User talk:Riferimento/Archive3

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Caper13 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit appears to be an example of WP:POINT. Caper13 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have yet to call you a jerk. I explained the reasoning for my edit after you questioned it. If you took offense to my explanation, then I apologise as I had no intent to offend anyone, but I still feel your edit wasn't productive. That being said, I really don't have any interest in getting involved in the debate on that page. I saw you rolled back my revert almost immediately, and I did nothing about it because you said there is a long running debate there on the subject. I still feel that exchanging fact tags in a retaliatory way (which appeared to be the jist of your edit summary) is not a wise thing to do if you want to achieve consensus and a balanced article. Apologies if my actions upset you or appeared disrespectful. Caper13 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page content
Hi, I suggest restoring the old content to your User and Talk pages to avoid being mistaken for a newbie again. Much as I hate seing vandal warning templates used against established contributors, your page doesn't give much indication that you've been around for a while. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage
You genuinely think I'm out to minimise gays, don't you? What's wrong with you? Isn't it obvious from my contribs I'm not exactly the most traditional type? I'm trying to create the most accurate definition of marriage - and logic dictates that one man, one woman is the most common form, and thus according to due weight, should be given primacy. Even if every gay couple on Earth got married, they still would not outweigh the number of heterosexual marriages (though it would be fun putting that into the article), and the definition needs to reflect that. If RBJ starts trying to tighten the definition, I will argue with him as much I have argued with you. This isn't about sides, it's about neutrality, and that's what I'm going to fight for. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the LGBT users are happy (I assume WJBScribe speaks for most of them), and the traditionalist users are happy, which just leaves you. If RBJ is happy with my definition, then he's happy. I'm not going to think, "Oh noes, I agree with Rbj, therefore I must be wrong". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. I'm advocating the best definition. Get out of your bunker mentality, I don't work like that. Good night. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure you are in your own opinion. I imagine you live in Vermont and voted for Howard Dean. Remember you’ll be judge by what you write. I believe you don’t like to be criticized, you believe that your opinion is neutral, and you are comfortable referring to yourself as “we.” I will not edit marriage for the next week because you have made it very clear that my input is not helpful. By the week after that you’ll be gone because you are to hot tempered to last (I hope I’m wring but I doubt it).--Riferimento 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I live in Britain, and I would have voted Wesley Clark. I have stopped editing Marriage, not because of you, but because of other editors who seem to get off on trying to provoke other people. You, at least, actually care about the definition rather than self-pleasure. See you around. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)