Draft by blackngold29
Draft by GrapedApe
Draft by Marketdiamond
7th time (on the 13th day) I have repeatedly mentioned only the (all for consensus but these positions should be clear by now):
- "Cizmar, Martin (2009-07-27). "Arizona Cardinals Fans, You'd Better Get Ferocious or Steeler Nation Will Eat You Alive". Phoenix New Times (Phoenix, Arizona). Retrieved 2009-02-04." aka "w.t. and h.b." for complete deletion.
- Please see another view HERE on author and publication
- WP:COMMONSENSE time after 13 days of providing several facts against 1 persons (Cizmar) RACISTWP:GFFENSE. --Marketdiamond (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Draft by 126.96.36.199
- What is with all these Draft sections
you posted, Marketdiamond that someone posted??? We were right on the verge of ending this whole matter. All we needed was one question answered and we would've been done. Why did you someone clutter up the whole discussion by doing this? --188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not I, best I can figure out Dmitrij D. Czarkoff did, but he stepped down or didn't or . . . Marketdiamond (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Completely agree.
- Sorry, you're right. It was Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Two weeks of mostly irrelevant discussion. And now this, which will of course only perpetuate all the chaos. And Dmitrij removed himself five days ago: "Now, as I contributed to this discussion as much as my awareness of US matters allows, I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)" It's a huge disruption to a 13-day discussion, so I removed it. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't get to do that. And edit-warring on a noticeboard? Are you… touched? —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- If someone is disruptively editing they most certainly can be reverted. Kerfuffler, are you a sockpuppet? Your account was started just days ago and yet you seem to know an awful lot about editing. And per your talk page, I'm apparently not the only editor wondering about this; there are at least three others who are very suspicious of you. The third one said, "Came to this user talk page from an ANI discussion that he took part in - reviewing his earliest edits, I am also deeply suspicious and feel this one should be thoroughly investigated". Are you using mulitiple accounts to edit? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The only evidence of disruptive editing on this noticeboard is from you. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Interestingly, you didn't answer the question. And you just showed up in this discussion without any prior participation. Are you a sockpuppet? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, we are patiently waiting for volunteer(s?) to assess some of these points after one stated our comments are going "stale", and all about slurs in a "source". Perhaps your expertise Kerfuffler can be used to further the resolution. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Market, I don't want his involvement because he won't even answer if he's using mulitiple accounts at the same time to edit. He just showed up here after two weeks, minutes after I removed the disruptive content. As several other editors have clearly told him, it's very suspicious. See his talk page --22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not plugged into NFL stuff enough to really make sense of what's going on here, but it smells like the main players here all have a vested personal interest in this. Also, it's particularly hard to sort out with all the yelling. The only thing I can say is that the quote does seem a bit over the top—I don't think WP should be harboring extremist tripe. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is now the second time that Kerfuffler has refused to answer if he/she is using multiple accounts to edit. He/she also refused to answer all the other editors who stated their strong suspicions. Therefore, his/her participation here would have no credibility at this point. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- @188.8.131.52, already did but its moot  I agree that after 14 days we deserve tons more clarity and mature discussion (1 dedicated volunteer).
- @Kerfuffler, appreciate your thoughts. I don't feel the problem with this topic is editors not trying to do whats right after having to suffer through 14 days of repeat requests all while living with slurs on a Wiki article, after awhile of chaos WP:COMMONSENSE is sorely needed by those we brought this issue to.
Marketdiamond (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Already did" what?? Kerfuffler has yet to answer a simple question: Are you using multiple accounts to edit? He/she may very well be another editor in this discussion, using a different account. If he's a new editor, as the Kerfuffler account indicates, then he clearly does not have the experience to moderate this discussion. And if he's a sockpuppet, then the account should be permanently blocked from editing. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You requested: See his talk page --220.127.116.11 (talk), just letting you know already did but since it is just more of this sentiment  its moot. If this can co-exist I do appreciate Kerfuffler's statement on the merits (interruption is more chaos thou) and seeing that apparently the volunteers are letting this be a talk page again I agree with your actions 18.104.22.168 all things considered. Does it really take 14 days to resolve "cited" racial slurs on a Wikipedia "fanbase" article . . . seriously. 12 days to ask for the citation again?? Really?Marketdiamond (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're looking for. This board is not for making decisions; it's for getting more input from uninvolved people in order to improve consensus. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 00:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I don't have an issue with slurs per se, if they're properly sourced and relevant. But in this case, the original article is clearly polemic, and the way it's quoted makes it even more polemic. It seems inappropriate. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Market, of course you appreciate his comments; because they agree with ours. Haha. And who cares if the source is polemic (as if most editors will even know what that means without looking it up)? It's completely irrelevant. All that matters is if the content is worthy of inclusion. Here we go again... back in senseless circles. And from someone who won't even answer all the editors who have asked him if he's a sockpuppet. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.