User talk:Born2x

Thanks for your message. The link I added mail2image.com, however, does not appear to be commercial in nature. For the sake of clarity, could you explain to me the appropriateness of the link emailcover.com in E-mail_spam? --Bachant 10:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult my intelligence. Mail2image.com was just registered 2 weeks ago. Wikipedia isn't the place to publicize your website, even if you aren't charging for your service. --Born2x 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emailcover.com was registered 5 weeks ago, Mail2image.com 2 weeks ago. Both web sites provide the same free service. The latter is free from ads, and has more features. It's not that big of a deal, but why keep the former, and edit out the latter? --Bachant 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only because I didn't notice it. I have removed it now. --Born2x 15:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Why do you call me a Liar? Esa29 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to participate in your delusion. --Born2x 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me Sir but I do not Understand. Esa29 20:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esa29[edit]

I'm already looking...I'm a skeptic too:-P. But in any case, you need to be civil. It can be exhausting...but it's the rules. -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you need to apologize to him...and calling something a hoax is probably fine (although there's usually a better way to put it), but calling a user a troll is bad form since there isn't any EXPLICIT wrongdoing in this case, at least not that I've seen. And even so, like I said, it's a bad idea to go around calling users trolls, justified or not. I'd consider this completely closed following an apology. The content issues are taking care of themselves and I sincerely hope this user doesn't become wholesale obnoxious/disruptive...I'll be at the head of the line to fix that if it happens. Thanks! -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born2x, please excuse me for butting in ... and feel free to disregard if you find my comments inappropriate. I do not understand what is the harm in assuming good faith in this case. What is the worst that could happen? Even *If* this is a hoax, the process is working the way it should. It is looking like it will be deleted through the AfD, and the material is not in the Christianity article. *If* its not a hoax, good faith will encourage the editor in question to find constructive ways to contribute to the encyclopedia. Either way, the material is not on WP. Just my two cents. Again, pardon my intrusion. -- Pastordavid 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. On the AFD, a link was provided where some guy on a message board admits to making it up [1]. Esa29 , rather than saying, "hmm, that's interesting, I've never heard of that guy", admits to knowing him [2]. He was doing the same trolling three months ago on a chat room [3]. Vandalism should be dealt with via Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, not having a conversation and mediating a dispute. --Born2x 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastordavid's got a good point. Believe me, I know that exercising good faith constantly in the face of lots of constant (insert appropriate expletive here) is exhausting and sometimes painful, but it's for the greater good...of Wikipedia at least. Also on your note, WP:TROLL also says "it is better to...let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem." Trust that if disruptive behavior persists, the user will be dealt with appropriately (and sometimes more justifiably and easily if everyone exercises good faith). I'm really hoping one good faith apology won't kill you. Thanks! -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]