Luv my range rover

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please try to stay within the top three tiers of this hierarchy.

It does not help your cause to try and demean other editors when you disagree. To be more effective, you may want to check out Be civil and focus on the top three levels of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement diagram. CaroleHenson (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you no self respect? Meaning, did you or did you not write this contempt first? "…the "rant" part of the discussions" --CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Do not collapse my commentary in the deletion page which proves your biases for all to read. Your contempt WP:NPV and clear WP:Bias and ignorance on many topics, such as WP:Blog and WP:SelfPublish is typical of the type explored in this recent Slate.com article. Without a clear view of WP:Notability which I have listed above as a list and not as a rant, how do you expect any fair-minded editors to see your bias, and thus weigh in intelligibly upon the discussion?

Again @Drmies: may I ask you assistance to please try to stop rogue editor CaroleHenson from collapsing discussions again-and-again to hide her bias. Just like you did here: [1] 01:43, 29 November 2014‎ Drmies (→‎This Talk Page: i see no reason for this collapsing). --Luv my range rover (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)It is editors like this that the recent article in Slate.com is warning everyone against. --Luv my range rover (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I used "rant" because in the absence of clearly addressing the issues with the specific guidelines, you have a tendency to insert a big block of text. You've been asked several times, by several users (to your numerous usernames), to please keep your points succinct. You truly don't do yourself any favors by putting in blocks of text that go off-point - but I see that you're going to do as you wish, whether it's useful or effective.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have no shame or conscious. I resent your misguided projections and ill-will towards good-faith wiki-users. A senior editor will find you in contempt if you were not driving editors away from Wikipedia as a whole... see the recent article above. To repeat: your harmful actions are not per Wiki guidelines. To repeat:

1. First, you try Sockpuppetry to hide your clear editorial bias.
2. Next, you get your cabal to support your false claims and bias.
3. You then simply try to hide your bias by condensing my list (and 'rant') which clearly outlines your bias - which you cannot defend, period.
4. Finally, you try to lecture me on wiki civility!!! The nerve: give me a break.

Your actions are another horrid example of the worst of Wikipedia. The LG Williams article should be deleted not because of notability but as a result of your WP:Bias. Simply put: you have no shame or respect of wiki principals. I can only hope your rampant impunity and bias will call the attention of senior officials. --Luv my range rover (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (3rd nomination). Please stick to discussing the verifiable notability of the subject, rather than make personalised criticisms of other editors Sionk (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)