Talk:Carrie Brownstein/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions about Carrie Brownstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
deer hunter?
Is the section about deer hunting vandalism? It is unsourced, and other contributions from that IP address seem dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.34.200 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Surname
@WillyBova: Can you please explain why it is insulting to refer to someone only by their surname? This is part of the manual of style on Wikipedia for all BLP articles, so I'm struggling to see why there's a problem with this. Please also remember to assume good faith when interacting with other editors - we're both here to improve Wikipedia, and edit summaries accusing others of vandalism can be considered uncivil. Marianna251TALK 00:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Wills Bova: Reply Listen Ms. Marianna 251. Vandalism is an undefined Variable, it is a Legal term it is not an absolute, this is the American Version of Wikipedia Subject to American Law, as it is a Work in Progress Your circular Logic is 1984 Doublespeak to reduce language's definition and meaning, You are trying to defend an Absurd Failure of logic, and the freedom to allow respect for the English Language in it's intended and defined form, where word's have multiple meanings and Sentences referring to peoples names have appropriate option's. Please, Give up up the Ghost and undo your edit, or this discussion will go on Forever till the Supreme Court decides the issue as You have Now Slandered Me. In addition You have admitted I was correct, Revert your edit or this process continues until a Court of Law concludes the issue. So you can pontificate on infinitely about Wiki policy, However it is a Work in Progress, not an absolute by definition in the Creation of the "Wiki" in the Wikipedia model. There are multiple versions of English, Queen's English, Old English, Canadian English, American English, even Australian English, etc, your argument is Circular and belongs in a 1984 Memory Hole job. I will look into the "talk" attribute parameter when I have time. If you want to continue your pedantic, impertinent argument, feel free to dig a deeper hole, and justify a policy of insulting people that is absolute. It is a losing argument as you have already admitted but for the pedantic claim of "English" wikipedia's absolute claim to allow socially unacceptable insulting context. It is an insult in English to use last names online other cultures besides Italian and Jewish cultures that was just the example I used to make my point. It is also bad grammar, to use a Surname to begin a sentence, particularly when other names used in the same sentence are used as full names granted it is a Flaw in the wiki model, the policy your are pontificating, because of the wiki model, and are full page hyperlinks, mostly use full names, so defending bad grammar and insulting absolutes of a Surname policy that clearly has options as I can list hundreds of pages that properly use full names who appropriate, is absurd and circular. Defending an absolute, to defend an infinite by definition language that actual "English" is, appears to any educated writer to be absurd. Are you claiming this is "Wikipedia English"a new language that is separate from "English"? Which I might ad is one of the most difficult to properly learn and speak as to it's Past, Present, and Future, structure and that it is infinite be definition. In addition Wikipedia is a Work in Progress, not a reduction in process of proper writing dynamics concept and interpretation. So creating an absolute about Surname uses violates the founding principal of the Wikipedia purpose and the English languages fundamental structure. You clearly reverted the Edit with out examining it, the Time code shows that. Your reverting to the previous version is abusive by not examining the entire edit, in addition your argument is clearly circular in the defense of your vandalistic reversion, clearly it can also be described as Pedantic Impertinent Bullying, in your argument, in defense of your behavior. Ms Marianne251, I identified myself as a real person to let you know you were dealing with a real person, not a Wiki Avatar Alias. That has access to Discovery motions, to determine actual identity of a Wiki Avatar, to serve you a summons, if required should this matter not be resolved. It is in no way intended to imply that editor's are not on a level playing field. Your implication that I am not aware of wiki policy is arrogant in intent and argumentative. Your interpitation that the I was doing so for any other purpose, informing you I was not an Avatar, can easily be seen as Slander and Defamation of Character, in an acceptable interpretation of applicable case law. Good Day
Reply: Ms Marrianna251, You need to respond to your actions and justify your blatant Vandalism of my Edit, and Bullying behavior, I welcome any process that resolves your disrespectful arrogance. |