User talk:Leonig Mig/Archive 2007

POTW vs you
I appreciate from your edits and his that you're both trying to edit constructively but are too combative. Trust me, I've been in such scrapes myself. Try to assume good faith and act in such away that you deserve others to assume similarly (even though you have failed to do so in the past), be civil and try to forgive. I know it's not easy, but forgiveness can get you places that grudges can't. Make up with POTW - I've removed his section attacking you, too, by the way - and try (BOTH OF YOU!) to get on with helpful editing, either together or separately. Happy editing!

Best wishes,

Vox Humana 8&#39; 14:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vox here. Having such a message on your userpage is aggressive, and only serves to foster hate. I am also talking to POTW in an attempt to reach a solution. Please remove the message. J Milburn 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remove it from my userpage- given you are fairhanded I shaln't revert. My only goal is to see both statements removed. Leonig Mig 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both are now removed, thankyou for being so co-operative. J Milburn 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Leonig, please do not continue to place the message- rise above. There is now a thread on the incidents board about this. J Milburn 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm going- this is childish. Leonig Mig 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, this is pathetic. On another note, reverting again could get you blocked, as it would be in violation of the three revert rule. Please don't. J Milburn 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Leonig; whilst Andy is clearly being unreasonable about this situation, doing this does not help your cause in the least. Remain cool, remain in the right. It's the only way to move forward successfully. 86.135.80.68 23:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice
I have removed a paragraph about you from Pigsonthewing's userpage. In reading it, however, I am concerned that you have made a number of inappropriate edits concerning him. Consistent with the comments above, and with the warning I have left for him, I expect that you also will refrain from any further incivility or personal attacks toward this user. I earnestly request your cooperation so that further action will not be required. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I could put it a little more strongly: try not to have anything to do with PoTW for a very long time: pretend he does not exist, do not talk to him, think about him, edit his userpage or usertalk, or edit war with him. Thanks. Moreschi Talk 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put things even more strongly - you make any edits to PoTW's user or talk page, or revert him (directly or by proxy) on any article, and I'll block you. For a very long time. PoTW will be getting the exact same lecture after he's unblocked and his talk page unprotected, in the interests of fairness. Nick 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in interacting with POTW in any way- any encounter is trying, exhausting and fruitless. I learnt this 18 months ago. The only reason I got involved was because I could not tolerate the not nice and in my view mis-representative paragraph on his user page 18 months after the original conflict. Seemed petty and unjust. I apologise for "kicking it off" and being uncivil (the swearwords). Leonig Mig 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Faust
Hi there. Please do not re-add the comment in Faust (here) without citing a reliable source that confirms this. Without such a citation, your comment fails WP:V and certainly comes close to WP:OR. Thanks, Seidenstud 23:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey no problem. Go to WP:CITET.  It has citation templates pretty clearly explained, and good examples are given.  What you do, is right after the sentence that needs the citation, you put .  And there you go.  If you need any help with citing sources, please do not hesitate to ask.

Also, if you are quoting the Oxford edition verbatim as you said you were, please make sure you acknowledge that fact by using a direct quote. Otherwise, you are committing a Copyright violation, or at the very least you are introducing non-free (copyrighted) content into this free encyclopedia. OK, that being said, I still believe the comment should not be added even if it is cited. Please see the style guideline WP:Avoid weasel words for a full explanation. The guideline seems to imply that if a source can be cited for such language, then it is OK. However, in this case, it seems that the source being cited is itself using weasel words, and therefore should be excluded. If the source was even simply, "Many scholars such as Jones, Smith, and Allen find the ending disappointing," then perhaps, but as it stands, it really does not belong in an encyclopedia. Perhaps the language is appropriate in the introduction of an edition, as it would either expect the reader to already know of such scholarly opinions, or it would inspire the reader to do his own research to see exactly who it is who is disappointed. However, the encyclopedia is held to a more rigorous standard of verifiability, particularly in this collaborative one, where people are tempted (and enabled) to include their opinions. -Seidenstud 06:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why
How that helps? It doesn't. But freedom to say things and to do things is more important than being helpful. To be quite honest, I'd say Pigsonthewing should remove that paragraph, but I'd like him to remove it on his own accord, not because he is bullied (***cough***Newyorkbrad***cough***) into compliance. I don't like bullying, and that was my statement.

That was it, I'm not going to interfere any more... GregorB 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * GregorB, please read the rest of that page, where in view of disagreements about the proper action to be taken regarding Pigsonthewing's comments, I decided to take no action and referred the matter to ANI for discussion.
 * Unfortunately, at this time, Pigsonthewing's status within Wikipedia is extremely tenuous, largely for reasons having little or nothing to do with the controversy concerning Leonid Mig. See generally, Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Proposed decision. In that context, the old dispute between Pigsonthewing and Leonid Mig seems to be of no current importance, and I will add to Leonid that his recent self-admitted "outbursts" on the arbitration page are unbecoming. Newyorkbrad 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling another user a "sociopath" is considerably more than 'unbecoming'. Leonig, for the past year or more your contributions have consisted of little other than harassing Andy. You've updated a page here and there, but you've made more edits pursuing your feud with him than anything else. That obviously isn't helpful and needs to stop. Which should be easy enough to do given that he is now blocked. Just leave it alone now and if/when he returns. --CBD 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)