User talk:Struct

User talk:Struct/Archive 1-14-2007
User talk:Struct/Archive 1-15-2007
User talk:Struct/Archive 3-18-2007

Single Purpose Accounts[edit]

Please read what I have written over at the Jericho talk page. If you do that again, seeing your Archived talk pages, I will request moderation, and if need be, action.--Fshy 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're obviously a troll, feel free to do whatever you feel like. Struct 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After having cooled down, and thought things over, I probably acted unprofessionally and apologize. I probably took that tag as an insult, when it was probably meant in good faith. I request that we move our little spat over here or to my talk page, as it basically had nothing to do with the topic in question. I still feel the tag was inappropriate, but I overreacted. --Fshy 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

It is unclear what the specific source for the copyright violation is on List of government agencies in comics. Could you explain further here. As it is such a serious issue we'd like to have all the information to hand so we can make the right decision and fix this situation asap. Thanks. (Emperor 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your concern, but copyvio'ing the whole page is a drastic and premature move. Groupthink 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning me[edit]

I think issuing that warning was unnecessary. As was clear on from my edit comments and from talk page discussion the reason large parts of the article were unreferenced was because of an issue arising from one of the reference being deemed an unreliable source, which meant we had to remove the lot. It will take a while to fully reference everything but I note that such an effort is currently ongoing. If you have problems with the entry please address them on the talk page rather using unsupported claims for copyright violation (see comments above and on the talk page) and issuing warnings for my reverting your removal of the page (without trying to get a consensus which seems to be in favour of the article being useful and fully sourcable) to try and impose your opinion on the page.

So to summarise: If there are problems take them up on the talk page or get a second opinion on the comics project. (Emperor 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Eric Rudolph and Olympic Park bomber rvs[edit]

Hey there, thanks for the support! I reverted your edits in the interest of consensus-building, which if you look at my user page, you'll see is a process I am highly skeptical of. But sometimes things just have to play out. Feel free to revert again if no one responds soon! Groupthink (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob I guess? Personally I think your edits are Wikipedia:Bold and the other eds are playing games with policy because of their confirmation bias, but it's all good. Struct (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]