User talk:Sxbrown

RfC

I have reverted your recent entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct because it was not formed as a valid RfC. Please read the instructions more carefully. In particular, you will actually need to create a page for the RfC. Also, given your limited contribution history, I'm wondering whether you have had time to actually seek alternate methods to resolve the dispute. RfC's are usually considered one of the last steps in dispute resolution. Ronnotel (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your erasing of the dismissed lawsuit in WebCT.Based on your limited contributions it clearly shows that you have not taken the time to read the rules of erasing. You have made not arguments supporting the facts of the case. The #1 reason La Marca filed the lawsuit was his argument that WebCT did not meet ADA accommodation rules.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You can not just erase things just because you don't feel it needs to be there. Erasing and reverts of this type are against Wikipedia policy.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't ever give me a warning. You are the one erasing stuff without proper discussion. THe case is relevant.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In all cases, I attempted to discuss your edits in the talk section. I'm sorry that you seem so angry.Sxbrown (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can concede the other areas but will not on WebCT. WebCT was mentioned in the original filing and was mentioned in the judges dismissal.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Try This

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is what you probably want. You may also want Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Hope this helps, I'm not very knowledgeable on this issue, I'll read up on it! :-) ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ScaldingHotSoup. I have asked for help with the issue. Sxbrown (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, if you need any help, please feel free to ask me. ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah for a sense of accomplishment! If you want to be a RC Patroller, you might want to consider getting VandalProof.ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WebCT

As you've recently edited the article, you may wish to see Talk:WebCT#Page protected. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Luna Sxbrown (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I did some editing to Wilberforce University. I know how you like to have final say in what I do so I just thought I would make it easier for you just by telling you what I have recently done.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Spellmanloves67, your behavior is very childish. You are obviously a very angry and bitter person. Sxbrown (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You should know all about anger and bitterness.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough, both of you. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried but we just can not seem to see eye to eye. His arguments have no support. I support WebCT and this case needs to be mentioned.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, several editors have all agreed that the case is not relevant to WebCT, the case was not filed against WebCT and WebCT was not named as a party.Sxbrown (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some editing at some other articles. Could you make sure they are ok?Spellmanloves67 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you being so childish and petty? As evidenced by your own talk pages (which you continually blank) and the warnings you receive from so many others, it would appear that you seem to have some type of problem. Examples of those blanked talk pages include:

March 21, 2008 Warning [[1]]

Concerning Edits[[2]]

March 21, 2008 Warning [[3]]

March 16, 2008 Warning[[4]]

December 24, 2007 Warning[[5]]

I hope that you can find some way to deal with your anger. Sxbrown (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)