Talk:William Connolley/ArchiveBickering
Latest comment: 17 years ago by UBeR in topic This person isn't famous or interesting
This person isn't famous or interesting edit
[...]
- Go ahead and read my last sentence if you didn't already. Three failed AFDs (of course, based on fallacious arguments) does not constitute notability nor does it constitute the merit of this article. Of course, typical of Wikipedians, they will argue the contrary, and probably win (via a "consensus"). ~ UBeR 04:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I read it. Again, if you think he isn't notable then feel free to AfD it. It takes less time to set up an AfD than it does to keep talking here about how he isn't notable. Who knows, it might even succeed. JoshuaZ 04:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- You obviously aren't reading what I'm writing very closely, so this discussion is futile. Anyone else, feel free to comment. ~ UBeR 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Joshua's right - if you think this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, find some new rationale and try AFD. If you think the system is broken, try to reform to deletion system. Or, maybe, given your obvious dislike for William, you are the one with the conflict of interest here, and should find something more productive to do with your time. Guettarda 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do not dislike Connolley. Never said I did. I've only stated facts. You administrators tend to have biases toward each other, and it's no secret. ~ UBeR 20:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake...I mixed up your (totally unfounded) attacks on Mark with your your attacks on William here. It's hard to keep your attacks on Wikipedians separate. Guettarda 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you wish to discuss Raul's violations of Wikipedia's policies, please do so on my talk page, lest we (you) continue to mindlessly wander off topic with fallacious arguments. ~ UBeR 04:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the comment was referencing your repeated trolling. Raul654 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- What might appear as trolling to you, whereas a discussion of blatant violations of Wikipedia's policies and arrogance ensues, is your own problem. ~ UBeR 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Funny, I can't think of a single troll we've ever banned who didn't make such a claim. Raul654 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, Mark is correct - apologies if I wasn't clearer...I really thought "totally unfounded attacks" pretty unambiguous. Guettarda 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- What might appear as trolling to you, whereas a discussion of blatant violations of Wikipedia's policies and arrogance ensues, is your own problem. ~ UBeR 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop trolling on this discussion page. This is not a forum. You know the appropriate way to contact me. ~ UBeR 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the comment was referencing your repeated trolling. Raul654 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you wish to discuss Raul's violations of Wikipedia's policies, please do so on my talk page, lest we (you) continue to mindlessly wander off topic with fallacious arguments. ~ UBeR 04:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake...I mixed up your (totally unfounded) attacks on Mark with your your attacks on William here. It's hard to keep your attacks on Wikipedians separate. Guettarda 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do not dislike Connolley. Never said I did. I've only stated facts. You administrators tend to have biases toward each other, and it's no secret. ~ UBeR 20:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Joshua's right - if you think this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, find some new rationale and try AFD. If you think the system is broken, try to reform to deletion system. Or, maybe, given your obvious dislike for William, you are the one with the conflict of interest here, and should find something more productive to do with your time. Guettarda 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- You obviously aren't reading what I'm writing very closely, so this discussion is futile. Anyone else, feel free to comment. ~ UBeR 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I read it. Again, if you think he isn't notable then feel free to AfD it. It takes less time to set up an AfD than it does to keep talking here about how he isn't notable. Who knows, it might even succeed. JoshuaZ 04:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and read my last sentence if you didn't already. Three failed AFDs (of course, based on fallacious arguments) does not constitute notability nor does it constitute the merit of this article. Of course, typical of Wikipedians, they will argue the contrary, and probably win (via a "consensus"). ~ UBeR 04:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)