![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Bob Boy |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Inactive Posts: 327 Joined: Member No.: 3,899 ![]() |
Odd nature is asking that Giggy remove any references to actions of the Intelligent Design Cabal from off-wiki forums (including Wikipedia Review). Good luck with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ersonal_attacks |
![]() ![]() |
Moulton |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Anthropologist from Mars ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 10,222 Joined: From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 ![]() |
Getting back on topic...
At the bottom of Filll's talk page, we find this... QUOTE(Filll's Talk Page) Enough This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Do not remove material that is part of an Arbcomm proceeding. Thanks. And it did not explicitly label you as a "Wikipedia Review editor", did it? Although you are a member of Wikipedia Review and an editor here, so it is quite accurate, isn't it? --Filll (talk | wpc) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC) And yet, FeloniousMonk cites an evidence page in his own user space that he has since moved and then deleted. Moreover, Filll refers to the same deleted page at RfC/ID. And for the record, I've asked that the deleted page (which still exists on Static Wikipedia) be restored as it has been placed into evidence by two of the ID Editors. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
QUOTE(Krimpet) This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221187473 I don't remember anything like this happening. Is there some other site called "Wikipedia Review"? It would explain a lot. This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
SirFozzie |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 806 Joined: Member No.: 1,200 ![]() |
QUOTE(Krimpet) This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221187473 I don't remember anything like this happening. Is there some other site called "Wikipedia Review"? It would explain a lot. She's referring to your comments about her hotness, etcetera. |
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
She's referring to your comments about her hotness, etcetera. How should you know what she's referring to? It's not obvious. By "etc.", do you mean me inviting her to apologize for her unprovoked aggression? Some "advance." For the sake of humor I was being far more generous than I might have otherwise been (and people often provide only headshots for a reason.) What, would you prefer I yell at her for being such a hypocrite and a liar? She condemns WR for outing her - though it was Brandt who did, and Alison who announced it here - but when a member of Wikipedia Review really did out someone, what did she do? There were no "disturbing advances" from anyone on this site, and she knows it. She also knows that you can say whatever lies you want about WR without anyone calling you on it - in fact, it's nearly required - so she does it because it wins her loyalty points and because she's a dishonest person. Even when I agree with her, the dishonesty is painful. Didn't she state that she came across the Picard issue on her own, never having read about here? Please. Just like Elonka didn't solicit her on IRC. This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
SirFozzie |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 806 Joined: Member No.: 1,200 ![]() |
|
Proabivouac |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Bane of all wikiland ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,246 Joined: Member No.: 2,647 ![]() |
She's referring to your comments about her hotness, etcetera. How should you know what she's referring to? It's not obvious. I, you know... talked with her? There you go, an honest answer. Following are some dishonest answers. QUOTE(Krimpet) "I came across this BLP, which hadn't been edited since last year, and noticed that the paragraph about her signing that creationism petition seemed a disjointed and tangential.†http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210251070 04:10, 5 May 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210236319 02:22, 5 May 2008 “Wow, lovely, the page is even being used to smear me with the same brush for making a single edit to a BLP that was apparently a favorite of his.†http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=212395005 17:37, 14 May 2008 “Someone mentioned the article in passing on IRC and I clicked on it - as a fellow woman in computing, her article piqued my interest - and I noticed it was a BLP mess and a [[WP:COATRACK|COATRACK]], so I made a couple tweaks to improve it.†http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=212538337 05:16, 15 May 2008 The week before, I had tried to fix a coatracky BLP on a woman in the field of computer science, which focused too much on one event in her life without putting it in context, only to find I'd walked into a landmine of controversy between the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, of which FeloniousMonk was a member, with an indefinitely blocked user, User:Moulton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...y_FeloniousMonk She knows damned well that there were no "disturbing advances" made to her by any member of this site. And she does have an account on this site. She has posted here and she does read it. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Her answers to her accusers are dishonest and everyone knows it. If I were on the other side of that debate, I would walk away from that conversation with contempt. Lies are okay if no one can super-duper prove they're wrong! Assume good faith! The right answer is, yeah, I saw Moulton's posts on Wikipedia Review, I looked into it, and he's right. What's so hard about that? This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |