User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2011/February

Humanism

I think you're a little confused about what's going on at Humanism. The BCE/CE era style has been stable at that article for years. BC/AD was introduced only yesterday, first by an IP, and again by a disruptive user who has now been blocked for his misconduct in the matter. The whole thing was discussed in this section at AN/I. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:ERA. I am about to revert to BCE/CE, which is the stable, long-term era style at that article. Please leave it that way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did not know that it had been changed before. Happy Christmas.--Charles (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

My latest addition

Please provide your input here[1]. I have already shown the "sources" a certain editor is using does not support his opinion. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Note WP:3RR and please do not blindly revert me [2]. What I wrote was not about Chomsky at all. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks. You are the one who inserted out of context material for a third time after I asked that it be discussed first. Did you expect me to accept the offline reference which I had not then read after you had used Chomsky in a totally inapropriate way to reference something right outside of his areas of expertise?--Charles (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall you do another blind revert, I will not be writing on your userpage. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever--Charles (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mehmed II

Would you care to join the discussion concerning the portrait for the article Mehmed II? Talk:Mehmed II. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not again, Charles ... really?

Dear Charles, stop what? Stop editing a page? On what grounds? User:Kansas_Bear flagged my edits on the grounds that I did not have a published source printed by a reputable scholarly press. That issue has now been resolved. After my lengthy rejoinder to your points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Corunna#British_Victory), I heard NOTHING back from you regarding the substance of my comments, either regarding the history being debated, or the protocols of Wiki-editing. Sorry, but "like hell it is" is not a response.

Schpinbo (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

you did actually respond, in the following fashion: "Schpinbo seems to have a good understanding of the rules when it suits him/her.--Charles (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)" Schpinbo (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to bully me will not do you any good.--Charles (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles, I'm afraid it is you who are bullying me. You threaten me with blocking because you don't like my POV; I address the substance of yours and User:Kansas_Bear's assertions, which means you effectively place yourself in the position of "calling the shots" on what gets to be included in the Battle of Corunna page and what not; and, most dismayingly of all, rather than actually engage me in the talk page, you leave my points unaddressed and revert my last edit with the angry "like hell it is." Schpinbo (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)