Revision as of 01:22, 21 July 2007

¤[Unsigned comments may be subject to removal.]¤

Therefore, please always sign your message by adding ~~~~ at the end of it .

Current archival rate: none so far, I'll probably start when I get so many messages this page takes forever to load and gets tons of edit conflicts.
Since I do not like chasing conversations all over Wikipedia, if you leave a message on my talk page, I will answer here. So make sure to check for a reply. --MichaelLinnear

Hello Wikipedia,

If you have a complaint or question about an edit I made, please comment below with the page name and why my actions were right or wrong. Best, --MichaelLinnear

Messages/Talk

hi Michael Linnear

Michael,

Thanks for your kind welcome. I'm getting the sense that the Wikipedia community is quite friendly (and thoughtful).

I've been working hard on the Ebon Fisher wiki and attempting to get all the references straight. Any help you can offer is very welcome. Some formatting might help.

-Trollpedia

So far your references look good. I have trouble often with the templates myself, but I'll try to help. --MichaelLinnear 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the references for you with the {{reflist}} template. --MichaelLinnear 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:

Thanks for the note. I'm fairly used to MONGOs drive-by insults by now. Thanks for watching my user page.

The NYT article is interesting in how it addresses ED. WP probably accounts for less than 5% of the site, yet some people get so freakin' fixated on it. I suppose that kind of in-passing reference wouldn't take time to explain it in any other context considering the rest of the article.

My only contributions to ED in relation to WP are pure satire of policies, not attacks on people. Read the Woman article on ED (particularly pre-2006), then go back and read the conversation about what the title of the US State terrorism article should be here. It's kind of sad that MONGO thinks I have complete editorial control there to make anything I don't like go away when he knows that nobody has that power here either. SchmuckyTheCat 22:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, its sad when arguments just end up being people spouting the alphabet soup at each other. It's frustrating when something as interesting as the US's checkered geopolitical history ends up being a battle like that. My view on the title, is that when I look at the State terrorism article, it seems to be about allegations, as everything is under that heading. Either way it's stupid as the content is better explained in the individual articles about the separate overseas actions, rather than some grand over-extending mess like it is now. Trying to link events on some four different continents into one consistent course of action by the US government seems to be overreaching. --MichaelLinnear 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's all the same policy. LamontCranston 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The US government isn't one single organism acting as an individual. And I doubt that the very different men who have spent time in the Oval Office would agree that they were all following the same master course. --MichaelLinnear 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Washita River

Thanks. I'm sorry to be leaving this discussion too, but I'm plain fed up with HanzoHattori's perverse obstinacy about learning even the least little bit about Wikipedia policies, or how history is actually written for that matter. Makes me wonder how accurate the Srebrenica (sp?) article really is. Better for me to get out of there before banging my head against such sheer [several uncomplimentary nouns involving intelligence levels come to mind here] leads me into deep doo-doo for making personal attacks. Yikes. I'll probably still keep an eye on the article, but I'm tired of fighting this battle against sheer [same uncomplimentary nouns] so much on my own. If other people were to step up to the plate on that score, I'll be glad to join in again to shore up an intelligent & balance, non-POV consensus against his (as well as Custerwest's) POV-pushing & rampant [same set of uncomplimentary nouns again]. This could be a damn good article, if neither his nor Custerwest's POV's are permitted to rule. --Yksin 05:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it protected (literally!) while things are hashed out on the talk page is a great idea, and seems to have calmed down the strife there. --MichaelLinnear 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back, as I am glad to have come back. The strife comes back with CW, of course, but I think HanzoHattori might be persuaded to work towards consensus with at least those of us who aren't CW. I'm hoping he will, anyway, as before I was finding it as impossible to work with him as it's been to work with CW -- as is apparent from my very frustrated comment above. (Coming also on a day that I was hit by a depression brought on by overconsumption of fast food that I don't habitually eat.) I know it's doing me good anyway to see other editors popping up again, both you & HH. I'm hoping that Murderbike will turn up again too. He hasn't been around for a couple of days. --Yksin 11:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the kind words. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

footnotes

Michael,

Thanks so much for helping with the "interactive" footnotes on E. Fisher's wiki. They work like a charm.

Best, Trollpedia

Your welcome, glad to help. --MichaelLinnear 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Cheers, Lig hts has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

If the Wiki community is to be friendly, it should not be by making intimidating statements like "I know who you are." Also, there should be no need to suppress facts concerning the lack of relationship between al Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden. (MTSC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.174.168 (talk • contribs)

But I do. --MichaelLinnear 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 If the Wiki community is to be friendly, it should not be by making intimidating statements like "I know who you are."   Also, there should be no need to suppress facts concerning the lack of relationship between al Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden.  (MTSC). {{unsigned|24.221.174.168}}
 :But I do. --[[User:MichaelLinnear|MichaelLinnear]] 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
+..