User talk:85.182.9.116

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thanks But No Thanks on the Vandalism

  • If you're not acting underhandedly, possession of a wiki account permits editing worldwide, and means you're responsible enough to answer the occasional call to account for your actions. If I had my way, no email=no edits. Period. Would put a stop to much of the problems we have with socketpuppets like you. If you aren't, why no account? Wiki doesn't place any cookies unless you check the 'remember me' checkbox. So you can use it on machines where and whenever without looking like a sneak and vandal.
I agree with some of your points, but I didn't take this on because it was well cross-refenced and well developed. Frankly, it sucked as I found it. So news of the 1632 series article is exactly that News. (Not surprised, but hadn't even looked for it yet.) I did the expansion on impulse, had other work on the stack (and edited other stuff while working it). Then there was the mediation. There's only so much time in a day, and it's not terribly important article. Eric hasn't even returned my email yet with the questions I asked... but now that the series article is outted (my POV <g>), most of that will be more appropo there, as it was mostly about books under contract and such.
You see, When the text is flowing, I don't interupt the flow with irrelevancies, and the state of the article (stub) was such that effort was essentially all composition. You may disagree with what is a good choice of developing article, and what should be in it, but cutting it like that was clearly temper or immaturity as well as vandalism.
In light of that initial state, especially in light of the construction template and the inadequate stub you reverted to, wouldn't you agree that your revert was more tempermental than well considered? (btw- why the sneak?)
What triggered that clear vandalism?
The truth about the Pope and church? (I'm devoutly Catholic, my oldest is about to recieve Confirmation as a matter of fact, but any reasonable reading of history will show what I wrote is quite correct. Corruption was rampant, much as bad as the sex scandals we had here in Boston, now which are popping out all over the world; Ireland last week, I think. Where does knowing history imperil faith? Or you that unsure of your own? I certainly didn't make anything up, but I'm not going to tone down truth either. A spade is a spade, not a heart or club!
I wecome your input, but specific factual objections should be handled by excerpting the text

and challenging the same there. If my guess at your trigger is correct, be prepared to learn some hard disappointing facts. That the presentation might be softened should be part of the agenda as well as others have involved themselves, frankly, I'm tempted to leave it to you all now that I've stimulated interest. It's not really of big importance to me as it doesn't aid someone looking for real world facts.

Regarding your post on 1632 (novel)–Talk:1632 (novel), I'm glad to see you returned to the scene of the crime as it were. I don't mind your input, and better yet, participation — I'm afraid it's been closer to 35 than 30 years since I did this sort of article (i.e. Book Report.)
I'm sorry you think the historical 'hook' is inappropriate to the first books arty, but that was the best thing I could think of to show why the book has triggered such a phenomenal growth in attention. Goto Baens bar and just look at the section counts. It's not an 800# gorilla, but instead a King Kong. Even the Honorverse sctions look weak comparatively, or so I recollect.
That's another free account, btw, but they'll only let you in after they email you a password. Just like wikipedia needs to do.FrankB

I'll have more for you there then — Wednesday perhaps, unless something is up for discussion when I re-read your and others messages. But this keyboard is killing me, and I need to go to my computer.

Hmmmmmmmm. I even logged in on my wife's laptop.... Imagine that!

btw WELCOME! But watch the vandalism. FrankB 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, 85.182.9.116, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

FrankB 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)