Doug Weller (talk | contribs) m →hatting: ce, remove blank line |
→hatting: unreal |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
:::Kat's right. I should have removed the word 'malicious', and you should not have hatted it. Stop this now please. On behalf of the Arbitration Committe, [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::Kat's right. I should have removed the word 'malicious', and you should not have hatted it. Stop this now please. On behalf of the Arbitration Committe, [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Unreal. But not surprising <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:19, 7 September 2010
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Oh brother
This is all very predictable. Note that the admin who denied the unblock request cited 3 diffs -- 2 of which are exactly the same diff is a redirect of an improper merge. If a redirect is a violation of BLP then the editor who I was redirecting is also an egregious BLP violator.
The actions that have been taken since the article went to mainspace is why the article was written in the first place and why the subject is notable and sourced in secondary sources.
Now an SPI? LOL.
Oligarchy is right. (actually an old post but forgot to sign way back when -- wondered why this post never got archived) Minor4th 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You are mentioned on my talkpage
You may want to look at it. GregJackP Boomer! 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Check your WP email. GregJackP Boomer! 04:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, do a youtube search for "Hide the Decline satire" - and watch the two vids, the first one Mann threatened to sue for defamation over. The second is better IMO. BTW, they made Fox, CBS, Rush, etc. Might be good for an article.... GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Check your GJP mail. Funny you mention that video because I think I came across that earlier today or maybe it was a Monckton satire. I'll look, thanks. Minor4th 05:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- LOL Nope, this is not the vid I saw earlier, but the first one made me laugh out loud because it's so silly ... and catchy. Looking up the lawsuit threats now. Minor4th 05:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Was already an article, was deleted despite all the sources, one was even nature mag. I think a quest for knoladge has it in his userspace mark nutley (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't really interested in creating an article, and from the coverage I saw in the media, nothing really ever came of this other than some finger wagging. It has all led me to some more interesting and pertinent reading, however. Are we allowed to use the Climategate emails in articles now? Oh wait ... maybe you're not the right guy to ask :) (Just kidding with you.) Minor4th 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Check your GJP mail. Funny you mention that video because I think I came across that earlier today or maybe it was a Monckton satire. I'll look, thanks. Minor4th 05:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2010
- In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities
- Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000
- Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?
unsigned
Did you mean to leave this unsigned? Perhaps to save it from the depredations of the archive bot? ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't know it wasn't signed and kept wondering why that one post never got archived. Signed now. Minor4th 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 September 2010
- Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky
- WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force
- Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th
- Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more
- Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management
Barnstar
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For being brave enough to change your mind in the midst of the most acrimonious editing environment I've encountered in two years at Watts Up With That?, I award you this barnstar. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks :) Minor4th 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well deserved. We need more good examples like yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
Because you got a (well deserved) barnstar from SA. You must be doing something right, so keep doing what you're doing! ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Wow. Thanks. Ok, now where are the cookies? :) Minor4th 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
incivility
You might want to review someone's edits, or at least take a look at their talk page, before you start issuing threats. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kwami, why do keep calling the article a POV fork? If you're going to be taking administrative action related to it, you probably should try to be a neutral party. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a threat, and it wasn't incivil. It was a stern explanation of my intent if the action was not corrected, and it was warranted under the circumstances. When I clicked the new section tab, there was no discussion on your talk page about this. Feel free to delete it if it bothers you, so long as the message was delivered and read. Thanks. Minor4th 07:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it was incivil. You took a combatitive approach that, in the end, was not needed. All that was needed was some good faith discussion. You could have started with the good faith discussion, but instead you started with the threats if you didn;t get your own way. Which of course had already happened by the time you posted to Kwamis talkpage. So not only do you look like a big meanie but also a bit silly for jumping in after the matter had been civilly solved with your incivil warnings. You should try and calm down a little before posting, in general, because this kind of approach generally leads to incivility from your "opponent" also (and well done Kwami for not responding in kind). Weakopedia (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
hatting
I don't think you should be hatting discussions that heavily you are involved with. That is what clerks are for. Lets let them decide where the hat goes.--*Kat* (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've raised this with the clerk, and also M4th re-instroduction of PA's into the header William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think either of you should be adding and manipulating headers in the middle of a discussion. That's what clerks are for. Let's let them decide where to add headers. William, arent you under a refactoring restriction? Oh what the hell difference does it make now, right? Minor4th 12:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kat's right. I should have removed the word 'malicious', and you should not have hatted it. Stop this now please. On behalf of the Arbitration Committe, Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)