User talk:Armon/Archive 1 Oct 2007

Deleting material between 4,000 and 6,000 bytes of sourced material at two articles

Could you explain you deletion of sourced material at Palestinian people and House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The deletion of sourced material without explanation or discussion is considered vandalism. Thank you. Tiamat 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. Read WP:VANDAL and stop trying to bully people. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I have brought the subject up at WP:ANI and just now mentioned your name. As a courtesy, I thought you should know. Tiamat 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That was courteous. Cheers <<-armon->> 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

please stop censoring legitimate information

Please stop removing well sourced information from acknowledged authorities. Your actions at this point are simply vandalism. csloat 12:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that it is not well sourced. If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you open a content RFC, rather than edit warring. <<-armon->> 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You were the one edit warring. Things would be a lot easier for everyone if, instead of trying to censor everything you disagree with, and stubbornly wikilawyering the issue to death, you simply tried to work with other editors to resolve conflicts amicably. A key to doing that would be that when you see facts published that make you uncomfortable, you research further facts to counter those facts, rather than trying to browbeat those facts into nonexistence. Ultimately, you see, the truth will come out whether you like it or not. All your bullying does is annoy people; it is entirely ineffective at the actual censorship you seek. csloat 05:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

your change at InFocus

On Southern California InFocus, you deleted relevant sources from WP:RS in order to make a bogus WP:POINT. Revert yourself at once please. csloat 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they weren't. I also explained the edit on talk. I'm not interested in dickering about an article which won't survive an afd. <<-armon->> 23:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you didn't explain the edit at all. Revert it and you won't have to "dicker." csloat 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Centralized Discussion Apartheid

(add subheading or delete, your choice!)

Hi Armon. You've made some astute observations over at Centralized. Still, I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to reply to the policy (G1-2) and the new procedural (P1-3) principles I've just floated. I'd respect your opinion. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

If you're interested, please let me know. Otherwise, you may want to remove the template. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 11:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Lyrl

Hi. Thank you for citing me as a supposed authority on such things. Bearian 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.  :) --Elonka 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption (and I have no intention of leaving Wikipedia)

Hello, Armon! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia!--Gimme danger 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck! <<-armon->> 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Social situation in the French suburbs#There was no consensus for this merge

Hello !

6SJ7 alleges that you may have voted "oppose if the merge is only applied to the French article, merge if all articles are merged" as him, and uses that point to say that there was no consensus. Can you please state if you do support the merge proposal of the French article alone or not ?

Thanks !

NicDumZ ~ 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The verge of arbitration

Armon, I'm very concerned that matters haven't settled down since mediation. The latest content RFC hasn't brought the editors closer together. I think it's time for arbitraton. Since I'm a neutral party and I've watched this from the sidelines since last fall I'm offering to write the arbitration request.

If you like that idea, please respond with a brief summary of the points you'd like me to raise and links/diffs of the formal dispute methods that have already been tried. My total RFAR post will be around 250 - 400 words.

I'm planning to list the named parties as CSloat, you, and Isarig. Is that correct?

If you don't like that idea, please respond with an alternative solution.

Best regards, Durova^Charge! 15:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not deleted, moved

I moved your response to my 'Outside View' to the RfC talk page, since certifiers aren't supposed to edit outside views except to endorse them. Sorry for any confusion and cheers. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Ah, OK. No problem. There's a protocol I didn't follow. <<-armon->> 01:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved another improperly-placed view of yours from the RfC page to the talk page again. No offense intended, but policy is policy... no editing of outside views by certifiers except to endorse. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop that. I'm entiteled to make a statement just like anyone else. <<-armon->> 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not entitled to post a separate 'statement' to the RfC page. That's why I moved it to the talk page. If you certify the statement of the dispute, you may not edit the 'Responses' or 'Outside Views' sections of the RfC except to endorse them. That this is the policy.

I see you have reverted it back despite policy. I will not revert war with you, but I will be updating the noticeboard entry I placed with this incident. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WL. Durova and TDC also certified the dispute. <<-armon->> 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WL? Two wrongs don't make a right on WP. I have asked for admin assistance on the matter and won't revert your revert. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So, I got the assistance and it makes clear I was in the wrong by moving your 'view'. I'm sorry. Editors have pretty significant latitude in endorsing and creating independent views.[1]. Be well! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I thought we'd already sorted it out because you went and checked, rather than pushing the issue. Thanks for the clarification. <<-armon->> 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Armon--do you think biophys's comments should be moved back before we close? Respond on the RFC talk page. Bigglove 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)