WN1971
To the editor who arbitrarily decided to split this article: before you take it upon yourself to make an edit this drastic, it's usually customary to have some amount of discussion about it first. I've restored the complete version of the article until this can take place. Your article about the 1990 probation seems too short to stand on its own, but we'll let the WP community decide what is the best way to present this notable material. ViperNerd (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article is sloppy and sensationalistic in format. You have (intentionally, I suspect, due to your past problems with other users) written some of this article like an Op-Ed piece. The split articles I created, too short or not, are much more encyclopedic in value. If you would like to open this up to a committee here on wikipedia, I more than welcome that. I might also suggest that you not remove others responses to your comments on your userpage; unless there is blatant spamming, it is typically frowned upon. Thanks. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 16:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article is "sloppy and sensationalistic" IN YOUR OPINION. In my opinion, it's a bloodless recitation of factual events that are notable and fully documented. Like I said, we'll let the wider community of WP editors make that determination before letting one user arbitrarily decide for all of us. It's not like the version that currently exists just arrived at its present state from its inception. But I suspect you realize that. ViperNerd (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article is sloppy and sensationalistic in format. You have (intentionally, I suspect, due to your past problems with other users) written some of this article like an Op-Ed piece. The split articles I created, too short or not, are much more encyclopedic in value. If you would like to open this up to a committee here on wikipedia, I more than welcome that. I might also suggest that you not remove others responses to your comments on your userpage; unless there is blatant spamming, it is typically frowned upon. Thanks. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 16:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to list the talk page on the Wikipedia:Third Opinion page for further debate. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read this entire section before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of what an article's talk page is to be used for on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with a USER who edited an article and not the article itself, you take it up with them on their talk page or seek other dispute resolution. You DO NOT use an article talk page to pursue a personal agenda against users. Continued violation of this WP policy will result in a report to admins. Just in case you are too lazy or stubborn to click a link and educate yourself here are the specific policies you've managed to violate in the past 2 days:
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Deleting material not relevant to improving the article. Removing personal attacks and incivility.
If you are having a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. ViperNerd (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do not need instructions from you, and your personal attacks WILL NOT be tolerated. "Report me to an admin[istrator];" do whatever you like. You seem to be really going on power trips lately. Your personal attacks on your own talk page and others are significant to the article in discussion. Thanks for your genuine concern! WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
WN1971 (talk · contribs), you're warned on 3RR in Talk:Clemson University football recruiting scandal. But based on your contentious use of Undo and threats about wanting to go to ArbCom, I'm guessing you knew this was coming.
July 2008
edit
Merge of Clemson University football recruiting scandal
editI have initiated a discussion of a merge of Clemson University football recruiting scandal. The discussion thread is here. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. This invitation is in accordance with Wikipedia merge guidelines, and should not be mistaken for canvassing.Thör hammer 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)