Jump to content

User talk:GordonWatts: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
GordonWatts (talk | contribs)
rv - I forgot to clarify something: The editors I contacted WERE actively involved in editing, lol
GordonWatts (talk | contribs)
adding this comment
Line 4: Line 4:


:<font color=0000cc>Are you afraid people will find out about your rude behaviour -or perhaps your failure to adhere to [[Wikipedia]] policy? The darkness doesn't like to find out that the light is shining on it.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)</font>
:<font color=0000cc>Are you afraid people will find out about your rude behaviour -or perhaps your failure to adhere to [[Wikipedia]] policy? The darkness doesn't like to find out that the light is shining on it.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)</font>

:<font color=0000cc>You write:</font> ''...ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand."'' <font color=0000cc>In case you didn't notice, the editors I contacted '''were''' actively involved in the editing of the page. To contact just any editor would be a big waste of time for all parties. Think before you post, ''OK?'' No offense meant, but that post was just plain stupid: You might want to NOT use a template or pre-written post before proof-reading it, lol.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)</font>

Revision as of 16:36, 12 February 2007

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence Terri Schiavo. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on my own talk page, since you are monitoring it; I am trying to get input and seek consensus. I am not telling anyone how to vote, and, with only one exception, I left messages only on talk pages of editors who have recently edited the main Terri page since Christmas of 2006, not a whole lot of people.
Are you afraid people will find out about your rude behaviour -or perhaps your failure to adhere to Wikipedia policy? The darkness doesn't like to find out that the light is shining on it.--GordonWatts 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You write: ...ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand." In case you didn't notice, the editors I contacted were actively involved in the editing of the page. To contact just any editor would be a big waste of time for all parties. Think before you post, OK? No offense meant, but that post was just plain stupid: You might want to NOT use a template or pre-written post before proof-reading it, lol.--GordonWatts 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]