User talk:Brain.wilson

Welcome!

Hello, Brain.wilson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Allison mark, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Eeekster (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allison mark

A tag has been placed on Allison mark requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Martin Heidegger that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. --Snowded ^TALK 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "attack" anyone. You repeatedy attacked me as a "sock puppet" and refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page, claiming that "the debate has moved on". Brain.wilson (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate had moved on, you needed to engage with where that debate was, rather than something which has already stale. Reading the talk page is not an unreasonable burden. Given the recent history of the page, and the fact that your behaviour matched (and matches) that of our serial sock my suspicion was reasonable. The way to overcome that is to act in a civilised fashion, strike your nonsensical accusations and discuss content only. --Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My rebuttal was made on Feb. 17th to a post made on Feb. 13th. The debate had certainly not moved on, despite your assertions to the contrary. In fact, on Feb. 22nd, your yourself wrote "I'm happy for the lede to reference Nazi not National Socialism and open to a quote. However we need to clear out the sock and then discuss". Since you admit that the subject was still open to discussion on Feb.22nd, in what way had the debate moved on?

As to the reasonableness of your suspicion of sock puppetry, I am not a sock puppet. So regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable your suspicion is, you are wrong. And, rather than respond substantively to my points, you choose to simply attack me as a sock puppet.

I have tried repeatedly to discuss content, yet you consistently respond with personal attacks completely devoid of substance. There is nothing whatsoever uncivilized about my behavior. Perhaps you need to stop worrying so much about the behavior of those that you disagree with and worry more about your own.Brain.wilson (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Cheney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I have no liking for Dick Cheney, but Wikipedia has strict standards on biographies. I suggest you spend some time using the help pages referenced above and learn how to edit here. --Snowded ^TALK 22:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]