Fwiw, I'm still mulling over a longer response.. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC) request Update: list removed, but not before another instance of hounding from Doc do-little. {tb} LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) to LAEC-- Kindly remove my name from your "anti-LAEC anon editors" list. It is basically an attack enemies list which is against policy, and it's already stayed up too long. It was in response to an admin's request for anon editors. I am not an anon-IP account and I am not anti-LAEC. I am anti-crusade and that's not the same thing at all. If you choose to ignore this request, I will take the issue up with someone authorized to properly address it. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Most importantly, I had nothing to do with your block which is mainly for off-wiki harassment. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between disagreements and personal attacks, and you think anyone who challenges your worldview is in a collective fight against you personally, thus the persecution component of your crusade. I still think that you were poorly counseled by Badmintonhist to 'enjoy the battle' [2] and you made the fatal mistake of taking his encouragement too far. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Hi PrBeacon, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling can't reply on this talk page because of his current block status. I recommend moving this thread to his talk page. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Why? So he can remove it or refactor it to suit his self-delusion? No thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Initially I chose to post my request in full here so that he could not simply remove it or refactor it to suit his particular weltanschauung. His first lengthy reply confirmed my skepticism: he's still lumping me in with his anonymous opponents and apparently still conflating public (wiki) debate with personal attack. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Related threads elsewhere: User talk: Gwen Gale (now archived) and ~continuation from there at User talk: Doc9871 ..tbc.. The list has been deleted from that page. I think the threads linked directly above should be as well. It's only fair, as it's Resolved Doc talk 03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC) No, I think I think I'll leave this up as evidence of your further hounding. You go too far in your self-appointed role of wiki watchdog. And you're grotesquely inconsistent. Afaict, you only support editors with your POV and fight all others. Stop posting your nonsense here. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Talk:Family Research Council It appears you overlooked the current poll on the talk page. I've reverted your reinclusion against the up-to-date consensus of the SPLC hate group designation in the lead, since your edit summary wasn't accurate. Please feel welcome to participate on the talk page, and if you believe there's another valid reason for re-introducing that material, I don't mind being you reverting again with an appropriate explanation. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the notice, I'm now reviewing the discussions at talkpage and ANI. However, I'm a bit puzzled why a version without the SPLC designation is now the default, instead of the previous version which lasted awhile. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Follow-up: lead has since been restored, this time apparently by the editor first taking poll. in re Exaggerate {tb} to User:B -- I started to type the following at FRC:Talk but then thought better of it. I may yet rephrase some of it later. Anyway: First of all, I want to emphasize what I've said at the related ANI post, that the FRC does not represent all Christian conservatives. And the Beirich quote about 'FRC=KKK' is one person's opinion, not the official stance of the SPLC. Two groups can both be hate-mongering without being equivalent. While I certainly would not equate religious extremists with neo-nazis, what User:WM1 said is not what you extrapolated [3], imo. I assume that on the article talkpage you are not speaking as an admin but rather as an involved editor, still I would respectfully remind you that these discussions are incendiary enough without adding unnecessary fuel like that. [I could be wrong, but I think article and talkpage space have higher standards in this respect than the drama-filled admin boards.] And for the record, in case anyone chooses not to give me the benefit of doubt here, I'm not defending what WM1 said there. (I reserve the right to refactor this post because I may wake up later and decide it's not at all what I mean to say.> -PrBeacon (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Advice For what it's worth/Not meant to impune any other editor/Humor value only.... from Buster's Rules of Poker Play: Never trust a player with a ball cap that says 'DOC' Buster Seven Talk 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Good one. He's probably got some thick shades on as well, even more reason to take just about everything he says at less than face value. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)