moved comment to chrono order and respond |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/citation-and-trustworthiness Citation and trustworthiness] |
[http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/citation-and-trustworthiness Citation and trustworthiness] |
||
:Ok thanks, but I'm confused why you're telling me this. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 18:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
:Ok thanks, but I'm confused why you're telling me this. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 18:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
Here's what you have to do. You have to read what I post to see the sources cited. Since they're cited, they also stay. Also, I am adding to the article. Your disagreement of the cited sources doesn't make it any less an add. It just becomes your PoV. Don't delete my valuable additions just because they don't agree with yours. If you do so, you will be blocked.--[[User:BB69|bb69]] 18:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69 |
Revision as of 18:21, 6 December 2005
- Note: In order to keep a coherent conversation, I'll usually respond only here to comments unless you request me to do otherwise. Thank you, and happy wikiing.
WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles |
---|
|
Miscellaneous |
|
For older discussion see: Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5, Archive6,
Block of anon user
Good 1 week block. Nice to see an admin taking a strong stand against vandals. None of that 24 hour block or "well he needs to be warned fifty time AGAIN" (like they are entitled to some kind of due process or that they forgot that vandalims is wrong...") Good job. You're on my list of good admins now :)Later.Gator (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well I'm all for due process, and warnings first are very good because sometimes they do work. But once warned, when an editor shows obvious intent to cause problems, we don't need them. I do prefer a recent test4 before blocking for a long time though, unless it's really obvious. I agree in general we are way to lenient with people that are not helping the project. It's not that hard to play by the rules. - Taxman Talk 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well said. See you around.Gator (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you remind me after you have about three months of editing experience and do some content creation (maybe I missed it in your vandal fighting work though) I'll nominate you for adminship. If you're willing to fix up our legal articles that would be great, but any topic you have good references for or are willing to research would be good too. Those are my personal preferences for admin candidates, and many share them, but you may get nominated and be successful without that. - Taxman Talk 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey
Taxman, are you back now? :-) --HappyCamper 15:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Moreso, I figured I'd just be honest that I never managed to completely give up the addiction. :) But yeah, I'll pretty much be here but just avoid getting involved in things that will take major amounts of time. Thanks for noticing - Taxman Talk 13:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay :-) Nice having you around! --HappyCamper 01:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the b'day greetings. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Citations
I think we agree: Citation and trustworthiness
Here's what you have to do. You have to read what I post to see the sources cited. Since they're cited, they also stay. Also, I am adding to the article. Your disagreement of the cited sources doesn't make it any less an add. It just becomes your PoV. Don't delete my valuable additions just because they don't agree with yours. If you do so, you will be blocked.--bb69 18:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69