User talk:Idlewild101

I feel no obligation to respond to editors who leave messages here, who don't appear to be discussing in good faith. As my mother said, "If you can't say something nice to somebody, don't say anything at all."

Can you please stop removing images from pages
Please note that Wikipedia not censored, and there are many things that we don't like here. Please also note that WP:AFD is not a "vote" but discussion. Just because several editors have "voted" to delete, this does not override our policies. And even if it were "copyrighted" - which it is not, due to only containing text and shapes, it would in the very unlikely event of it being deleted be uploaded under WP:NFCC as it is not being used for hate-speech, it is being used to illustrate an article on a specific term one of the examples of usage of that term in a visual form. Your reasons for removal are invalid, as much as your reasons for cited information being removed from another article as WP:TRIVIA, when it clearly was not trivia. Please do not remove such things again, because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removal, and plenty of discussions on such material on this project, and WP:CENSOR overrides all user sensitivities to material they don't like; in short, if you don't like it, don't read it. --Russavia Dialogue 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you read the "Talk" pages of entries you are editing? I don't appreciate submitting a polite, point-by-point examination of your claims about an article, then being told "don't be a dick" in response. I am submitting the article on Michael Wines to arbitration on the BLP discussion board. Richard Cooke (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on making this removal again and again without recourse to or involvement with the discussion on BLPN, I will be forced to report you for disruptive editing on the following grounds:

* Does not engage in consensus building: o repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; o repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

There is no mention of "scatalogical material" in the WP that I can find - this seems to be spurious grounds for an edit. Semen is at any rate not a scatalogical material. Make your argument on the BLPN, please. This issue is a long way from consensus, and there are multiple opposing viewpoints. Richard Cooke (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing material from pages without engaging in discussions. Other editors are using the talk pages, and you are obligated to talk and build consensus if you don't agree. Also, please be advised you are close to violatring WP:3RR dsol (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Idlewild, you seem to be incapable of getting your story straight. Please point out anywhere in WP where there is a mention of "scatalogical material". You have now - for the first time - invoked "human dignity" as a reason not to include this. Here is the relevant section of WP which clearly applies here:

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Do you have COI with Michael Wines or Columbia University? I see no other reason to keep making this removal on grounds which either don't appear in WP, or continue to change. I have repeatedly asked you to contribute to the arbitration discussion on the BLPN. Why have you not done so? Richard Cooke (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 11 2009 to The eXile
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

I note your use of BLPN; but I don't see how that supports you, as it ends with Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive25. Also, you (and everyone else) should have been using the talk page

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Tom,

Thanks for your support, and sorry to get you involved in any way with people who I consider to be very nasty. Hitting somebody with a sperm-filled pie just because you don't like his journalism - I can't imagine why anybody would consider that acceptable behavior. Bragging about it on Wikipedia - again, I can't imagine how anybody can do this. Not removing it when it's brought up at BLPN - impossible!

Well obviously, there's something about this that just gets to me.

Thanks again,

Idlewild101 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just try to keep your cool. I have found that it is always helpful to get other folks involved and hope that the "correct" consensus forms. If it doesn't, that is just the way it goes. Try not to ever take things around here to seriously or personally. Good luck. --Tom 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Please note that this edit being done after your return after being blocked can be regarded as tendetious editing and is frowned upon. If multiple people have undone your edits, there is likelihood that there is not consensus for the removal. --Russavia Dialogue 17:11, 14 February 2009

"Bragging about it on Wikipedia" - you have accused me of sock-puppeting. Now you have accused me on being party to the original incident! It is not personal. I am not including it because it is good, or because it is bad. I am including it because it is NOTEWORTHY. Richard Cooke (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)