Revision as of 14:23, 26 July 2013 editSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers300,790 edits →Take to 3O?: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:01, 26 July 2013 edit undoFinx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,346 edits →Take to 3O?Next edit → | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while, I think the other editor hasn't developed the article since, so it looks like it's at a standstill. That's probably a good idea. Thanks for the reminder. ] (]) 05:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | :Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while, I think the other editor hasn't developed the article since, so it looks like it's at a standstill. That's probably a good idea. Thanks for the reminder. ] (]) 05:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
::To be clear, I'm referring to ]. I'm sorry that I was clearer earlier. – ] (]) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | ::To be clear, I'm referring to ]. I'm sorry that I was clearer earlier. – ] (]) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::Oh, okay. I think there's enough people actively working on the article that it shouldn't be necessary to call it to anyone else's attention. If there's no resolution, we could probably give a try, I guess. Thanks again. ] (]) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:01, 26 July 2013
Archives |
Biased comment
Your comment in my Talk page is ideologically biased, in extreme. You should edit taking the principal use of the term, that is market anarchism = anarcho-capitalism. --Sageo (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, it concerns me very little whether you believe me to be 'biased.' It concerns me a lot more whether what I'm saying is factually accurate. The evidence does not support your assumptions. Finx (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Finx, loaded remarks against you made by other users I've encountered have compelled me to examine your contributions. I want to say that I appreciate your efforts on behalf of this encyclopedia, and hope you continue to make them in the face of adversity. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Original research template
The templates are justificated in talk page. Please use sources in talk page, not opinions. You shouldn't remove them until a consensus benn achieved. Another remove of template and I will denounce your attitude. I think we can dialogue without troubles, only you should avoid use Misplaced Pages as political forum, please. --Sageo (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I told you about remove templates, I don't want to get to a critic point and have to denounce you. Better, continue discoussing in talk page. At least we get to an agreement of make a disambiguation page.--Sageo (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Warning & ANI posting
Posting the "level 4" edit warning message and bringing the issue to the ANI at the same time is not appropriate. 1. The heavy handed warning, posted without the lower level, more gentle warnings, was too much. Why? because 2. you brought the issue to the ANI. Warnings should serve to remind editors of guidelines, not serve as ammunition for an ANI discussion. We go to ANI only after warnings have failed to resolve the issue. Also, I suggest you look at other dispute resolution sources WP:3O would be a good one because only you and Sageo were involved in the discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- User was warned here about two weeks ago regarding the same ongoing edit war. Thanks for the WP:3O link. I'll look into it later when I have time. Finx (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. It looks like the EW dispute is about the same article, so the next warning should have gone in the earlier section. When the polite warning does not work, you best post one from the next higher level, not the 4th level. In any event, there is nothing wrong per se with the templates. They get indexed into categories, etc., and serve to alert interested editors to take a look at the page and work on problems. I'm not concerned with the particular OR/SYN problems in the article, and hardly looked at the debate you've had. I was more concerned about how this matter got into the ANI realm so suddenly. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I didn't immediately yank the templates down out of spite. There was a discussion on the talk page and it seemed obvious that no real objections existed, except for the fact that the redirect was taken down -- and IIRC not by me, at first. My patience wears a little thin after having citations ignored and being accused of writing an essay about my political opinions the third time. I went to the noticeboard only because the discussion yielded nothing but vague threats and accusations. Finx (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. It looks like the EW dispute is about the same article, so the next warning should have gone in the earlier section. When the polite warning does not work, you best post one from the next higher level, not the 4th level. In any event, there is nothing wrong per se with the templates. They get indexed into categories, etc., and serve to alert interested editors to take a look at the page and work on problems. I'm not concerned with the particular OR/SYN problems in the article, and hardly looked at the debate you've had. I was more concerned about how this matter got into the ANI realm so suddenly. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
For your tireless efforts to make difficult Misplaced Pages articles more encyclopedic Steeletrap (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
Take to 3O?
Have you two thoroughly discussed the issue? Are you at a standstill? If so, I suggest you post the question at WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while, I think the other editor hasn't developed the article since, so it looks like it's at a standstill. That's probably a good idea. Thanks for the reminder. Finx (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm referring to Talk:Libertarianism#Can_we_please_stop_confusing_state_.22government.22_and_.22state.22.3F. I'm sorry that I was clearer earlier. – S. Rich (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. I think there's enough people actively working on the article that it shouldn't be necessary to call it to anyone else's attention. If there's no resolution, we could probably give a try, I guess. Thanks again. Finx (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm referring to Talk:Libertarianism#Can_we_please_stop_confusing_state_.22government.22_and_.22state.22.3F. I'm sorry that I was clearer earlier. – S. Rich (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)