User talk:Unomi/Archive/2009Nov

Polite request
Please refrain from joining discussions about me or in which I am heavily involved and for which you have no prior involvement. Whatever your intention, it comes across as simple WP:HOUNDing. Please stop, thanks. Verbal chat  21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, It is not my fault that you seem to be all over the place these days. I have always been interested and involved with ARS, when time permits, my input regarding your editwarring over the ARS template had nothing to do with hounding, if anything it had more to do with your hounding the ARS effort. I saw how you had managed to alienate User:Wiki_alf from the project recently and wanted to stabilize PBS before he met the same fate, this has nothing to do with hounding you. On reading what had transpired it seemed as though hrafn and yourself were in fact hounding PBS. That you were engaged in yet  another editwar, this time regarding the 'not a vote' template on human disguise is not really something you can blame on me. If there are some issues that I have not addressed please do point them out as they may have slipped my mind. Btw, besides the ip, are there any other accounts that you would like to own up to? Unomi (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a member of the ARS, not hounding it. Some members act inappropriately, such as at the Telepathy and war AfD, and that should be discussed. I have not hounded them, and neither am I "all over the place". There are millions of articles, please try to avoid those, or those sections, where I am involved. The IP is not an account, it's an IP - and WP:BAITING is a fools game. Thanks, Verbal chat  22:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to bait you, I am trying to get some clarity, I can see that the IP that you used was previously engaged in what seemed to be edit warring on articles that are of interest to you, such as Dana Ullman and EMF related articles. If you have other accounts I would suggest that you make that clear to a CU'er for transparency. I will not try to avoid articles that you are involved in, but nor will I seek them out. Unomi (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

regarding your revert on Donald Rumsfeld
Did you have an objection to InnerParty's edit? Because it seems bad form to revert for the sake of reverting. Wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold, after all. Ray Talk 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the deletion of the section justified, the contents are well known and sourced appropriately and is placed within context which renders it meaningful to the article. Furthermore looking at innerParty's contributions makes it clear that it is not a new user, and the edits are largely controversial and undiscussed. Being bold has its place, but rarely within controversial articles. Unomi (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the point was that it's sometimes considered bad form to revert with the only explanation "take it to talk". But even then "disagree; take it to talk" is usually considered satisfactory. It prevents people from reading "you are right but I want to torture you with a procedural obstacle; take it to talk". Hans Adler 16:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, I handled it inappropriately, I guess I have picked up a few bad habits. Unomi (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think this point is very easy to overlook. You knew what you meant, and anticipating ABF on this point is a bit far-fetched before you have seen it happen. And of course WP:DGF is a bit of a neglected art in general. Hans Adler 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we got that cleared up, and gladder to see a conversation on the talk page for this subject. I've neglected this article rather shamefully despite my original plans; real life keeps interfering. Welcome to this article! :) Ray  Talk 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ray, we seem to have been able to have some discussion on the matter. Unomi (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's time to speak up for Unomi. I've manually re-added the first expansion in the important 'Run-Up to Iraq' section, which InnerParty wanted to delete. Jusda  fax  22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jusdafax, much appreciated. I wonder if there is a 'run-up to Iraq invasion' article somewhere? it certainly seems as though the 'prelude' section in the iraq war article could do with some more 'room'. Unomi (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why?
with regards to the notification of an AfD which you posted on my user talk page, please let me know why you thought I should have that heads-up. __meco (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I notified everyone in the first 100 mainspace and 200 talk page edits. I did not pay close attention to the nature of the edits. Unomi (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * this was likely your edit. Unomi (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up and taking due caution when opening a known can of worms. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)