User talk:Lexikon-Duff

Talk page

Just for a start

Please make yourself aware of our sourcing requirements

Please read WP:RS , WP:PSTS, WP:UNDUE , etc. (in addition, please read WP:CIV and stop making accusations about fellow editors. ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another socketpuppet of you? And according to Wikipedia:Blogs as sources, this is a reliable source.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did YOU read the page you linked to me? because right there at the top in a big box it is identified as "This is a failed proposal."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the talk page? It is at least a guideline, and that doesnt even make sense to discard it as unreliable source IT'S JUST STUPID. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe's blog might be an appropriate source for non controversial content about John Doe on the John Doe article page. It's not going to be appropriate source to talk about living person Jane Roe, ever, anywhere. see WP:SPS. You can learn and follow Wikipedia's "stupid" policies, or you can start your own blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sry but I think you are confused, it's about Stephen Law's critics on William Lane Craig in CRAIG'S article and not in Stephen's.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AND THATS THE DAMN POINT - you cannot do that with blog content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the article is completly free of critisism even if there is a lot? That's not a neutral point of view.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on William Lane Craig. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please assume good faith... you have misunderstood The redpenofdoom Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

again, making assumptions and accusations about other editors motives is not appropriate, particularly on article talk pages. Article talk pages are to discuss content, sources and policies to make the article better.

If another editors' behavior is inappropriate, the appropriate places to discuss it are places like their talk page where you discuss your concerns about their behavior and why, or WP:ANI - but you will need to provide evidence (WP:DIFF ) of actual inappropriate behavior, and your own actions will be scrutinized as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can ~~strike out~~ comments that you want to retract to show that you are attempting to work in a collegial manner.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA and that's all you have to say? Interesting. Strange, I never read that any one of you guys wanted to help me and work with me in a collegial manner, no one ever said something about all the source I provided, I think that really shows how much you want to work with me to write some legitimate critisism.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]