User talk:Fox1/dsmart

Werewolves link

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Werewolves link for the Derek Smart article has erupted into a long, drawn-out, sad affair regarding the inclusion of the link. Most of the discussion is on the talk page, but it's a giant mess. You'd find this mediation case to be slightly more coherent and a pretty good summary of the arguments (and in some cases, lack thereof) involved. I thought you might be interested seeing as you've commented on this before. The case could certainly use some third-party insight. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 14:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart

I have cleaned up this page and checked it for Original Source violations. Do you want to take a look. Lets work on this amicably, reach a compromise and get the page locked. There is no point in continued bickering over this because it is counterproductive. The Werewolves link is not a reliable source and is considered original research. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies and Thanks

I just want to say how sorry I am that you've been dragged into this quagmire of despair. I contacted you regarding the article because I thought your previous contributions might warrant your interest in weighing in, but I had no intention of getting you directly involved. That said, I want to thank you very much for your patience and mental stamina for enduring this mind-numbing conflict so far. Your ability to keep calm and rational is truly commendable. I, like you, could really care less about this topic; it's the grating, condescending attitudes of the two of them that really made me want to stick around. Thanks again.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 09:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version, as it says on the page itself. Once you have agreed on a version, you can notify me or WP:RFPP to have the page unprotected. Is there something I'm missing? Stifle (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What Stifle is missing is that the article is nowhere near acceptable because the last person to edit the page before Stifle locked it was Derek Smart (supreme_cmdr)himself, therefore naturaly the article contains unverified references to huffman, and biases itself 100% in Smarts favour. Therefore we request him to remove the lock or else keep the lock and revert to Fox1 version[1] which is the accepted version by a majority as can be seen by prevoous edits. 124.43.232.74 08:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, user Fox1 went and put back the link which was removed and created a section which is not only irrelevant but has no place in an autobiography of this person. Can't you folks make him stop? Seriously. How long is this going to continue for before someone bans him?

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a little harsh, considering you're the only one currently on record opposing the link. Also, that's not really how banning works, but... whatever.

Fox1 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no power to ban people nor do I have any power to block people at my discretion. Please see our blocking and banning policies. If you can quote a specific breach of one or more of these policies, I can take action. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

However, if you can't, then I respectfully ask that you take your dispute off my talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)