User talk:Used2BAnonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you involved in the Talk discussions for the article "Traditionalist Catholic"? There is mention of you there for some reason. I saw U2BA and thought it was some wikipedia jargon, but as I looked into it, it appears to refer to you. FYI. - Diligens 14:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reverting?

I know you must be frustrated... but is wide-scale reverting the best way to go about this? JG of Borg 02:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am frustrated. We were in arbitration over this VERY ISSUE when this dude flies in out of nowhere, takes it upon himself to adjudicate matters, and proceeds to take down every link to my site. Those links are on topic, relevant, and informative. I bust my ass working on that site and protecting it, and all these admins get each other all agitated about it without any of them LOOKING AT WHAT THEY ARE DELETING AND TELLING ME HOW IT IS LINKSPAM. I've had enough of this stuff and will now go blow my head off. Dominick wins again.

Actually you were in RfC (not arbitration) re Dominick's behaviour. I took advice before weighing in, and I'm glad I did. If you'd like to talk rationally about the relevance of individual links in individual articles, feel free. I don't buy the argument that other spam links justify more spam links, though (as per your forum). I thought it best to start with a clean sheet and work from there. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that, like the Rosary link, many do contain useful information, and that if we start over and do so, examining each one with the appropriate article/page, some of the ones with useful information can get back on. JG of Borg 05:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
My intention was not a win, there is no win. If you think this is a zero sum game you are mistaken. I made my goals clear. So far I have met none of them. Now, you are using more inflammatory language on your forum, and are pursuing a scorched earth policy here. I suggested you go to arbcom, and you had independent help, and you did not take that option.
This is not a slander, or a war, indeed Guy came out of somewhere, the RfC == Request for Comment. The silly debate raged on in front of wikipedia, in a very public place. Now your behavior in linkspamming and reverts has drawn a lot of attention.
Better links are available for Rosaries. Even better sources for most links. Dominick (TALK) 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Could you please not insert links to the same external site on various pages please? --HappyCamper 02:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Like they said: talk about it, don't just re-insert the links. I counted around 110 articles with links to your site; that is way beyond what is defensible. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 03:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

I am putting in a request for arbitration about this matter. Bold text

[edit] Marcel Lefebvre

You may be interested that I've suggested Marcel Lefebvre as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Collaboration WikiProject Catholicism Collaboration. If you want to vote:

1. Add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism#Members 2. Add your name as a vote to the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Collaboration#Candidates_for_adding_to_the_collaboration_queue

JASpencer 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)