User talk:CTF83!

Re: Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)

Yeah, you're right of course. I tried a redirect, was reverted, wanted to bring it to a discussion, noticed that it had already been discussed, and stupidly G4ed it instead, which I now undid again and redirected, with a proper edit summary and hidden comment, which is what I wanted to do in the first place. Thanks for your note. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's here

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_2#Template:FGwiki

But you're right, I shouldn't be part of a discussion if I have nothing to say. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, let's face it it wasn't even an opinion. About Dstebbins, has that person done more than edit warring the Peter Griffin page? I agree that it was right for this person to be blocked, but not because of vandalism but because of the WP:3RR. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

CtJ: Thank you for neutralizing foofighter on the Supreme Court article. He is the second distinct editor I have encounted who has a mania for the "good behavior" issue. See here. It's silly, but created an intense volume of chatter. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

HAHA, I did it too once, but when I did it, it just said "good behavior". But I like the current "Life tenure" best. Let me know if you need any more help on the article!! CTJF83Talk 15:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's real nice. Har har, laugh behind my back. So mature. Anyway, I wasn't aware of the discussion which took place on the Associate Justice page, which neither of you were kind enough to point out to me before reverting the edits. Now that I see a demonstrable consensus exists, I'm willing to leave it alone. How about in the future, you guys get off your duffs and politely point that kind of stuff out out instead of acting like 12 year old girls? Foofighter20x (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FooFighter: I apologize -- any breach of etiquette was unintended. Thanks, and please keep up your good work on law-related articles! Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I only took issue the mania characterization and CTJ's laughing approval. All I ask is that you choose your words carefully, and realize that those with a different opinion than your own on this have several constitutional legs to stand on from a textualist point of view, notwithstanding the practical application of that text or how it's taught to grade-schoolers. All told: no harm, no foul. I'll try not to come off so harsh in the future. As for you and CtJ: a little courtesy goes a long way. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, Foo, I think you might be misusing "textualist" in the above paragraph. I don't think the opposite point of view is completely irrational, but I do not think it is superior. It's somewhere in between. But that is, in part, a matter of taste. I acknowledge that. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not revert his most recent change, it did more good than harm. I want to talk about the best look for the infobox and give FF a chance to respond on the article talk page. Thank you both, again. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I was just debating whether to comment on ur recent post the the Supreme Court page. CTJF83Talk 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of decency (masqueraded in your edit summaries as " clean up ")

I see you lack the decency to admit you falsely accused me. Slappywag42 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)