User talk:Coffeepusher: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 88:

:: Please stop being hostile to Atsme, the editor is acting in good faith - just as you are. There is a difference in opinions and stance on the suitability of the material and the sources. In numerous postings both of us have explained why the mere existence of a personal attack on Emerson is not sufficient to include it in a biography. All the foul and horrid things said by pundits should not be included on biographies simply because they are sourced. There is a difference between Bill Clinton's scandal and "George W. Bush hates all black people". And that's being mild. Negativity is easy - it gets a crowd and newspapers are not neutral and are not supposed to be neutral. [[WP:NEWSORG]] is worth a read, but I seriously caution reinserting a direct cause of "Islamophobia/c" sourced to a sentence or less. Emerson is a divisive figure and Fear Inc is the one - as mentioned before - which actually gives an argument worthy of ''use'' because it has depth. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 17:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:::Thank you for an intelligible response succinctly explaining the issues, Chris. I was wondering what you read in Fear Inc. that you felt justified "use"? The reason I ask is because after thorough discussion of the Fear Inc. report at IPT, it was determined to be a very biased report and was adamantly disputed by Emerson. Thx. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green">^Consult</font>]] 17:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Frankly she (her userbox's identify her gender) is the one attacking me, and engaging in [[WP:BATTLEFIELD]] tactics to remove "liberal bias." She has threatened to take me to AE, every edit she disagrees with "violates BLP" "violates consensus" "violates RS" or "violates variability" with either no explanation or block quotes cut and pasted from the sources. she has posted on my user talk page multiple times to threaten me with sanctions or accusing me personally of BLP violations. She has personally attacked me on the talk page multiple times. She has become disruptive on this page. If she would respond in a way that showed she was willing to discuss I would be glad to edit with her, but it is obvious that it is a zero sum game for her, and the only correct edit is her edit. Ill pay attention to my interactions, but I'm not the one who is making this hostile. Cheers! [[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher#top|talk]]) 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)