User talk:Damiens.rf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.
Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived here. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Carl Freer

Why is it considered vandalism to report the truth? Is it because you don't want it to be true? You reversed a set of WELL documented edits to Freers' profile? Do you have an self-interest in smashing his reputation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.61.67 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit I've reverted had removed well-sourced criticism about Freer from the article, and added two bad sourced (a blog and a primary source). The info on the donation reported by the Atlanta Business Chronicle seems ok and could have been kept. --Damiens.rf 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Angel Ramos

Sorry, that I took so long to respond. I have an important out of country trip tomorrow and you know how it is. O.K. I did fix the link. Stan Griffin is a writer and contributor to Deaf Friends International an online magazine for the worldwide Deaf Community. Stan Griffin is the author of various books: [1]. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But still, can we use what he post on his webpage as reliable sources? The guy seems to have good credentials, but we must be careful to avoid an argument per authority here. --Damiens.rf 12:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just returned from my trip, what an adventure. Yes, I believe that we can use what he posted in his webpage since he posted his reference and source, which would be what is normally required by us. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comet

If you plan to rip out the majority of an article, please take it to the talk page. Thanks. --jacobolus (t) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would re-revert each of your specific changes, and provide a justification, but I don't have the several hours to spend on it right this minute. Please leave the article for the moment, and take it to the talk page. I'll be happy to justify every section of the article. --jacobolus (t) 21:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
But to throw you a bone here, as one example of where your removals and their justifications go wrong, see WP:N: “These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.” —jacobolus (t) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with WP:OWN. Note from that page: “In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.” —jacobolus (t) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please notice that Discuss is the key part of WP:BRD, and stop re-butchering the article until some consensus has been reached at the talk page. Thanks. —jacobolus (t) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you refuse to continue a discussion on the talk page. I'm quite willing to entertain suggestions for (even drastic) changes to the article. It's only chopping out the major part of it, while providing limited and rather unconvincing justifications, that I oppose, particularly considering I wrote the majority of the article. Please explain more specifically what you find wrong with it, perhaps one section at a time, so we can improve the article. If you keep reverting to the chopped-down-to-useless version, however, I will have to assume that your aim is disruption, not article improvement, and I will seek out some administrator to block you. That would be wholly unnecessary though, if you leave the main article as is for a bit, and work to reach consensus on the talk page instead. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with A) baseless accusations, B) personal attacks, and C) vendetta-based editing. Though you seem to gain personal satisfaction from the frustration they cause, all three are utterly unproductive, and have no place at Wikipedia. Thank you. —jacobolus (t) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing another persons talk page comments is not a good idea at the best of times; in this case it's a worse idea.....hmmm...no wonder my writing career never took off :/ Restepc (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comet_%28programming%29&diff=next&oldid=218509416
stamping on eggshells may be a more accurate phrase.
Restepc (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Regarding your comments on Talk:Comet (programming): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have removed a personal attack from the talk page, please be civil and don't drive contributors away. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polyamory

Which people are we talking about?Lord Balin (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Those people on that list were there before I changed it. And all I did was add the people on that list to the category.Lord Balin (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not intend harm. You know this is crazy. I've been on this website since 2005, and I'm getting very sick and tired of editing articles, and adding good information, but then someone comes along and changes it because of his/her own POV. I understand that this is the very idea of Wikipedia, and I am not saying anything against you personally sir, But it's getting rather frustrating. I have almost 6,000 edits, and almost 100 new articles to my name, and I am constantly going around and fixing things other folks have done. Sorry sir....just venting...lol.Lord Balin (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)