Saintlink

User Feedback

Note to posters: Please feel free to leave your comments regarding my edits, talk and other actions as they relate to Wikipedia. While we may not always see eye to eye, I try to address all concerns in a manner which will leave any given Wikipedia entry as an educational tool. The following suggestion was taken from another user's userpage, however it is a good idea: Let's try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted on your talk page, let's keep it in there. Leave me a new message. Saintlink

---

Quick message to you: To respond to your comment on the White Pride Page: there was a decent article in this place at one point, but "Maggie" took it upon herself to delete it, because she seems to think that any good explaination is "pure apology." Being that this Maggie has now identified herself as a Jew, I would question her neutrality. Mind you I don't say a Jew can't write an unbiased article on this subject, but I do find it just a little queer. If you read through the talk page you'll see Maggie is not a civil conversationalist, but is there to cause trouble. (I believe the common term is "troll.") Please feel free to respond via my talk page Avsn 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions have been noted. I rarely make edits to articles until after discussing them in the talk pages. With that in mind, if someone wishes to play an edit war the best thing we can do is not respond in kind. Instead, even if you suspect that someone is trolling I recommend countering what you think to be a false viewpoint in the talk area. In the end the truth will come out on top. Remain civil and base your argument on documentable facts and the trolls should end up hungry. Thank you for the feedback.--Saintlink 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for placing my msg to you on your front page, I did not realize that was a faux pas. Furthermore as you may have noticed by now, "Maggie" has chimed in on the White Pride Talk page under the COMMENT section. I really think there ought to be a way to prevent users without a WP screen name from editing. At least if they have signed up, they can't cry foul when banned for trolling or other offences. I've also been wondering if perhaps WP should start a controversial articles monitoring team of some sort. Edits on a page labeled as monitored by the team could be filtered through a volunteer before being posted as part of the article. This would also prevent vandalism of articles. Wish I had the time to spearhead such a team, but don't. (I only recently became employed again, must concentrate on that for a while.)Avsn 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No harm, no foul regarding the placement of your original post on my homepage. I'd just like to keep the commentary separate from the person bio that I've authored to prevent any confusion. Without reserve I would support strong restrictions on unregistered users to prevent abuse. Registered members are much easier to track in terms of bias, trolling and other such unpleasant behavior. It isn't as if Wikipedia is going to start selling your email address to the masses. Hopefully they will address this concern in the future.--Saintlink 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've left a few comments on the talk page.--Saintlink 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Please excuse me for saying so, but some of us found your post regarding this issue slightly confusing. As I see it, most of your argumentation seems to be against the move to Latin, but your vote supports the move. All of us naturally respect any opinion you might have, but forgive me for feeling a bit confused :) Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

As the principal author of the article titled white pride, I take umbrage at your suggestion that my contributions are somehow less valid on the basis of my being unregistered. Furthermore, I take it to be a personal attack. - Maggie --65.95.150.178 00:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has a history of personal attacks Maggie it would be you. No less than three people have commented on your flagrant and incessant name calling, your patronizing other users and reactionary behavior in general. I've had many disagreements with other Wikipedians, but you by and large have been the most uncivil and unrepentant of them all. You see a white supremacist in every bush, claim that the whole article is a "white washing for white supremacism", and that "white culture systemically oppresses minorities", "Don't be stupid",

You even admitted to baiting people with your vitriol. "You did exactly that I thought you'd do, which is to say, responded to my personal attacks rather than my scientific and sociological arguments." Further along you admit that "the personal attacks were more fun to type" than to respond in an article specific manner. Further along the article talk page you claim "white people have never been systematically oppressed". That statement alone shows your inability to see the world except through the rosy colored glasses you choose to don. Racism affects all people. I suggest you Google about the plight of white framers in Africa that are being persecuted solely on the basis of being white. History has shown that there is no racial group that has been immune from persecuting others if given the opportunity.

