User talk:CTF83!: Difference between revisions
+ October 2008 |
m →October 2008: - Extra word |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] {{#if:User talk:Slappywag42|Regarding your comments on [[:User talk:Slappywag42]]: }}Please see Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocks]] for disruption. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> |
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] {{#if:User talk:Slappywag42|Regarding your comments on [[:User talk:Slappywag42]]: }}Please see Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocks]] for disruption. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> |
||
Sometimes people accuse you and I falsely just because of who we are. I would hope we would both be more sympathetic when we ourselves by mistake |
Sometimes people accuse you and I falsely just because of who we are. I would hope we would both be more sympathetic when we ourselves by mistake falsely accuse someone else. [[User:Robert Happelberg|Robert Happelberg]] ([[User talk:Robert Happelberg|talk]]) 20:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:28, 21 October 2008
| This is CTF83!'s talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Thanks
CtJ: Thank you for neutralizing foofighter on the Supreme Court article. He is the second distinct editor I have encounted who has a mania for the "good behavior" issue. See here. It's silly, but created an intense volume of chatter. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- HAHA, I did it too once, but when I did it, it just said "good behavior". But I like the current "Life tenure" best. Let me know if you need any more help on the article!! CTJF83Talk 15:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's real nice. Har har, laugh behind my back. So mature.
Anyway, I wasn't aware of the discussion which took place on the Associate Justice page, which neither of you were kind enough to point out to me before reverting the edits. Now that I see a demonstrable consensus exists, I'm willing to leave it alone. How about in the future, you guys get off your duffs and politely point that kind of stuff out out instead of acting like 12 year old girls? Foofighter20x (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- FooFighter: I apologize -- any breach of etiquette was unintended. Thanks, and please keep up your good work on law-related articles! Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. I only took issue the mania characterization and CTJ's laughing approval. All I ask is that you choose your words carefully, and realize that those with a different opinion than your own on this have several constitutional legs to stand on from a textualist point of view, notwithstanding the practical application of that text or how it's taught to grade-schoolers. All told: no harm, no foul. I'll try not to come off so harsh in the future. As for you and CtJ: a little courtesy goes a long way. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- FooFighter: I apologize -- any breach of etiquette was unintended. Thanks, and please keep up your good work on law-related articles! Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Foo, I think you might be misusing "textualist" in the above paragraph. I don't think the opposite point of view is completely irrational, but I do not think it is superior. It's somewhere in between. But that is, in part, a matter of taste. I acknowledge that. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let's not revert his most recent change, it did more good than harm. I want to talk about the best look for the infobox and give FF a chance to respond on the article talk page. Thank you both, again. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I was just debating whether to comment on ur recent post the the Supreme Court page. CTJF83Talk 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let's not revert his most recent change, it did more good than harm. I want to talk about the best look for the infobox and give FF a chance to respond on the article talk page. Thank you both, again. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Road to Germany
CTJ- I ask that you direct your attention to the Road to Germany Talk Page, and present your input on the subject of the War in Iraq reference. I feel it is a legitimate issue. Neo16287 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
October 2008
Regarding your comments on User talk:Slappywag42: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Sometimes people accuse you and I falsely just because of who we are. I would hope we would both be more sympathetic when we ourselves by mistake falsely accuse someone else. Robert Happelberg (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)