User talk:SlamDiego
Contents |
---|
Orc Hives
|
---|
Some messages may be found |
· in the first orc hive, |
· in the second orc hive, |
· in the third orc hive, |
· in the fourth orc hive, |
· in the fifth orc hive, |
· in the sixth orc hive, |
· in the seventh orc hive, |
· in the eighth orc hive, |
· in the ninth orc hive, |
· in the tenth orc hive, |
· in the eleventh orc hive, |
· in the twelfth orc hive, |
· in the unlucky orc hive, |
· in the fourteenth orc hive, |
· in the fifteenth orc hive, |
· in the sixteenth orc hive, |
· in the seventeenth orc hive, or |
· in the eighteenth orc hive. |
Click the “new section” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion. |
Unsigned comment from Triberocker
wow, you would. i even said "no offense", but you obviously took one. i mean no harm, i would just love to be able to voice my own opinion on my own page. with all due respect, i don't believe it's any of your business. i am not attacking you personally. thank you for your valuable time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triberocker (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NPA does not make an exception for personal attacks prefaced with “no offense”, personal attacks on one's own user page, or a combination of the two. —SlamDiego←T 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)]
December 2009
Thank you for helping roll back to the vandalism on my user page. It is tremendously appreciated!! Kartano (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
getting personal
Hello--I felt the need to call you on what appears to be a personality-driven approach to the discussion at Talk:Classical_liberalism. I'm spending little time on WP right now, and don't wish to get too much into personality-driven such myself, so I hope I can just leave it at that. I consider you a general ally in improving economics articles, as I do LK. Unless there's an unusually overriding cause (as there is in discussing actual guidelines), I know I'd rather see you two ignore each other than snipe. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Cretog8, I strongly believe that you act in good faith, though I sometimes believe that you are significantly wrong about behind-the-articles dynamics. Lawrencekhoo repeatedly misrepresents policy, with a consistent bias in the nature of the misrepresentation. Having policy misrepresented without challenge in places such as the discussion at “Classical liberalism” creätes or reïnforces a context in which misapprehensions will later be brought to bear in discussions about things such as the guidelines of some WikiProject. —SlamDiego←T 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Having now read your latest response at Talk:Classical_liberalism, I am disappointed. You represent things as if I were silent until Lawrencekhoo expressed himself; in fact, I was involved in discussion in that section a bit more than five days before he expressed himself (as well as my having made a tangential point a day or two before his remark). And, in representing me as having said that his remark should be dismissed, you fairly compel me to explain more bluntly in what way I was actually saying that his remark should be treated. You're throwing gasoline on the fire that you presumably wanted out. —SlamDiego←T 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Holiday unpleasantries
Hmmm ... Do you think Santa is not already updating his naughty and nice list? (serious smile)
The slightest touch of wit would render it less an aspersion on the caster. Surely it can be improved, if not removed. Take as much time as you need. ;-) If lessons would be helpful, I can give you a free one. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would be interesting to see some editor raise an objection that involved some insistence that his-or-her edits were demonstrably amongst the madness to which I referred. —SlamDiego←T 09:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DMCer™ 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
JohnHarold
Hi, I see you were involved in the JohnHarold sockpuppet case in 2008. He appears to be back under the name of JonathanHarold, though he's being rather more restrained at the moment. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's remarkable that he would create a fifth account in this context. Anyway, thanks for giving me a heads-up, and we'll just hope that he'll edit appropriately. —SlamDiego←T 19:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Post on Wikiquette
I have several times asked you to provide proof of your accusation that I have bad mouthed people in article space, or to retract the accusation. Instead you have equivocated and posted long screeds to cloud the issue. I have just posted
LK (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you perhaps already know, your complaint to WQA alerts was rejected as not filed in good faith. As you certainly already know, I repeatedly offered to provide the diff that you demanded, on condition that you promise to apology if indeed the diff were produced. You ignored that condition each time.
- You declare
I have twice been the victim of his habit of casting unfounded aspersions
- Of course, you have far more than twice made the claim that I've cast unfounded aspersions, you often present these claims insultingly, and when they don't stand-up under scrutiny, you don't apologize or even retract; you just let the matter die-away. The one time that I was indeed mistaken in attributing an edit to you, when you produced the diff that disproved what I said, I quickly apologized both in the forum where I made the mistaken attribution, and here on my talk page. Even then, you wanted me to confess to more, in spite of being told by another editor, friendly to you, that the rest of your charges were dubious.
