| Revision as of 21:59, 11 April 2008 editThe rabbit in the suitcase (talk | contribs)91 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:45, 12 April 2008 edit undoScarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers28,509 edits →You have been blocked: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :You're obviously new here. It is unlikely, given your behavior, you'll get far trying to report me. There's a word for what you're doing: Wikilawyering. It's frowned upon. ] (]) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | :You're obviously new here. It is unlikely, given your behavior, you'll get far trying to report me. There's a word for what you're doing: Wikilawyering. It's frowned upon. ] (]) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == You have been blocked == | |||
| For 24 hours for ] on the ] article. If you wish to appeal this block see ]. Please use discussion in the future to resolve disputes. Thanks. ]] 10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:45, 12 April 2008
this is my talk page. if you want to talk about me, this is the place to do it.
In my opinion, this posting (copied below) by you proves that you're against points of view other than your own, which is contrary to what wikipedia stands for. Just because you don't view something as a controversy does not mean it's not controversial. Please re-read wikipedia's neutral point of view documentation regarding balance here.
- Given their long history, there is no way a single ad campaign (or a single ad in it) gone unnoticed by all but a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers looking for their "controversy" du jour could rise to the level of notability that would merit its inclusion in the page. Given that absolut-ly no one cares outside of the Malkin set, a rather fringe political demographic to be sure, I'd have to second the motion to protect the page until the "issue" is forgotten (i.e. next week). The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
While you are certainly free to have an opinion, you are not free to suppress other's opinions here on wikipedia. With as much hate as you seem to have in your heart for differing viewpoints, I don't expect you to learn to accept other's views, but please at least learn to tolerate the existance of other points of view.
It's the only way to achieve balance. Sniper Fox (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. In fact, on Misplaced Pages, one is not free to express one's opinion via articles, though some have tried on the page in question. Misplaced Pages does not run on some kind of equal time doctrine whereby as long as everyone's opinion is represented, "balance" has been achieved. Rather, it runs on consensus and the views of neutral parties are favored heavily.
- What is indisputable is that the interest in the Mexico ad comes purely from right wing bloggers with an intense hatred of Mexican immigration (and indeed I would posit Mexico generally). This is well illustrated by the American History X-esque scene in Talk:Absolut Vodka. It is simply not the case that Misplaced Pages is meant to annalize for posterity the present passions of political activists. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You have reverted other editor's changes to the Absolut Vodka page three times today. Please do not revert a fourth time, or you will be in violation of the Three-Revert Rule, and you will be reported.Urzatron (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're obviously new here. It is unlikely, given your behavior, you'll get far trying to report me. There's a word for what you're doing: Wikilawyering. It's frowned upon. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked
For 24 hours for edit warring on the Absolut Vodka article. If you wish to appeal this block see here. Please use discussion in the future to resolve disputes. Thanks. Scarian 10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)