Warrior Poet

Welcome

Hello Warrior Poet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article Perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Battle of the Metaurus

Since you wanted feedback on your article, here it is. I found your article well written, interesting and informative! Vegasprof 11:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Warrior-Poet 18:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Talk:Stephen_Barrett

In light of your comments and infrequent editing, you should probably read WP:Consensus (or reread, if you're already familiar with it). You might also do the same with the many other guidelines and policies that have been pointed out in the discussion. Your appearance of ignoring them, along with much of the discussion that you responded to, could come across as purposeful to those who don't realize that you're don't edit here much. --Ronz 14:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The notion that two lines of text that I didn't even attempt to qualify could somehow sway the masses over to Levine's side is silly. After repeated requests from both sides for input, I simply made a brief comment stating my support for what appeared to be a fair compromise in an otherwise circular discussion (which, contrary to your insinuation that I ignored the arguments presented, I read through carefully). Apparently everyone else taking Levine's side is ignoring the guidelines as well, yet I am singled out for failing to wave a flag of novicehood or maintain obsequious silence, when the experience I'm getting now is reinforcing my original position. --Warrior-Poet 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I've put you on the defensive here. I was just pointing out, in light of your being a relatively inexperienced editor, that consensus isnt reached by ignoring guidelines and policies. TheDoctorIsIn posted a comment that appears to ignore all the previous discussion and which he now qualifies as sardonic. You agreed with his comment, so I just wanted to point out that consensus isnt built this way. --Ronz 18:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

TheDoctorIsIn said that part of his comment was sardonic, not all of it, and it's not like there's no one else supporting inclusion for reasons that, after reading the discussion, appear legitimate to me. Regardless, if my input isn't welcome simply on account of my inexperience as an editor, I'll take it elsewhere. --Warrior-Poet 19:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up issues that have you on the defensive. I thought TheDoctorIsIn's comments were unhelpful and discussed it with him. When you approved of the same comments, I tried to point the situation out to you. --Ronz 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten my first comment to better clarify my intentions. Again, TheDoctorIsIn has made some comments that I thought were inappropriate, which I discussed with him. Since you agreed with his comments, prior to his clarifications, I thought it best to bring the issue up with you. Again, my apologies for putting you on the offensive. I specifically didn't want to make any assumptions about your motives or familiarity with wiki policies and guidelines, only to point out how your comments appeared in the context of the discussion. --Ronz 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Warrior Poet, I apologize for Ronz putting you on the defensive. We do have a policy around Wikipedia - Don't bite the newbie. He should not have assumed that you didn't read any of the guidelines or policies involved in our discussion over at Talk:Stephen_Barrett. I hope that your Wikipedia experience has not been soured and that you continue to edit meaningfully. Yes, you are new to editing, but you are more than welcome to participate in our discussion over at Talk:Stephen_Barrett or anywhere else. Cheers! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Levine2112. If you feel I'm in violation of WP:BITE (that I've been hostile, failed to assume good faith, or have been impolite), I'd like to discuss it. --Ronz 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in pursuing this any further. I have no intention of giving up on editing altogether, so don't worry about it. --Warrior-Poet 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[review] 14:08, Friday May 3 2024 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)