Talk:Francis Muir

Usenet references restored

Please abstain from nonsensical deletion of references to Usenet activities, notable in their own right per the standards of Notable Usenet personalities, and easily verifiable through a personal inquiry with their author. Larvatus 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)larvatus

Article restored

I've restored after it was improperly deleted on vague allegations of meatpuppet voting. AFD consensus was clearly "keep": Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Muir. FeloniousMonk 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There was clearly no such consensus, as the vast majority of the keep votes were from unregistered unsigned meatpuppets. I've relisted the article for more consensus. FCYTravis 20:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Meatpuppets? So says you. You discounting anon votes is far overreaching. The AFD ended 07:50, 19 December with no consensus to delete. Your reinstatement of the AFD today is wrong and is clearly part of your personal campaign of bullying User:Larvatus through AFD and RFC. I invite anyone who doubts this to take look at your edit history. You're overstepping your privileges in your recent activities against User:Larvatus, which are beginning to look more and more like bullying. FeloniousMonk 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullying? Please. Why I would "bully" someone with whom I have never had contact with before I discovered his POV-pushing campaign here on Wikipedia? FCYTravis 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your recent contribution history tells a different story. I've delisted this (and any other Larvatus-related AFDs of yours) until you can show credible evidence why AFD should be reopened, not vague allegations of sock or meatpuppetry, then relisting and rallying friends today to vote delete. This is beginning to look more and more like bullying by a small group of Wikipedians of User:Larvatus through abuse of wikipedia process. FeloniousMonk 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You have absolutely no standing to arbitrarily delist valid and good-faith AFDs I opened on the Scott Sandell, Erin Zhu and Subrah Iyar articles. That is a clear abuse of the deletion process and you will have an RFC filed against you if you do so. FCYTravis 03:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not easily frightened. I know how hard it is for an admin to get away with bullying an editor with meritless AFDs. The last admin I knew who did this was recently de-sysoped. So don't threaten or dictate to me unless your hands are squeaky clean. And even then I won't listen. FeloniousMonk 05:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not easily frightened either. I know how hard it is for an editor to get away with pushing his POV by creating unencyclopedic articles and inserting self-referential, self-aggrandizing and soapboxing allegations in other articles. FCYTravis 05:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

— JIP | Talk 09:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

— JIP | Talk 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Muir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629184137/http://pangea.stanford.edu/~francis/ to http://pangea.stanford.edu/~francis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)