User talk:Renamed user g1luxev6mk

I have cleared my own talk page for privacy reasons. This is not intended to hide information on past bans. For information on my past offenses on Wikipedia, use "View History".

Thank you
Ty

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sexual ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Woman Taken in Adultery ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sexual_ethics check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sexual_ethics?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Complementarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Piper ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Complementarianism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Complementarianism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Reassurance
Anyone who say that you were intentionally trying to make the situation worse is an idiot, and they better not make that claim where I can see it. We do have rules about that (WP:AGF)

You are doing fine. Nobody expects a new user to know all of our many policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say they were right to suggest investigating whether or not it's good faith because I have committed severe vandalism in the past. I agree with you, however, that to outright state that I was intentionally trying to make the situation worse without evidence is incorrect. Leugen9001 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks good-faith to me, as I said on my own talk page. However, you might want to update your RfArb request statement to strike or remove the bit about Guy Macon's claim being hearsay; he's provided evidenciary diffs already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the pressure you were under at User talk:Fæ about this; you're being manipulated by a particular party in the dispute to make everyone else look like they have nothing but "hearsay".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, when I write something like "User X said (direct quote). I have not personally confirmed claim A or claim B, but I can confirm claim C (link to evidence)" That is NOT hearsay.
 * Hearsay would be if I said claim A or B as were true or that I know them to be false -- without personally examining the evidence and posting a link to it.
 * As our article on Hearsay says, "Hearsay evidence is 'an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.' " and "if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross-examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable."
 * I directly quoted SMcCandlish. The words I quoted are on the Arbcom page. SMcCandlish is available to answer questions about his statement. I was quite clear on which part of the quote that I can personally confirm to be true and which parts I have not confirmed either way.
 * I am extremely familiar with Wikipedia's rules, and in fact had a major hand in creating some of them. I don't make rookie mistakes like posting hearsay on Arbcom evidence pages.
 * (You, Leugen9001, are a "rookie" and nobody expects you to be perfect. Everyone involved agrees that you have good motives, and any minor mistakes you may have made are easily corrected.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting
I'm at talk discussing why I think this section was a problem if you would like to discuss further. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

RFAR declined
Your request for arbitration has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  18:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)