User talk:Lee Vonce

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Lee Vonce! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- LittleOldMe 12:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

User interface

Thanks for your edits to User interface. --Ronz 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov Cocktail

Thanks for beating me to the punch in editing out the "how to." 69.65.202.112 07:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

You are reminded of WP:NPA and WP:3RR William M. Connolley 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take issue with your comments. First of all, you can't "remind" me of something that you've never mentioned to me before. Second, I don't like insinuations. If you have something to say then say it. Your behavior is extremely offensive. --Lee Vonce 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to take offence very readily, and yet give offence even more readily. This isn't a recipe for a happy time here. I urge you to be more pleasant William M. Connolley 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't take offense very easily. I've worked well with many different people here on different subjects and you're the first I'd describe as offensive. Do you find that you annoy/irritate/offend a lot of people? --Lee Vonce 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with William M. Connolley. Your tone is not CIVIL, and I am going to remind you of WP:NPA per this edit. You have no grounds to make the accusation of partisanship — If you do have proof, then provide it. Otherwise, please concentrate on edits not editors.Tyrenius 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just angry that I voted against your AfD. Relax and move on. --Lee Vonce 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It isn't mine: see WP:OWN. If facts come to light to merit retention, then I would !vote against it myself. If you study my record, you will see that I do not have a partisan approach. My concern is with wikipedia in content and editorial behaviour. I will be happy to move on and not return, unless I have good cause to. Tyrenius 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who nominated the article for deletion? Meanwhile, the facts are already there so can I expect that you'll vote to keep the article? --Lee Vonce 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initially User:Shyam Bihari with a prod, which Vintagekits rather precipitately removed. If people !vote against deletion and are in line with wiki policies, that's fine with me. This is an examination and a debate, not a competition. Conversely, if people support deletion and do not follow wiki policies, then that's not alright with me. The only purpose of this is to help create a good encyclopedia. I can see the facts. I saw the facts in the first place. I don't think it makes the bar, but let's see how things shape up. Tyrenius 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the current nomination is yours. The fact that you are apparently trying to disguise that fact along with your unwillingness to objectively examine the arguments combined with your hostility towards people who vote against you... I hope you'll understand if I call your objectivity into question. --Lee Vonce 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTA

Hi, please see WP:WTA. You cannot refer to an organization as terrorist. Militant is acceptable, but for terrorist you must attribute it. KazakhPol 05:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It *is* clearly attributed in the article. --Lee Vonce 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

This is just to let you know about the 3RR policy, in case you're not familiar with it. Please see WP:3RR. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with it. However, I find your mention of it to be puzzling since I haven't violated it. It would also be better if you didn't continually return deceptive information to the article. --Lee Vonce 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]