User talk:List Expert

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Will Beback 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Broken redirects
You've made a number of double (and thus broken) redirects as a result of whatever you've been doing to the list of sex slurs. -Splash - tk 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Accusing other editors of being "policy enforcing zealots" is not only grossly incivil, it is absurd - Wikipedia has policies, and zealously enforcing them is perfectly acceptable. Process wonks are sometimes considered a problem, policy wonks are not. If your intention is to fix the articles so they remain within policy, then say so and engage other editors in debate. Hurling abuse at editors who are almost certainly acting in good faith, and undoubtedly according to their understanding of policy, is neither productive nor acceptable.
 * You just contradicted yourself. Besides, that statement wasn't directed at anyone in particular, nor was it intended to be incivil.  It was merely part of the description of what appears to be going on. And you just stated that zealously enforcing policies is perfectly acceptable, and therefore it can't be incivil or absurd to refer to someone as that.  Based on your explanation above, it's a complement.  I made no personal attacks.  All I'm trying to do is point out a situation in which a great deal of time and effort is being expended on pointless AfDs which a simple change in policy (one way or the other) could prevent.  Have you read the AfDs I referred to, and have you looked at the contribution history of those making the AfD nominations?  Some of them generate slews of deletion nominations at a time, as if they are compelled to undertake a great Wikipedia purge.  They appear to be at war!  And plenty of others join the battle to hold them at bay.  It's a pointless stalemate.  Go and see for yourself, and then tell me they are not zealots.  They are certainly being zealous, and so are those who defy the deletion nominations, making all this zealousness misdirected and wasted!  They should be zealously creating and improving articles!  --List Expert 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Enforcing policy zealously is improving the encyclopaedia. It's that simple. Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the policy isn't getting enforced. In the AfDs, for the most part, the policy enforcers get outvoted.  Enough so that there is a large list of slang glossaries, some of which have survived AfD multiple times. --List Expert 13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your incivil remarks from the various article Talk pages and invite you to try again using much more neutral language. I'm all for discussion and debate, it's fine to start a debate, but a simple notice saying "please visit this discussion" would be quite sufficient. Just zis Guy you know? 11:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You deleted the whole announcement. Even though it was one sentence that was being objected to.  I think you went overboard there, and are being disruptive.  Please put the announcements back and I'll gladly remove the sentence. --List Expert 11:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, I deleted the whole announcement. And the new one.  Because what you are doing is editorialising.  What you should do is simply invite people along to the discussion.  You don't need to get the first salvo in on every Talk page, you have already stated your case in the policy Talk page.  So: you are welcome to invite people along, but not, please, using loaded terms.  Keep it very short: "there is a discussion at x" is quite enough. Otherwiose you risk haivng people come along with their minds already made up, which is not, I hope, what you want.  Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the description was pretty accurate. And it described both sides and two opposing solutions.  How much more neutral can you get?  --List Expert 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Slang
Hi. I noticed you added lots of links to the Slang article. Did you have any good reason to remove Gay slang though? The page exists. garik 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Minger, Third-legger
Are you using List Expert2 as a sock account? You know that this is against policy and considered vandalism? Please do not create redirects to non-existent pages. This is considered vandalism and can lead to you being blocked from editing. (aeropagitica) 12:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ball juggler listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ball juggler. Since you had some involvement with the Ball juggler redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Arse king listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arse king. Since you had some involvement with the Arse king redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 21:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)