User talk:LoyaltyElement

Monstercat
You are doubtless aware that this page has been deleted ten times to date. What I am proposing to do is to restore the article and then nominate it for a speedy deletion discussion so that any interested editors can give an opinion.

I note that several accounts with very few edits have been involved in this article, and that you have no edits other than those on my page despite apparently being familiar with the article. Although multiple accounts are permitted on Wikipedia, misuse (for example voting at the AFD under different names) can lead to an indefinite block of the base ISP account. No accusations, just to avoid misunderstandings. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for message. I'm sorry that you feel that I've been condescending, but I've looked again at the text, and I can't see how you come to that conclusion. It is a fact that I speedy deleted the article, it is a fact that you challenged my action, as any editor is entitled to do, and it is a fact that I accepted that your claim was valid and restored and sent to AFD. I can't see how I've stated that you are under me or that I am superior to you, particularly as I had responded positively to your comments. If you feel that "challenged" implies a difference in status, I think you are wrong, it's simply your questioning a decision.


 * "An editor with no edits other than to my talk page has challenged my speedy" It's a statement of fact, and on your talk page I made it clear that I wasn't making accusations. It is a fact that new accounts are sometimes created to be misused, see this, where sock puppet or meat puppet accounts are being created to influence a discussion. I couldn't see that it was likely to be the case with your edit, but I thought it was worth mentioning because the article had several edits from single-purpose accounts


 * I'm sorry if I have caused offence, none was intended Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)