Dawkins
editHi Ken. Much the same happened when I tried to introduce a criticism section. Let's try to work together and sandbox something. NBeale 17:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ken. I agree with you about POV. But people have called a vote so you need to get back to the page and vote. And Spark has removed the tag - you might want to restore it. NBeale 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Kd, your current behavior is getting very close to the point where another RfC may be filed or you may be put on community probation and/or specific article bans. Personal attacks, incivility and removal of warnings is not helping matters. JoshuaZ 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Archives
editHi, Kdbuffalo. I just wanted to let you know I removed your recent edits to the evolution thread I just archived. In general, archived material should not be edited; new comments should go on the main talk page. That being said, since those comments are not directly related to the article at hand, they’re best kept off that page. If you have specific matters to discuss with other editors, perhaps you could carry out those discussions on your personal talk pages or off Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not add new comments to archived discussions. Questions for other users may be placed on their talk pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Duane Gish
editEvidently my edit summary was too long as it doesn't appear on the article's edit history. Anyway, I'm just posting here as an FYI that I put the trivia section back in. My reasoning's on the article's talk page and this conversation could move there. Just wanted to make sure you're aware. Moralis 05:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Requests for comment
editI've opened an RfC on some of your recent editing practices and related concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2. JoshuaZ 05:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I tentatively suggest that it may be in your best interest to respond to the RfC on the main page of the RfC and to respond with something other than a personal attack on the main author of the RfC. Even if I were the most awful evil POV pushing evolutionist, even if I huffed kittens and ate puppies, even if I voted for Cthulhu in the last Presidential election, the RfC would still have just as much validity. Whether or not I am a good person in no way alters the point in the RfC or the force of any argument given there. JoshuaZ 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Since multiple other editors apparently have the same concerns your stated intention of not responding beyond the current personal attack will probably not help you very much. At this point 3 different editors have expressed the same concerns. I would submit that it is unlikely that the other two editors simply support my "nonsense." Also to make this very clear- at this point you are very close to getting blocks for incivility, personal attacks and general disruptiveness. Further personal attacks and refusal to cooperate with the RfC really won't help matters. JoshuaZ 06:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Opinionated but hardly inflammatory
editI think his user page is borderline and is questionably within the userpage guidelines. I'll drop a note saying that to him. JoshuaZ 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Emails
editUm, your Wikipedia email isn't even activated. Do you mean messages on your talk page? In any event, I see nothing harrassing with the messages he has sent. If you think they constitute harrassement you should either ask him to stop or find an admin who thinks they are problematic (and that is not an excuse to admin shop). JoshuaZ 06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Your RfC again
editJust so you know, 23 editors have now expressed concern in the RfC and there has been some discussion about asking the community to restrict your editing. I strongly recommend that you take the RfC more seriously. JoshuaZ 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)