User talk:Erpert/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The article Vanilla DeVille has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- FAILS: WP:PORNSTAR
FAILS: WP:SELF FAILS: WP:RS FAILS: WP:N
Self sourced sources - Interviews, personal website, etc.. Fails notability for WP:PORNSTAR. Fails for depth of coverage in the remaining sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PeterWesco (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Vanilla DeVille for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vanilla DeVille is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanilla DeVille until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PeterWesco (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Harassment warning
Please stop your disruptive behavior. Your behavior is verging on harassment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. You refuse to let our disagreement go, but instead keep posting about it in new places when you don't get the response you want from the community in previous locations. If you want me to stop replying to your inaccurate posts, then stop posting about me. I have never started a conversation about you, but have only responded to your continued posts about me. You are harassing me by continuing to post about me in every venue you can find. Stewiedv (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you're doing this to me because I did it to you? Sheesh, grow up. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Alyssa Reece for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alyssa Reece is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Reece until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stewiedv (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The Circle
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hey Erpert! The conflict between you and Stewiedv is a fascinating one. Both of you feel harassed whenever the other person is defending themself. That makes the other person want to defend themself -- and so the cycle continues. How strange is it that a conflict can go on forever when both sides feel they're victims? So which side is actually justified in feeling attacked? As far as I can tell, you both are. Which side is more justified? If figuring that out means continuing the conflict, then that would be pretty much the worst question that could ever be asked.
While I mostly agree with the content of your posts, the way you've spoken may not have helped the situation. For instance, nobody likes to be told to "grow up" or they're "oversensitive" or their behaviour is "tiresome" or they're "not mature enough." If someone said these things to me, regardless of whether they were right or not, I would totally feel attacked. Even if you preceded this language with valid points, perhaps you can't blame Stewiedv for feeling attacked. By including that language, you've been effectively telling him to ignore everything else you say.
Remember that Stewiedv honestly feels you've been harassing him. Really! Although he, too, has used undesirable language, we must assume good faith (for now) and assume he did it because he honestly thinks you're a bad person, not because he wants to create conflict.
While I think it's both of your responsibilities to break the cycle, I think you're the one who can do it. Even if you're unsuccessful, I think the attempt itself will have been important. In the worst case scenario, you look like the saint for caring more about resolving the conflict than being right. And in the best case scenario, the conflict is resolved (or at least... extinguished :). LethargicParasite (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- All I want is for this ridiculousness to end. I leave one conversation and he starts up another one somewhere else...and then he accuses me of forum shopping. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 22:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, your post to WP:AIV was not forum-shopping? It was instead your attempt to "break the cycle"? Do you realize that the ANI discussion was almost exclusively between the two of you - and as such it should have taken place elsewhere? Do you realize that in the ANI report, you were told by a 3rd party exactly where to take your problem for resolution? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you being so mean? All I want is for him to leave me alone. This has gone way beyond the article and has become personal. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, your post to WP:AIV was not forum-shopping? It was instead your attempt to "break the cycle"? Do you realize that the ANI discussion was almost exclusively between the two of you - and as such it should have taken place elsewhere? Do you realize that in the ANI report, you were told by a 3rd party exactly where to take your problem for resolution? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |