User talk:Frangible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re:User:Astanhope

If you wish to build a case for sock puppetry, please follow this link: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. This will help keep everyone's participation open and above board as well as introduce you to a very important process. I would consider addressing this myself, but I'm booked for the next few days and just won't have time. Our sock process will help ensure you won't have to wait. And if your suspicions are correct, your case will be more powerful if a second or third administrator agrees - rather than one who has already taken action against this account. Rklawton 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been a naughty editor in the past, but sockpuppetry is something I haven't been involved with. --AStanhope 04:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presa edit war

Hi there, I added a comment to the Presa page re edit wars and would appreciate your comments about the situation so maybe we can work something out. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 12:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A sandbox to move forward

Hi Frangible, I've recently been looking at the Perro_de_Presa_Canario article and would like to help resolve the situation so the page can be unprotected (and hopefully improved/resolved to everyone's satisfaction -to the extent that this is possble). I've recently left a comment on the talk page(link) outlining why I think the attacks should be included in some (albeit small) measure. I've also left a note here (User_talk:PresaDog) which you might find of some interest.

I've started a sandbox in my user space (link) to help work out the wording, taking into account Presadog's comment about the section it would go in, as well as others' comments. I'm inviting you to edit there as well (If you find this agreeable) and would like to see a third paragraph including some of the points you mentioned recently on the talk page :size, unintentional damage, naturally dominant, statistical (15 of 16 passed), and maybe (correct me if I'm wrong here) something about the rarity of something going wrong, but when it happens, you're dealing with large potentially lethal animal, not a beagle -hence not for a novice owner (I don't think my phrasing here is very good, e.g. "lethal", I respect your knowledge and writing skills, which is why I'm inviting you to do it).

Also, feel free to work with the content already there (make shorter, explain, or tighten up), I just ask that the references stay, and in context.

My plan is to eventually (a few days, or shorter, with your help) post an invitation at Talk:Perro_de_Presa_Canario or perhaps paste the result there, for wider input.

I think this solution would meet the concerns of most, including information, but not sensationalizing it (or drawing undue attention). For now, I'm fine with the attacks not having their own section, unless statistical data (without obvious bias) can be found to place them in proper context (per Rklawton's concerns). Let me know what you think, and I'm hoping this can be worked out.
best,
R. Baley 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever

@!@ Chessy999 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perro de Presa Canario

The explanation for the section removal can be found in the detailed edit summary. Beware tossing aroung the word "vandalism" as this fails WP:AGF and isn't WP:CIVIL. You will find a more detailed explanation now in the article's talk page. Rklawton 14:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on what RK says here. Please assume good faith regarding your fellow-editors. As the original protecting (and unprotecting) admin and as nothing has been resolved over on the article whatsoever, full protection has been re-instated - Alison ❤ 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)