| Revision as of 21:54, 12 December 2006 editHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits Personal attacks← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:59, 12 December 2006 edit undoMael-Num (talk | contribs)944 edits →Personal attacksNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Do not make personal attacks, as you did ] - ] 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | Do not make personal attacks, as you did ] - ] 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Statement of facts. Don't resort to trying to sway people who may pay more attention to form rather than function when you cry "foul". Stop crying and prove my argument wrong.] 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:59, 12 December 2006
Civility
Mael-Num, you're getting awfully close to incivil with this comment. Please cool it down a bit. The article is clearly going to be kept, but that doesn't mean you need to badger the people !voting to keep it in the process.--Kchase T 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- If I'm "getting awfully close" I guess that means that I'm not yet incivil, right? I guess it was your opinion that I should be warned though. Just as it is the opinion of the Fox News set that the article be kept, and my opinion that those people are morons. Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one. Maybe I should write an article about my own asshole today? Mael-Num 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why are you being so combative about this? We don't disagree with you because we hate you, we just have different opinions about whether an individual is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. it's really nothing to get wound up about.--Kchase T 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you assume that I don't know that? For the record, I am at worst completely indifferent about those that merely disagree with me. What ires me is the false and deceptive reasons people cite in order to make their claims seem valid. It's what's wrong with Misplaced Pages. Wiki cites that other sites' cites need to have been subject to "independent fact-checking" or "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication", and yet Wiki itself fails both of these proofs. Too often it's a case of mob rule, which is to say, no rules. Mael-Num 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why are you being so combative about this? We don't disagree with you because we hate you, we just have different opinions about whether an individual is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. it's really nothing to get wound up about.--Kchase T 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not delete cited info as you did here . This is considered vandalism. Anyone can add cited content to wikipedia. Kerr avon 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted material that, while cited, wasn't from a WP:NPOV. This is a no-brainer. You know this as well as I do, so drop the veneer of nicety and innocence. As guilty as WarHawk and Supreme Cmdr are of being biased in favor of Smart, you are biased against the man. Neither is good. If you disagree with me on the neutrality of the subject, take it to the talk page. Until them, I am duty-bound by WP:BLP to remove it. If you return it to the page you will be reported for edit-warring and violating Wiki policy. Mael-Num 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Do not make personal attacks, as you did
- Statement of facts. Don't resort to trying to sway people who may pay more attention to form rather than function when you cry "foul". Stop crying and prove my argument wrong.Mael-Num 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)