User talk:PrBeacon: Difference between revisions
→in re Exaggerate: revise |
→in re Exaggerate: + toolserver link |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
:Though I have to admit I am puzzled by this [[User_talk:B#Comment|Comment on User:B's pg]]] from WMO. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
:Though I have to admit I am puzzled by this [[User_talk:B#Comment|Comment on User:B's pg]]] from WMO. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::And the drama continues: instead of responding in the same WQA thread, one of User:B's buddies has hastily filed a false report in a new section.-<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
::And the drama continues: instead of responding in the same WQA thread, one of User:B's buddies has hastily filed a false report in a new section.-<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
*<small>Maybe self-appointed watchdog Doc's tool [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=B&user2=Gerardw] is helpful there.., maybe not.</small> |
|||
==Advice== |
==Advice== |
Revision as of 17:09, 26 February 2011
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?
past clipsin re cholo
Sea Shepherds and Violence index, potential to-do list
(source of borrowed code [1])
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! 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)
• From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." ApologyI'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)
request
to LAEC-- Kindly remove my name from your "anti-LAEC anon editors" list.
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)
in re Exaggerate
I started to type the following at FRC:Talk but then thought better of it. I may yet rephrase some of it later. Anyway:
AdviceFor what it's worth/Not meant to impune any other editor/Humor value only....
|