User talk:ScottSteiner/Archives/2011/May

vandal
exciting, my first user vandalism - thanks for catching it so quickly. Kevin (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. Revert enough vandalism and you'll rack them up really quickly. I've been averaging 1 a day or so and that's on slow days... ScottSteiner ✍  08:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of my talk page, too. You were busy this morning!   Wikipelli   Talk   15:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And mine, for that matter! Thanks! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Neoconfederate
You reverted one minute after my initial post. I am to believe that was an informed and good faith edit? The entire section was added recently by Tom North Shoreman. I have reviewed the discussion page. I don't think any part of the new section adds value to the page; but if we are going to label Tom DiLorenzo, a neo-confederate, something Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (the alleged source of criticism) does not do, then the whole section is questionable, as it lacks reliable support. However, rather than engage in a protracted debate on the issue, I thought it would be both fair and informative to let DiLorenzo's words represent his views. What is unreasonable about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.97.215 (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You added a blank link with a NPOV review of the article, calling it an "excellent example" with no context to add to the article which is in violation of WP:PROMO. That is why it was something easy to revert. Summarize DiLorenzo's opinion on the matter, while keeping it in context with the article's subject matter. Use the link as a source (WP:CITE) and it will probably be fine for inclusion. ScottSteiner ✍  20:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

REPLY: I don't understand your reference to WP: PROMO. I am not promoting myself, and I am not even promoting DiLorenzo. I am letting DiLorenzo's words exemplify the criticism of DiLorenzo. What if I were to call you a racist and then exclude your own words from the court of public opinion? Would that be informative or fair? That is more or less what is going on here. Since "excellent" seems to make the statement promotional, in your view, how about you restore what you have reverted without the word "excellent?" The point is to let DiLorenzo speak for himself, since neither he, nor his critc Hummel refer to him as a neoconfederate.
 * That is what quotes are for. A bare link added to an article doesn't add anything to it outside of promoting that link. Compare:
 * DiLorenzo has denied being a Neo-Confederate, saying "X". Further, he describes this label as being attached to him for the purposes of "Y" and those who attach this label as "Z".

Place them into your skin and refresh via browser-cache-bypassification. -- Σ ☭ ★  03:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Hungeyforblud
Time to go soon, I fear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just gave him his final (level 4) warning. If he vandalizes again, report him at Administrator intervention against vandalism with links to the diffs of his vandalism. ScottSteiner  ✍  09:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)