| Revision as of 21:57, 26 June 2008 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,034 edits Clean out of older stuff, transient stuff← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:31, 26 June 2008 edit undoNoroton (talk | contribs)37,252 edits →Your lack of seriousness combined with your omnipresence on the page is an insult: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| WB74 should have the ability to contribute to discussions on the page (at least until decision is made on the SSP case). No idea why he's using a cellphone to contribute, but the limitations of that technology and the rapidity of responses on the Rezko discussion pretty much require him to have to use the sub-sections in order to prevent having to retype in his comments over and over until he gets the comment in. Perhaps a better option than telling him to stop making new sub-sections would be to ask him to remove the sections once he has added his comment. It's not overly clean way of doing it, but it's less confusing and will certainly cut down on the number of sections in the discussion.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | WB74 should have the ability to contribute to discussions on the page (at least until decision is made on the SSP case). No idea why he's using a cellphone to contribute, but the limitations of that technology and the rapidity of responses on the Rezko discussion pretty much require him to have to use the sub-sections in order to prevent having to retype in his comments over and over until he gets the comment in. Perhaps a better option than telling him to stop making new sub-sections would be to ask him to remove the sections once he has added his comment. It's not overly clean way of doing it, but it's less confusing and will certainly cut down on the number of sections in the discussion.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :I understand where you are coming from, but creating the sub-sections is how he is getting around his technological limitations. If you want to suggest a different way for him to get around his technological limitations or request that he find a different way, you can do that, but it really is not up to you to tell him to stop creating the subsections entirely. This is particularly true since it would mean he is unable to contribute to the discussions on that page. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | :I understand where you are coming from, but creating the sub-sections is how he is getting around his technological limitations. If you want to suggest a different way for him to get around his technological limitations or request that he find a different way, you can do that, but it really is not up to you to tell him to stop creating the subsections entirely. This is particularly true since it would mean he is unable to contribute to the discussions on that page. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Your lack of seriousness combined with your omnipresence on the page is an insult == | |||
| I have looked into this up and down, reading reliable, neutral sources. You very, very obviously have not. You have carpeted the talk page with your comments, asserting this and asserting that without having become knowledgeable on the subject. You have wasted my time and everybody elses time by throwing out misinformation. We have been discussing this for well over a week, and you ''still'' haven't done the basic reading? If I don't scold you on this, you'll simply do it again. Do I really need to waste my time finding ''yet more'' quotes and links that ''yet again'' prove you ''yet again'' have completely misinterpreted things in a way that ''just happens'' to protect Obama even when what you say is contradicted by what he himself says? He himself, Scjessey, has said Rezko was the actor. Wives put their names on deeds all the time for tax purposes. You know, I wouldn't mind ignorance if it weren't so obvious that it's due to your spending so much time typing and so little time reading the sources. You're doing something terribly wrong and you need to be told that. I haven't insulted you in any way. I've told you bluntly where you're being a burden on everybody else who is trying to decide things on that page. The purpose of that talk page is not to opinionate it's to bring up facts and logically figure out how to put them in the article in the right way. It isn't to defend Obama or bring him down, and it isn't to try to come up with any reason at all to do what you want to do. It's to get at the truth, as close as we can. By spreading misinformation with irresponsible conjectures you are an impediment to that. And impeding the process for no good reason is an insult to the rest of us. ] (]) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:31, 26 June 2008
|
Please sign your comments using four tildes ( |
Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil. |
Blocked for 3RR
Quartermaster chiming in on Obama article and Rezko edits (as well as other stuff)
You come across as an exquisitely honest editor regarding the Obama article. You're a good shepherd. I will tread lightly per your suggestions. Have a barnstar.
|
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
| Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
WB74
WB74 should have the ability to contribute to discussions on the page (at least until decision is made on the SSP case). No idea why he's using a cellphone to contribute, but the limitations of that technology and the rapidity of responses on the Rezko discussion pretty much require him to have to use the sub-sections in order to prevent having to retype in his comments over and over until he gets the comment in. Perhaps a better option than telling him to stop making new sub-sections would be to ask him to remove the sections once he has added his comment. It's not overly clean way of doing it, but it's less confusing and will certainly cut down on the number of sections in the discussion.--Bobblehead 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from, but creating the sub-sections is how he is getting around his technological limitations. If you want to suggest a different way for him to get around his technological limitations or request that he find a different way, you can do that, but it really is not up to you to tell him to stop creating the subsections entirely. This is particularly true since it would mean he is unable to contribute to the discussions on that page. --Bobblehead 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Your lack of seriousness combined with your omnipresence on the page is an insult
I have looked into this up and down, reading reliable, neutral sources. You very, very obviously have not. You have carpeted the talk page with your comments, asserting this and asserting that without having become knowledgeable on the subject. You have wasted my time and everybody elses time by throwing out misinformation. We have been discussing this for well over a week, and you still haven't done the basic reading? If I don't scold you on this, you'll simply do it again. Do I really need to waste my time finding yet more quotes and links that yet again prove you yet again have completely misinterpreted things in a way that just happens to protect Obama even when what you say is contradicted by what he himself says? He himself, Scjessey, has said Rezko was the actor. Wives put their names on deeds all the time for tax purposes. You know, I wouldn't mind ignorance if it weren't so obvious that it's due to your spending so much time typing and so little time reading the sources. You're doing something terribly wrong and you need to be told that. I haven't insulted you in any way. I've told you bluntly where you're being a burden on everybody else who is trying to decide things on that page. The purpose of that talk page is not to opinionate it's to bring up facts and logically figure out how to put them in the article in the right way. It isn't to defend Obama or bring him down, and it isn't to try to come up with any reason at all to do what you want to do. It's to get at the truth, as close as we can. By spreading misinformation with irresponsible conjectures you are an impediment to that. And impeding the process for no good reason is an insult to the rest of us. Noroton (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)