User talk:Einexile

Einexile

e!! long time no see! send me a ring a ding a ling! foxstab@gmail.com --Grav 62.219.148.12 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right.

Deleted the welcome note because it looked like paste. So here I am by my lonesome. Next step is to incorporate information from interviews into the Elizabeth Hand article, then learn how to motion for deletion of that pathetic Poverty in Pakistan article that somehow got linked from the front page. Finally, someone need to tell the entire history of Subspace, but I doubt that belongs here.

And I still think the Cafe Eblana ought to have an entry.

--einexile 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete other people's post without good reason. That is called WP:Vandalism.Hkelkar 12:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me what to do with worthless copypasta on my own talk page. This is called pettifoggery. Reverts to user talk pages are poor form. Harmless removal of comments which serve no useful purpose, while distasteful to some, is not alien to established tradition. --einexile 13:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already warned you.Hkelkar 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil

By using tasteless epithets in here, you have violated WP:Civility. Since you are a new user I will let it slide and welcome you again. Henceforth, please watch your language and observe decorum. Wikipedia is not a sewer.Hkelkar 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new user, and it is not your place to let anything I do slide. If I have directed epithets toward another user, please notify that user so that he may contact me with his objections. It's unfortunate that transparent passive-aggressiveness isn't included in WP:C, but it's tacky to wag it around on a user's talk page - especially when your motive is clearly bitterness over edits to one of your pet pages which you didn't grant me five minutes to justify before firing up your revert finger. WP:C does however warn against condescension, escalation, and pettiness. I'll thank you to drama-bait elsewhere. --einexile 13:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not presume the motives behind other editors without evidence. It is construed as uncivil behaviour. If you wish to discuss maturely instead of sophomorically then I am all ears. Refrain from using swear words as it is extremely bad form and is demeaning to the serious nature of editors and their edits.Hkelkar 23:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Poverty in Pakistan

Before you do something drastic, you might want to see precedent on Poverty in the United States, Poverty in India, and the AfD debate proceeing in the latter (click on the link on the Afd tag in the article) which is 'keep' in an overwhelming majority. Before considering controversial edits, plz discuss in the talk page. many editors have worked very hard for the edits and your edits, while always welcomed, should be discussed in a civil manner.Hkelkar 12:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without responding to its author, I would ask that anyone interested in the above comment refer to the edit history for the article in question. The "controversial edits" in question were, at their most dramatic, removals of uncited passages which were themselves controversial. --einexile 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask all the users to exercise caution with article for the next day, I myself am not editing it today, due to the fact it is on the main page as a Do you know? section. Adding a bunch of unwarranted fact tags (info is cited well) merely messes up the article.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have no desire to edit war someone's pet project. The article badly needed copy editing so I provided some solely because it was a DYK. Since I had criticized it I thought it appropriate I contribute something useful. My citation tags were to three moderately POV statements. If you really think they were inappropriate, why don't you remove the other 10 or 11 endnotes to the same source which were not controversial? Along comes Hkelkar and instead of simply changing the four things to which he objected he erases all the copy editing then calls me a vandal. And you think I'd consider contributing to that article again. No thank you. --einexile 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

If you believe Hkelkar's efforts and edits are useless cite diffs showing the edits you take issue with and explain the reason why. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "useless" comment was in reference to someone else's welcome spam I deleted from this page. It had nothing to do with Hkelkar's edits except insofar as he'd reverted my talk page. --einexile 07:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]