User talk:HesAChamp: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::You stated this 'belief' without once trying to ask me to explain my edits, which you labeled as unequivocally as vandalism , and now you want to come here and retroactively engage in a discussion after it is indicated to you how you've violated policy. You justify this on the basis that you saw no evidence of good faith. I wasn't aware that the ASSUMPTION of good faith required evidence that satisfies you. Now, you'll notice Mr. Parker's comments at the start of this page have not been touched. Perhaps you should use them as a guide for how invited discussion on the page of an unfamiliar editor. |
:::You stated this 'belief' without once trying to ask me to explain my edits, which you labeled as unequivocally as vandalism , and now you want to come here and retroactively engage in a discussion after it is indicated to you how you've violated policy. You justify this on the basis that you saw no evidence of good faith. I wasn't aware that the ASSUMPTION of good faith required evidence that satisfies you. Now, you'll notice Mr. Parker's comments at the start of this page have not been touched. Perhaps you should use them as a guide for how invited discussion on the page of an unfamiliar editor. |
||
:::You somewhat ironically state that no citations or factual references are provided to back up my claims, ignoring the fact that all of the very sections which I've edited are themselves presented without verification. Now, if I were the type to engage in revenge edits, as you apparently are, it would be easy for me to go back and eliminate all these additions on the basis of no citation, and possibly even other criteria. I have not and likely will not done so, as I won't censor other contributions simply because of another's editor's lack of civility. What is obvious to any neutral observer is that you like reaching premature conclusions and react harshly when your disregard for proper behavior is shown. |
:::You somewhat ironically state that no citations or factual references are provided to back up my claims, ignoring the fact that all of the very sections which I've edited are themselves presented without verification. Now, if I were the type to engage in revenge edits, as you apparently are, it would be easy for me to go back and eliminate all these additions on the basis of no citation, and possibly even other criteria. I have not and likely will not done so, as I won't censor other contributions simply because of another's editor's lack of civility. What is obvious to any neutral observer is that you like reaching premature conclusions and react harshly when your disregard for proper behavior is shown. |
||
:::Lastly, I strongly suggest you read this paragraph regarding user talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages |
|||
[[User:HesAChamp|HesAChamp]] ([[User talk:HesAChamp#top|talk]]) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:55, 14 March 2009
Vinnie Roslin edit
Why do you insist on degrading Vinnie Roslin's wiki page with the disparaging remark that he is
"widely known for his self-promotion."
If you know him please contribute to his stub, if not please stop this destructive conduct.
-Thank You,
Michael Parker
- The crucial word in your lecture is 'legitimate'. Suggesting that someone is editing as a reaction to previous deletions or a previous banning is not civil, in not neutral, violates the assumption of good faith, and is arguably even a personal attack, hence the removal of your comments. If you wish to discuss my edits, I suggest you do so in a neutral manner. HesAChamp (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hence the "I believe." You have provided no other factual references in your edits that show the multitude of individuals you claim are "self-promoting" are, in fact, doing so. No citations are provided to back up your claims and, until now, you have not engaged in any discussion on the topic at all. Instead of discussion you created a sock-puppet to attempt to circumvent my reverts; so much for good faith. I saw no evidence of good faith in the original edits and see no further evidence now that you have decided to respond. You are welcome to argue that my actions are a personal attack but, in reality, I just don't care that much. It will be obvious to even the most casual observer that there is some sort of history here. Whether you ever care to explain it is up to you. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- You stated this 'belief' without once trying to ask me to explain my edits, which you labeled as unequivocally as vandalism , and now you want to come here and retroactively engage in a discussion after it is indicated to you how you've violated policy. You justify this on the basis that you saw no evidence of good faith. I wasn't aware that the ASSUMPTION of good faith required evidence that satisfies you. Now, you'll notice Mr. Parker's comments at the start of this page have not been touched. Perhaps you should use them as a guide for how invited discussion on the page of an unfamiliar editor.
- You somewhat ironically state that no citations or factual references are provided to back up my claims, ignoring the fact that all of the very sections which I've edited are themselves presented without verification. Now, if I were the type to engage in revenge edits, as you apparently are, it would be easy for me to go back and eliminate all these additions on the basis of no citation, and possibly even other criteria. I have not and likely will not done so, as I won't censor other contributions simply because of another's editor's lack of civility. What is obvious to any neutral observer is that you like reaching premature conclusions and react harshly when your disregard for proper behavior is shown.
- Lastly, I strongly suggest you read this paragraph regarding user talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages