| Revision as of 16:42, 12 November 2007 editSimonclamb (talk | contribs)1,289 edits →Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:54, 12 November 2007 edit undoSandpiper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,165 edits →3RR Violation warning: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| :::::No one is "uninformed", you both have your own perspective on a topic, as we all do, and they can be reconciled. The absence of (declared) qualifications does not allow for disregarding another opinion -indeed it can offer another view of a topic- yet Lear, you should take note of the expertise that can be brought through that. - ''] <sup>]</sup>'': 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | :::::No one is "uninformed", you both have your own perspective on a topic, as we all do, and they can be reconciled. The absence of (declared) qualifications does not allow for disregarding another opinion -indeed it can offer another view of a topic- yet Lear, you should take note of the expertise that can be brought through that. - ''] <sup>]</sup>'': 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::As for the "image of the EU from 15 years ago", if anything it is you who is living in the past, given the recent rejection by two of the most pro-EU member states of the Constitutional Treaty, together with the ideology that it represented. The Constitutional Treaty is dead, the concept of European federalism is dead, Europe is taking a new direction, get over it. --] 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | ::::::As for the "image of the EU from 15 years ago", if anything it is you who is living in the past, given the recent rejection by two of the most pro-EU member states of the Constitutional Treaty, together with the ideology that it represented. The Constitutional Treaty is dead, the concept of European federalism is dead, Europe is taking a new direction, get over it. --] 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR Violation warning == | |||
| Hi lear. I'm not necessarily inclined to escalate matters, but sometimes it seems the best thing to do, to get matters moving towards a final resolution. I and BHL are currently arguing about the agriculture section, presumably we both think we are right. Thus far we are content to revert the page once a day. If you are reverting more often than this, particularly if different people are reverting you back each time, then perhaps you should think whether this is a good strategy to get the page written the way you want. Thus far, I have become involved because of the fuss, and I doubt I am on your side. | |||
| So, a warning. It is forbidden to revert a page more than three times within any 24 hour period. Checking, I think you did this 5 times in 24 hours just recently. Persistent revertions 3 or less times may also be construed as a violation of this rule. Breaking this rule is liable to result in a ban of escalating length with repeated violations. See ] and ]] 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:54, 12 November 2007
 Archives |
|---|
| Please leave a new message. |
November 2007
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Talk:Berlin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thedjatclubrock :) 12:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- ??????? !!!!!!!!! I have a long and comprehensive record of constructive edits including discussions. See my edit history. Your remarks on vandalism are baseless. By the way, what are the reasons? What is the issue? all the best Lear 21 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment
What do you want me to do? Protest him asking advice? If you feel you are in the right then just be ready to make your case if he starts action, if you want to avoid that then think about the discussion. You seem to have a very confrontational manner which provokes these reactions. I'm sure if you articulated your argument in a softer tone he might be willing to concede more.- J Logan : 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- My request intended to ask for an outside statement to the biased accusation made by SE. This is generally considered of higher value than a counterargument by the accused party (Me). Concerning the discussion: there are more negotiators needed who acknowledge the issue in a tuned down manner, for sure. I can´t play that part, because many very uneducated opinions stand in stark contrast to the general view, agreed by highly involved editors (like you), seeing the EU as an advanced integrated state. Your general stance towards a multidimensional EU article would be much appreciated. The current campaign from highly uninformed editors will be not last one and a coherent approach of the established editors is needed. all the best Lear 21 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you were asking, but that was just advice. If be brings action then I'll get involved but it is counter productive to object to a simple comment like that. - J Logan : 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Uninformed editors". Honestly Lear, if anything, my knowledge on the subject of the EU far surpasses yours, so please do not try to undermine myself or other editors contributions with your disgraceful attitude. Let me get this straight, according to you, your contributions are worth more weight because you are more active on the page than others? Is this "general view" on the status of the EU coming from the council of the wise 5 Misplaced Pages editors of the EU page, all so qualified to tell us what the EU is and is not? You are awfully presumptious about the views of the EU of those who do not agree with your outlook. Your comment above only serves to highlight hopefully to the administrators where your bias lies and your shocking attitude towards other editors in general. --Simonski 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- And just so you read it here incase you miss it over on my page - "Hahaha, oh dear you make me laugh Lear. Try mid-twenties with a first class honours degree in European Law. Lived in Belgium for a year, including being taught by an ECJ judge, half-Italian, voted in both Italian, Scottish and European elections. You know nothing. Go away. I will hang around this EU article from now on just to try and balance out your RIDICULOUS views. And stick your Eurobarometer where the sun don't shine. I'll tell you what I don't represent, and that is the general anti-EU attitude of much of the UK, instead I represent an objective - middle of the road view that the EU is a great thing which can give us things like Erasmus etc but that it does not cover certain issues, such as sport, and that we are "UNITED IN DIVERSITY". I have no idea what insane book you read or what lunatic taught you on the EU, but you are clearly, 100% out of touch with reality, and I will not let you reflect that in the EU article on Misplaced Pages." --Simonski 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Uninformed editors". Honestly Lear, if anything, my knowledge on the subject of the EU far surpasses yours, so please do not try to undermine myself or other editors contributions with your disgraceful attitude. Let me get this straight, according to you, your contributions are worth more weight because you are more active on the page than others? Is this "general view" on the status of the EU coming from the council of the wise 5 Misplaced Pages editors of the EU page, all so qualified to tell us what the EU is and is not? You are awfully presumptious about the views of the EU of those who do not agree with your outlook. Your comment above only serves to highlight hopefully to the administrators where your bias lies and your shocking attitude towards other editors in general. --Simonski 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you were asking, but that was just advice. If be brings action then I'll get involved but it is counter productive to object to a simple comment like that. - J Logan : 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- No one is "uninformed", you both have your own perspective on a topic, as we all do, and they can be reconciled. The absence of (declared) qualifications does not allow for disregarding another opinion -indeed it can offer another view of a topic- yet Lear, you should take note of the expertise that can be brought through that. - J Logan : 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- As for the "image of the EU from 15 years ago", if anything it is you who is living in the past, given the recent rejection by two of the most pro-EU member states of the Constitutional Treaty, together with the ideology that it represented. The Constitutional Treaty is dead, the concept of European federalism is dead, Europe is taking a new direction, get over it. --Simonski 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- No one is "uninformed", you both have your own perspective on a topic, as we all do, and they can be reconciled. The absence of (declared) qualifications does not allow for disregarding another opinion -indeed it can offer another view of a topic- yet Lear, you should take note of the expertise that can be brought through that. - J Logan : 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
3RR Violation warning
Hi lear. I'm not necessarily inclined to escalate matters, but sometimes it seems the best thing to do, to get matters moving towards a final resolution. I and BHL are currently arguing about the agriculture section, presumably we both think we are right. Thus far we are content to revert the page once a day. If you are reverting more often than this, particularly if different people are reverting you back each time, then perhaps you should think whether this is a good strategy to get the page written the way you want. Thus far, I have become involved because of the fuss, and I doubt I am on your side.
So, a warning. It is forbidden to revert a page more than three times within any 24 hour period. Checking, I think you did this 5 times in 24 hours just recently. Persistent revertions 3 or less times may also be construed as a violation of this rule. Breaking this rule is liable to result in a ban of escalating length with repeated violations. See Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRSandpiper 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)