User talk:Natevoodoo/Archive 01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 01 |
A tag has been placed on Paul Addis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Paul Addis is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Paul Addis saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. WebHamster 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC) on the User Talk page of the author.
Thank you for the comments left on my talk page. I'm sorry that you have that opinion of me, but one of the userboxes on my user page will give context to that. The point you failed to understand is that my remonstrations have nothing to do with my opinions of Addis' I freely admitted what I didn't like about what he did, but WP is not my own personal tool to do with as I wish. I have to follow exactly the same rules as you. My actions have all been to maintain the standards of WP, and I've kept to the rules to do it. Whether you like it or not my opinion holds the same amount of sway as yours, this difference is that your opinion is that you are above the rules and criteria laid down by more knowledgeable folk than either you or I. The criteria didn't gel with your intentions hence your attempts to go around them. As regards a lesson in rhetoric and reading, I'm sorry sunshine but I was reading scientific tomes before you were born. As far as the rhetoric goes, I'll leave that to you and Addis, I'll stick to the plain and simple taking the piss. I do hate it when humour goes over people's heads. Have a nice day, I'm sure you can look forward to next years Burning Man so that you and your cohorts can attempt to spoil other people's fun yet again. I'll now leave you to the effort it will take to turn a 1 sentence article into a 2 sentence article. It's already taken several days and yet it still hasn't expanded, and some how I rather doubt that it will. --WebHamster 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you Hammie for once again showing that you're all talk w/o substance. If I'm wrong about you then provide evidence. I'm not a cohort of Addis, glad it's fun for you to think so. I've said it before that I disagreed with your reasoning and I read and referenced rules to add to the debate. You chose not to engage in that debate or be more clear about what you disapprove of. I'm sorry if I find poor debate skills unfunny. I wasn't trying to get around the rules, just pointing out that it's more complicated than your myopic viewpoint. You haven't been funny with me. You've been nasty and mean and quite energetically so. I can't keep up with you whipper snapper. You can handle and instruct noobs w/o being a misanthrope. Don't expect me to respect your holier than thou hiding under rules you misquote and misapply. Unless you can point out and cite why I'm wrong. --Natevoodoo 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
LMAO, there seems to be very little point. I appear to have spoiled your fun and games so nothing I say will have any effect whatsoever on what you believe so I won't bother trying. I shall leave you to your dictionary and thesaurus to enable you to come up with that damned elusive second sentence. Have fun.--WebHamster 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User_talk:Natevoodoo/Archive_01. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Your message
I don't know what you have invested in this.
- See psychological projection: it might teach you something about yourself. --Calton | Talk 04:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your nasty note showing your contempt for me. I am aware of psychological projection.
-
-
- Your first sentence immediately contradicts the second: fast work there. Or I could point you to your 2000+ bilious words at DRV.
-
-
- If you insist on trying to delete my User Page in some sort of retribution for my verbosity
-
-
- Speaking of projection. As has been pointed out to you, perhaps a dozen times, this guy isn't qualified for an article: a stealth article in user space as an endrun around basic encyclopedic standards isn't going to cut it.
-
-
- My current reckoning is that the standard to delete my user page is higher than to delete an actual page.
-
-
- Technically, true; practically, no.
-
-
- It's probably more trouble than it's worth to you.
-
-
- Nope. I'll just list it at WP:MFD. And if you throw the same tantrum there as you've done at Deletion Review, I suspect some admin will just step in and speedy delete it just to stop the agita -- assuming it's not speedy deleted before I even get a chance to list it.
-
