User talk:Edison
|
● Archive 1: 8 May 2006-31 Dec 2006
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
RfC Invitation
Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
- News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
- In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Notability of news events
Prompted by the Colorado balloon incident and its AfD, renewed efforts are under way to work out a guideline for notability of incidents/events. See Wikipedia:Notability (news events). I thought you'd be interested as you wrote Wikipedia:News articles. Fences&Windows 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).
Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.
Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
RD thread
I am offended by this comment, and I disagree that the thread with the deleted question was "incomprehensible". —Steve Summit (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm genuinely concerned about his mental state
He's demonstrating an unhealthy psychological fixation. It's not a personal attack, it's a considered (lay) opinion. He really does need to get help, because his obsession is not good for him or for Wikipedia.
His subsequent edits to Steve's talk page illustrate both that he's stalking my contribtions (and has done so for more than a year) and my point that there's something not quite right in his head. Look at the history of childish vandalism to my userpage (and on dozens of other user pages on Wikipedia, whenever other editors have rolled back his trolling and vandalism).
Do you honestly think that his actions represent those of an entirely rational person, behaving in a socially-acceptable manner? His behaviour is that of a stalker, and it is not a personal attack to honestly and openly acknowledge that problem.
You're welcome to disagree with my opinion of him, but please don't misuse WP:NPA to issue bogus cautions. If you have something constructive to offer to resolve years of harrassment by this individual, I'm open to suggestions — otherwise, I didn't find your message to be helpful or reasonable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dont you realise, Ten, that Lc is only paying you back in kind for what you are continually doing to him (ie reverting blocking and banning)?