Maggie, I suggest you follow one of three routes:

1. Either learn to accept that you DO NOT have the right to personally antagonize other Wikipedians through name calling, belittling or trolling for reactionary responses.

2. Do not participate in articles you cannot remain civil when editing them. Disagreeing or debating the facts is one thing, but you've long passed the point of no return in regards to your behavior to other members.

3. Leave Wikipedia. I would hope you aren't as close-minded as to choose this recourse, but that's your choice to make.

I will say in closing that no less than three people have found your vitriolic posts offensive. Your antagonism, contentious politics and overall hostility has been duly noted. If you persist in taking this route I will have no recourse other than to refer you to the administrators. I've felt very tempted to report you right now, but I haven't spent all this time typing out a response unless I thought you might have some redeeming qualities of discussion. This is not an empty promise. I've only reported people to the admins when I truly thought there was an egregious lack of respect for other members of this community. The admins have usually acted upon my recommendations. Either cease and desist with the hostilities or face the consequences of your actions. Thank you.--Saintlink 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Such sanctimony. Go ahead and report me, Saintlink. For all the deleterious influence I've wielded on Wikipedia, it remains a fact that absolutely 100% of my edits have been constructive - even ones with which you and others have disagreed. And about 90% of them have stood the test of time. In the year or so I've been contributing, I've immeasurably improved dozens of articles (most of them on music or literature in some way, but on several other issues as well - notably Jorn Barger). You haven't addressed the fact that I remain the principal author of white pride. There can be no denying that my contributions are valuable because almost all of them stand. As for the "three" people I've antagonized, I submit the following:

• . I don't know how you're counting - it's either more than three, or fewer, depending on whether or not you include yourself simply because we disagree. More importantly:
• . Of the "three", one of them commented on my "Jewish agenda" - that makes him an anti-semite.
• . Another is an admitted neo-Nazi. Do you honestly think that an admitted neo-Nazi ("National Socialist") can write objectively about "White Pride"? Christ, look above - Avsn doesn't even think that a jew can write objectively about "white pride", even though most jews are white.

By the way, the analogy of the "white farmers in South Africa" is a great one! Not fatuous at all! Of all the countries that have absolutely no history at all of brutal oppression of black people, South Africa certainly is the nonpareil. Another masterful riposte! So what are you waiting for? Report me already! - Maggie --65.95.150.178 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

I enjoy patrolling new pages making little changes and cleaning things up during the times when I don't really feel up to writing something substantial to add. That's what I love about the lack of ownership that is at the core of Wikipedia. Erechtheus 07:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I often do the same, just browsing around for internal links to add, tidbits to cite, correct an odd spelling or grammar error or fill in any unanswered blanks. Many small contributions makes this site an addiction for the faithful. :-)--Saintlink 07:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thanks! =D Luna Santin 10:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We have to keep the vandals away one at a time. I wish Wikipedia required all members to register prior to editing. Alas, this request will most likely fall on deaf ears. None the less, glad to see your userpage is back in order. Conlige suspectos semper habitos. (Round up the usual suspects). ;-)--Saintlink 10:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple iTV

I'm just asking you to reconsider your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple iTV, as I've withdrew my nomination and if all deletes are removed it can be speedy kept. Computerjoe's talk 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. It looks like it has been removed from the afd section, I just like to be very careful in not giving rumors unjustified press. Thank you for taking the time out to drop by and provide an update. Keep up the good work.--Saintlink 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Byzantine Rite Catholic Wikipedians

No trouble at all, glad I could to be of help. I've even been to Istambul, although only briefly ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

David Horowitz - Discover the Networks - reliable?

You may be interested expressing your opinion on whether Discover the Networks, which is connected to David Horowitz, is a reliable source on Talk:Discover the Networks#Poll. Thanks, DRK 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yaacov Perrin

Yaacov Perrin, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Yaacov Perrin satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaacov Perrin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Yaacov Perrin during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IZAK 09:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)