- I don't think that you should continue this pattern of inferring aspersion, venting insult, and then just walking away. So, here, I conditioned my delivery of the diff on your agreement to apologize if I presented it. If there was not way for me to find such a diff, then why didn't you agree?
- In hindsight, a fair part of the problem in this case began with your attempt to insult me obliquely, as “badmouthing”. I wasn't insulted, because I know what it actually means. But, thinking it insulting, you were outraged to have it used in reference to your own severe criticism. Once outraged, you couldn't get yourself under control, even when you learned the actual meaning; it only made you angrier.
- You need a Wikibreak. And, whether you take a break or not, you need to focus any edits henceforth on where you can do some constructive good. —SlamDiego←T 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, unfortunately, it seems in rather poor taste, given that the reason I need a wikibreak is because of your actions and the actions of USER:Skipsievert. The reason I respond here is that I notice that you again impute bad actions to me without cause. You state above that "you have far more than twice made the claim that I've cast unfounded aspersions". That clearly implies that I have done so on at least three or four occasions (how does one define 'far more', definitely more than one more, but how many?) before the current bruhaha. This is a false statement, produce the diffs if you can. This is exactly the behavior that I am complaining about, and the behavior that is giving me so much grief – implying misbehaviour on the part of people that you do not like without adequate cause. I don't know what culture you grew up in, but in the culture I was brought up in, this behaviour is unacceptable. LK (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- And a week after those diffs were promptly presented in reply to your demand for them, the response from you is… silence. You've not been away from Wikipedia; you're still continuing the aforementioned pattern: “you often present these claims insultingly, and when they don't stand-up under scrutiny, you don't apologize or even retract; you just let the matter die-away”. I suppose that if we trivialize the notion of culture to where single individuals have their own distinct culture, this could be said to be an expression of your culture. —SlamDiego←T 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of The Big Blue Book of Bicycle Repair
I have nominated The Big Blue Book of Bicycle Repair, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Blue Book of Bicycle Repair. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. I have explained my rôle in the creätion of the article at the AfD discussion, and contacted LP-mn, who provided the content that was cloned to the nominated article. —SlamDiego←T 08:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Big Blue Book
I have nominated Big Blue Book, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Blue Book. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Civility Award | ||
I give you this award for remaining civil at NPOV/N, despite our strong disagreement. Swarm(Talk) 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC) |
It's easy to become uncivil in a dispute, but you maintained civility throughout the discussion. You're obviously a very reasonable person, and I appreciate that.
I won't be pursuing the argument anymore...I'm just going to let it go for various reasons. Anyway, thanks. Swarm(Talk)
Austrian School
Let's not get into a silly edit war. I asked you multiple times to show where McCulloch addresses utility functions. You're more than welcome to oblige my request on the Austrian School talk page. Though, in case things go much further...
- Your declaring that I am in an edit war might amuse you, but I don't think that it's going to fool or amuse the admins.
- The claim that I first removed was both bald and false. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the content of McCulloch's article doesn't negate that content, and McCulloch's article was peer-reviewed, whereäs Caplan's webpage was not.
- When you placed a less bald version in the article, you justified it with a bogus claim of OR. And Caplan's claim, as such, is already in the “Criticism” section of the article. If there is any grounds for leaving this claim in the article at all, there is no good reason to have it appear twice.
- —SlamDiego←T 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
William Nottingham Beebe Rape Case
Hello, I've proposed to move the reference of this incident from the Phi Kappa Psi page to a new bio about William Nottingham Beebe. I've begun to create such an article here: User:NYCRuss/Sandbox/William Nottingham Beebe. Discussion about this is here: Talk:Phi Kappa Psi#Discussion to Move William Beebe Rape to Separate Article. Regards, NYCRuss (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
RfC
Hello, I've posted an RfC about this topic. You've participated in discussions about this before, and you're dispassionate participation will be appreciated. NYCRuss ☎ 12:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)