User talk:D323P
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] franken stuff
I redacted out the section that basically amounted to accusations that D323P wasn't being collegial. Given the progress of the mediation thus far- we have 1 section perfectly ready for inclusion, another section or two that are approved but awaiting bibliographical citations and cite web template formatting- we've made a lot of progress. Let's continue to work on improving the article, and let's focus on content, not contributors, and we'll get through this thing ok? (Please make any responses on my talk page, as I have 3000+ articles on my watch list and cannot always remember to check them all.) ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 06:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You would be wise not to tell experienced editors, especially ones with a long history of substantive edits, with articles that have reached Good Article status, what policy means and what they should/should not do. It just makes you look foolish and inexperienced. --David Shankbone 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The crude and impolite manner in which you conduct yourself, in addition to your utter lack of collaborative spirit, gives the impression that you are unfamiliar of how this site operates. D323P 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Coming from a user who inserts his own (crude) website into articles, lashes out at anyone who questions him, shows no ability to grasp the spirit of guidelines, has made no friends on this site, show little ability to move beyond his own worldview and collaborate, and has a history of contentious edits, I will take that as a compliment. --David Shankbone 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- "a history of contentious edits": LOL. That would apply to you, like when you added an anonymous "blogspot.com" site to the article.D323P 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- "crude website"?? ... Frankenlies.com has been cited in no less than TWO books, one of which was a New York Times bestseller. It was also cited by Bill O'Reilly on both his TV and radio shows. I have been interviewed by three radio hosts, who found the site very informative. D323P (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- "a history of contentious edits": LOL. That would apply to you, like when you added an anonymous "blogspot.com" site to the article.D323P 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Coming from a user who inserts his own (crude) website into articles, lashes out at anyone who questions him, shows no ability to grasp the spirit of guidelines, has made no friends on this site, show little ability to move beyond his own worldview and collaborate, and has a history of contentious edits, I will take that as a compliment. --David Shankbone 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Your request
You said that I owe you an apology for some remarks that SwatJester redacted. I've considered them, and agree that I overstated my case in some places. It's true that you have made some steps toward collaboration, and I'm sorry for saying you took none. Please understand, none of it was meant as a personal attack. I don't fault you as a person for your approach, I just don't know that Wikipedia is the best venue for it. But you may be in the process of proving me wrong; if so, carry on. Sorry to hurt your feelings, and I'll try to do better. -Pete 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
