User talk:Backface

Wilber
Per your comments on the Wilber talk page. If you wish to contact me privately about your real identity, you may do so here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

goethean, get over yourself already! ForrestLane42 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

WP:V
You referred to WP:V in defending your prolific deletions of external links. WP:V does not apply to external links; the relevant policy is WP:EL. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. You have my apologies. --Backface 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Humanties
You are right, my intention wasn't to vandalize and i should have been more descriptive for the reason, I know some of the rules of wikipedia, but not nearly enough as you do. I am not sure how to proceed on that page -ForrestLane42 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

This page is not noteworthy, can I put up the template for speedy deletion, am I in reason to do so? Please advise, this page seems more like an advertisement to me, not something for wikipedia. i am going to put Advert ForrestLane42 04:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Maybe not, but this page seems to be there for more of a self-interest reason than anything else ForrestLane42 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42


 * Hi, Backface, I'm not sure why this is happening on your talk page, but this is to let ForrestLane42 (and you, of course) know that I've intervened to remove the speedy delete tag, as explained on the talk page. None of the speedy deletion criteria applies (including Blatant Advertising), so future deletion attempts should be pursued via a non-speedy process such as prod &mdash; Cheers, Eleuther 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Commendable Approach
Just to let you know I now see from your increased contributions evidence of good faith on your part and more sensitivity to language about others and how rules are applied in crafting a balanced approach to edits on polarized issues, and more discussion. It is good you indirectly surfaced this source issue because it applies to many polarized articles that need a fresh look. I am not minimizing the complexity of us resolving issues of including current on-line debate where there simply aren't adequately reviewed or are even no published sources. I do not favor the extreme solution someone proposed of deleting all articles that do not rely on verified, traditionally published sources, nor can we allow a national enquirer blog approach to clutter up Wikipedia, nor can we allow extreme partisans to manipulate Wikipedia rules away from an NPOV. I do believe we should be fair to all sides and how we do that is still evolving, as is the increasing use of online media by even reputable sources. That means I'd like to find some sort of middle ground resulting from our interactions. Look forward to further interesting discussions.--Dseer 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ForrestDouble is ForrestLane42
Just wanted you to know that this is ForrestLane42 using another computer and I didn't have the password with me so that I can't be accused of anything!!! ForrestDouble 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Goethean and ForrestLane42
Recently, Goethean and ForrestLane42 have both come to me for administrator mediation of sorts, each accusing the other of various wrongdoing (personal attacks, harassment, etc.). I noted that you have worked with both of these editors on Ken Wilbur, and I would like to hear your point of view regarding these two and their volatile relationship. If you are uncomfortable with discussing this on the wiki, feel free to email me. Thanks, Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC
Please comment at Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging Social Peer-to-peer Processes
Hi Backface!

I am working with a group on a course project for Cornell University's Online Communities course. Here is the course page. I was making some edits and I came across this page Social peer-to-peer processes, which I feel there is sufficient grounds for including in our Peer-to-peer article. Several years ago, you expressed a similar concern in the talk page on the Social peer-to-peer processes page, and I wanted to know what became of this suggestion. Was there a concrete reason why this remained an autonomous page? What are your thoughts on this, and what is the Wikipedia protocol for this action? I have created a section about this on the peer-to-peer talk page for discussion. Thank you!

CBCompton (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)