User talk:Stone put to sky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 1
Contents |
[edit] Advice I was given
I was told seeing as our current situation is growing and your usage of questionable sources is on the rise that I assume good faith and instead point you toward Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:CITE and WP:RS. I hope you read these and ask the fols on those respective talk pages for any advice or questions you may have about sources I remove, or ask for. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- good advice User:NuclearUmpf, maybe you and User:NuclearUmpf can agree on guidelines about these three policy pages, maybe Seabhcan, who helped stop an edit war between myself and User:NuclearUmpf, and was praised by User:NuclearUmpf, can make suggestions. I will post a link on Seabhcan's page. Another option is a third party mediator, you can start another mediation together, like I did on the alleged terrorism page. Travb (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I like this idea. I'm up to my neck at work today, however, but give me a while to think about it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Remark edited. This is not the page for a debate on the American Terrorism page. Take it there. Stone put to sky 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Huh? I absolutely have no idea what that sentence is trying to say. Stone put to sky 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Your stuff
You are not permitted to post in other peoples evidence section. --NuclearZer0 11:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Am already on it. Check the changelog for proof. Stone put to sky 11:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Debate the points?
I am fine with that, but please do not revert my edits if you are not going to make a talk page edit to actually debate them. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Machiavelli view on wikipedia
This may help you, A Machiavelli view on wikipedia. This is advice I gave to User:Joshuarooney who is now indefinetly banned, because he didn't listen.
I see much, much more hope for you, because I see that you are listening to me, and changing your editing behavior.
Nuclear wrote: "is an attack and if you continue them I will file and RfC" He is serious. Ask User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All how fun his RfC is, it was filed by those who share some of the same views as Nuclear, and edit all the same pages, including the page you are debating on. I would suggestion apologizing to Nuclear, immediatly. He may or not recipocate. That doesn't matter. It is in your best interest to sincerely apologize.
Seabhcan refused to apologize, and he is desopyed. In ArbCom's, since you are not an admin, they will ban you. A RfC is the first step to a ban. If Fair continues to mouth off, other wikiusers will happily file a ArbCom.
I say this as a virtual friend.
Here is my advice I moved from the Allegations page:
- User:Stone put to sky, Nuclear is always going to have the better argument, because he is able to contain his emotions better than you. Until you learn to contain your emotions, and not get mad, Nuclear will get the best if you. If you are frustrated at Nuclear, e-mail me or someone else you feel shares your POV, and rant there, not on wikipedia. I am a good listener.
- User:Stone put to sky: stop writing stuff like this, these broad generalizations: NuclearUmpf is willing to accept are those propagated and applied by the U.S. Executive and the U.S. military. Even if it is true, it does not help your argument one bit, and if you are not careful with what you say, those words can give others ammunition to file an RfC, as Nuclear stated: "If he wishes to continue in this antagonistic behavior" is an attack and if you continue them I will file and RfC."
I am asking User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All, to advise you how fun RfC's are. Travb (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Less fun than a barrel of Bush-monkeys. Civility is VERY important. I learned my lesson and now I'm as polite as a schoolmarm. I advise you (Stone) to do the same. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Amen, if I ever get out of line, let me know, and I will immediately delete the comment, immediatly. One of my many pet peeves about wikipedia is about most admins and veteran editors is how arrogant they are, they know better than everyone else.
- I never want to be like that, and ignore advice from those who have been on wikipedia less time then me. They may have good advice that they learned outside of wikipedia, good life lessons. I always appreciate your advice, thanks man, happy editing.
- I suggest you rewrite that section, and delete those parts that offended Nuclear. If you decide to apologize to Nuclear, send me the link. It will honestly make my entire month. Travb (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- My guess is that Seabhcan, unlike a certain someone else, doesn't care one bit that he was DesiPopeyed. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice above F.A.A.F.A., I didn't realize it was you, I thought it was Stone, because this is not your usual tone. You really have changed. I am really glad. I was stupid and stubborn and it took me an indefinite ban to radically change. I am lucky to be here on wikipedia. Best wishes. On second thought, I am removing my comments about Sea. Sorry Seabhcan. I will apologize to him on his wikipage. Travb (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- My guess is that Seabhcan, unlike a certain someone else, doesn't care one bit that he was DesiPopeyed. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your new page
- User:Stone put to sky/A Travb (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Stone, how are you doing? Haven't heard from you for months. Nuclear was banned so maybe you can add back that information which you were fighting with him about. Travb (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
