User talk:DrL: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:15, 20 July 2006

Why not take the original CTMU article to Wikinfo, which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" policy for every article? Just a thought!--Byrgenwulf 11:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the original CTMU article and don't know who did (other than that his name is Tim Smith). He did a good job, though! Also, I don't think it needs a sympathetic POV, just a neutral one. Langan has written a lot of material and people who follow his work read it very closely and repeatedly. DrL 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DrL, do not edit my comments and change the words that I wrote (changing "socks" to "others"). If I say something you don't agree with, then by all means disagree with me, but do not edit my comments. I see you edited "IQ Prophet's" words as well. His spelling. Why not make sure you can spell properly before editing other people? If they are, in fact, other people. --Byrgenwulf 16:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue who IQ Prophet is. Didn't mean to offend and did not use "socks". Please don't make such accusations. Thx DrL 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Greetings. Byrgenwulf has requested mediation concerning the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe article. If you'd like to participate, you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-13 CTMU. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have joined the page some time ago and am still waiting for others to join the mediation process instead of vandalizing the CTMU article. DrL 15:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the mediation (link above) and refrain from massive deletes. DrL 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your edits on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for violating WP:3RR here. --ScienceApologist 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, thus far, I am the only one following the mediation process wrt the CTMU page. The 3RR rule does not hold in cases of vandalism or sudden mass deletion. DrL 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:3RR. It says nothing about "mass deletion" nor do the edits you reverted qualify as vandalism. --ScienceApologist 15:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DrL, you are not "the only one following the mediation process". Because this is an AfD, the mediation I requested has become redundant. And moreover, I responded to the mediator as well, so please don't try to slant things again. I see you removed my warning regarding 3RR that I gave you before (I understand now it should have come here, but you could have moved it instead of deleting it). Byrgenwulf 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 17 2006 (UTC) to Cognitive-Theoretic Model_of_the_Universe

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I was reverting mass deletes/vandalism (examine history for further details). It was my understanding that the 3RR rule does not apply in such cases. Please explain your action. Thank you. DrL 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR more carefully. Only blatant vandalism counts, which this wasn't - it appears to be a perfectly sensible argument about what should be on the page William M. Connolley 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your efforts to save CTMU. No one can say we didn't try. You might want to add your opinion to the deletion review. Thanks again. Tim Smith 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think it's hopeless. Chris and I very much appreciated your efforts. It's nice to see that there are people (albeit only a few) who understand and appreciate the CTMU. I hope to meet you one day at a time when we can all look back and laugh :) Take care, Tim. DrL 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:56, 20 July 2006 edit Tim Smith (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,306 edits Thank you ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:15, 20 July 2006 edit undo DrL (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,147 edits →‎Thank you Next edit →
Line 46:		Line 46:

	Thanks for your efforts to save [[CTMU]]. No one can say we didn't try. You might want to add your opinion to the [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_20#Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe\|deletion review]]. Thanks again. [[User:Tim Smith\|Tim Smith]] 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)		Thanks for your efforts to save [[CTMU]]. No one can say we didn't try. You might want to add your opinion to the [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_20#Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe\|deletion review]]. Thanks again. [[User:Tim Smith\|Tim Smith]] 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

			At this point, I think it's hopeless. Chris and I very much appreciated your efforts. It's nice to see that there are people (albeit only a few) who understand and appreciate the CTMU. I hope to meet you one day at a time when we can all look back and laugh :) Take care, Tim. [[User:DrL\|DrL]] 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)