User talk:SiberioS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Black Confederates

I agree in your analysis of that particular editor's mindset. At this point I don't think that any sort of dispute resolution is warranted, but that may be necessary if it continues to be one editor versus everybody else. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSA Article

I don't see a need for arbitration on a discussion page--at least not so far. I think it would make more sense to apply a "don't feed the troll" policy at this point, walk away and leave the editor blathering. The editor in question can't seem to put together a coherent argument--claiming one thing, then trying to refute what he claimed. If he starts just inserting random quotes in the article and creating his own virtual reality then we'll see what is needed. I wouldn't actually mind seeing a well written synopsis of the CSA viewpoint about causation--the problem is in finding one that is representative and doesn't stretch the truth. I don't believe the current editor is capable of writing one by a long shot. Red Harvest (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did you have in mind, something talking about the State's Rights or Tariff issues? Sf46 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Something that is internally consistent and actually explains the South's own contemporary actions (across regions and throughout the timeline), rather than something that spins things making wild or irrelevant assertions. And its going to need some verifiable/reliable sourcing rather than editor opinion for the thesis. Red Harvest (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolution

Dude, that comment on the talk page Section 3 was unnecessary and not useful. You might try a different approach to help the discussion. Regards. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care. I've about had it to here with my tolerance of people who are in essence, talkers, who do not contribute substantially to the editing and writing of articles, and whose sole purpose is wikilawyering the rest of us, who DO write substantial articles, to death. Whats really dispiriting is that not that some people have gotten a little bit mean, but that people are defending and protecting someone whose sole purpose is to wreck other peoples contributions because they presume, wrongly, that the other editor is working in "good faith". SiberioS (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have it your way. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)