Difference between revisions of "User talk:StephenE"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RETIRED
m (Protected "User talk:StephenE" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Retired}} |
| − | + | <br /><br /> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Liberal Correction Comments== | ==Liberal Correction Comments== | ||
Revision as of 19:32, August 31, 2009
Liberal Correction Comments
Can you stop with all the correction comments? If you insist on adding United States Founding fathers, I will have to block you and I have already mentioned it before. It is either American Founding Fathers or America's Founding Fathers or founding fathers of America. In the future, you would be best to read Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. You are guilty of #15 and #20.--Jpatt 14:00, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- And you are guilty of poor wiki-behavior in that I have spent quite a bit of time working on articles in dire need of good editing and the least you can do is thank me instead of berating me. Perhaps I was mistaken on the accepted nomenclature re: the Founding Fathers (but at least I know to capitalize the term), and if that was the only problem with your articles you might have more of an argument. StephenE 14:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- The term should be American Founding Father, if referencing one of them, and collectively the Founding Fathers of the United States, or just Founding Fathers. I suggest, Stephen, you cool it with the groaning edit comments, as oftentimes they could be humorous, or just exasperation showing, but could convey nastier connotations to some. Perhaps less unilateral, lone wolf editing, and more suggestions/conversation on the talk pages, would help? Insulting Jpatt isn't going to be a winning strategy, you know....I mean you do know that, right? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:24, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- Perhaps, sir: but neither is a belligerent attitude toward editors. StephenE 14:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- Well, can you contain yourself, or should I block you for a day, to at least stop you from moving this to the point of no return? You can feel free to avail yourself of my expert (second only to Professor Ed Poor's!) and free mediation services...simply drop me a line via email, or IM, both of which are given on my user page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
I will tone down the edit comments. As for e-mail/IM, one thing which appeals to me about the wiki format is its openness; conversations occurring "off the record" strike me as antithetical to that fundamental idea, so I'll pass on the invite--anything I want to say, I'll say here. Finally, if you really feel the need to block me for punitive reasons, so be it, though I would invite you to look at my edit history and find one instance where I made an edit that did not, in intent if not action, seek to improve the content of this project. StephenE 15:12, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- There is absolutely nothing about a wiki that mandates public conversations about all things, so your statement is false and made up out of whole cloth. Even Wikipedia, implementing Flagged Revisions, knows that! What a silly postulation! Gods speed to you. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:27, 31 August 2009 (EDT)