User talk:Mountainsarehigh

Disruptive editing and personal attacks

With regard to your comments on User talk:John J. Bulten: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your language is intemperate, and your accusations unfounded. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it is you think was a "personal attack." Could you explain? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the phrase "either extreme carelesseness or vandalism". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. Mountainsarehigh also used that level-4 warning on first instance apparently without reading WP:WARN. JJB 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you have no idea what I have or haven't read. Such careless writing is innapropriate. Your writing would improve drastically if you used supported facts. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my "innapropriate" carelessness, which I have refactored. JJB 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no idea what I have or haven't read, there's no way it could be apparent to you. You should stop harrassing me with unsupported attacks and instead work on your writing and sourcing skills. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"bulk orders"

Hi, do you have a source for the assertion that bookstores are receiving bulk orders (which I assume is intended to lead the reader to conclude RP-fans are driving up sales numbers)? If not, it would be problematic to state this in these articles. Just thought I'd ask you to clarify on one of the talk pages why you made this edit. Thanks. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I have a source. You'll find it in the footnote corresponding to the number directly after the statement. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw Burzmali's note on Talk:Ron Paul. Disregard the above. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd suggest you avoid making assumptions about "intent to mislead readers" or whatever. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote, and I apologized for the error before you even responded the first time. From my watchlist, it looked like you had inserted a statement about bulk orders into a bunch of RP-articles without an accompanying source. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There' are two problems here: 1) You accused me writing without a source when I clearly have a source, and 2) You accused me of "intend[ing] to lead the reader to conclude RP-fans are driving up sales numbers." Again, I suggest you just avoid making assumptions about people's intentions. "Comment on content, not on contributors," as it says above. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]