User talk:Timelezz

[ redacted ]

Abusive posting by block-evading harasser removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware. So far, I think DrChrissy's contributation are quite all right. But it does indeed worry me that s/he adds clarification templates without adding a comment on why so. I've pointed this out to her/him and hopefully s/he will include this on adding the template. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timelezz. Please immediately delete this entire thread. It is entitely inappropriate to post OR host thread headings on your Talk page which contain an editor's name. The editor that posted this is an IP hopper who has been blocked several times before and has been extremely disruptive. I strongly suggest you do not engage in conversation with this IP as they will almost certainly start making false accusations against you - avoid feeding the Troll. I will now explain my clarification template on the article Talk page. All the best. __DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, just let you know that there is an original research case of DrChrissy on the notice board.

Have a nice day!124.149.69.224 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timelezz. I am repeating my request for you to immediately delete this entire thread from your talk page. I am allowed to delete this myself under Wikipedia:No personal attacks, however, in the intrests of acting co-operatively, I would do this very reluctantly. Could I suggest that for each minute you leave this thread on your talk page, you are tacitly supporting this personal attack. This will not be looked upon favourably should you or I raise a dispute.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you do not like what is written about you. On that point I sympathize. But at this moment I do not consider the above as a true personal attack on you which would allow the removal of text. And not a bit the removal of the whole thread, as most is within the boundaries of normal conversation. I agree, it is a gray area. So perhaps I'll change my mind. Optionally, you can request a moderator to make a decision. I would be fine with that. Lastly, I hope you can see the difference between refraining from censorship and support of the content. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timelezz. It seems pretty clear to me that one editor accusing another editor on a third editor's talk page of "lies" is a personal attack. I also urge you to remove this personal attack from your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Email as source

Before reinserting your cite to the email, please discus the matter on Talk:Marius (giraffe), where I have posted my reasons for removing it. DES ^(talk) 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Hello again, Timelezz,

Please be aware of this language in our guideline about user pages which says "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so—such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." In my opinion, it is inadvisable to keep material on your talk page accusing another editor of being a liar. Your failure to remove these personal attacks on another editor from your talk page may be reasonably construed by other editors as an endorsement of these charges. That would be unfortunate. I encourage you to investigate the credibility of the IP hopping editor with a grudge who is making these charges. Please do the right thing, and remove these attacks as soon as possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Timelezz, I have again removed the offending postings. Please note that if you should insist on restoring them, per WP:BAN, you can only do so if you are willing to completely endorse their content, and be held responsible for everything in them as if you yourself had authored it. In that case, however, since the postings were part of a pattern of attacks and harassment against the other editor, you would be considered to be yourself the attacker and harasser, so I would block you for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've requested for a moderator to judge whether it is really considered a personal attack. I assume you are a moderator and I notice the debate that was going on. I think that is appropriate way to deal with it (other than other users moderating my Talk page). So I'm perfectly fine with this resolution. And I applaud that you only removed the sections that were refering to words as 'lie', and did not remove a reference to "an original research case", which I agree, can not be considered as a personal attack. Inded, it would be inappropriate to remove the whole thread, as DrChrissy requested me coercively. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

[User talk:Timelezz#top|talk]] are you accusing me of original research? Please make a clear statement.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Please don't change the spelling in an article unless there is a valid reason. Read WP:Retain for some guidelines. The Wood Duck article was originally written in British English so it must stay that way. Dger (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was defending exactly the same guideline. Please, next time add an edit summary to motivate your edit. Not many non-natives are experts in Canadian-English. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)