User talk:Deor

Archives:

User talk:Deor/Archive1 (12/2006–12/2007)
User talk:Deor/Archive2 (1/2008–6/2008)
User talk:Deor/Archive3 (7/2008–12/2008)
User talk:Deor/Archive4 (1/2009–6/2009)

From Pagetools

I noticed that you are removing some of my history sections. I think those sections are relevant because they assist in organization and expansion of the topics- they also follow the structure that is on other pages- it's a matter of organization and consistancy, no. The page is better constructed...your thoughts?Pagetools (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that I've been removing is unsourced or improperly sourced material. Deor (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define improperly sourced materials?Pagetools (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles (especially deleted ones) can't be used to source information in other Wikipedia articles, for example. I don't really want to discuss this any further at the moment; let's see how the sockpuppet investigation turns out. Deor (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if an article is deleted just because of suspected sockpuppetry, that doesn't mean that the information, or the sourcing , within the the former article was ever invalid. It can still be a good source of vaild information or referencing, no?Pagetools (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, I have just found out, by a little research on line, that you are one of the adminstrators who has an agenda against Barbaro-family subject matter. Here is a link proving that: [[1]].

I do not appreciate to be involved in your agenda of removing all Barbaro-family subject matter pertaing to the Albergo branch- and I would appreciate if you leave me alone from this point forward. I felt it was a wee bit suspicious that you took notice in me after I did some legitimate organization to the Barbaro-family page. If your behavior continues, Wikipedia will be notifed of your unprofessional behavior. Thank youPagetools (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Wikipedia administrator, and I suggest that if you have any complaints about my behavior that you think require administrator intervention, you make them on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Deor (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch

Thanks for spotting the Barbaro hoaxer this time. I have informed everyone that I informed the last time they were spotted and asked there and on your report for the variable IPs to be checked for more hidden socks. Edward321 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is made up, you are calling people hoaxers just for the fun of it.

Edward 321 is another person talked about in that link too. You are just trying to cover your own backsPagetools (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single bit of Barbaro-family info that I edited today that doesn't have appropriate linkage and sourcing- and all of the material that was removed from Wikipedia before from the Barbaro family page, also had legit sourcing- I back tracked the Barbaro family page and checked- its all sourced.Pagetools (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]