| Revision as of 04:21, 9 February 2010 editHeyitspeter (talk | contribs)4,115 edits →WP:NPA: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:11, 9 February 2010 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2010/January, User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2009/December.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archivebox}} | {{Archivebox}} | ||
| == Not signing in == | |||
| Are you the same editor as User:71.249.247.144? If so could you please remember to sign in especially before making edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Yes it was me. Thanks for reminding me though. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == WP:AE foolishness == | |||
| What is your honest opinion of AE thread? I've never seen anyone being slapped with a 1RR after making only 2 reverts in 24h. I did those reverts because my interpretation of the ] policy was that ] was not allowed to remove the cat from all articles while it was discussed at the CFD. I guess my interpretation was wrong, but still, the sanction seems very harsh, almost ridiculous in fact. I have reverted very little since July 2009, so I have no idea what my 1RR is supposed to prevent. To be frank, I regard the whole thread as another attempt by ] to get rid of a "content opponent." ] made exactly as many reverts as I, yet he wasn't sanctioned or even warned. What would you do in my situation? ] (]) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, I see that Offliner has asked you to comment before you did - good, it saves me from starting a new section. | |||
| :In your comment, you miss the fact that I posted to CfD discussion prior removing the categories - and that happened three days after I had asked to provide sources for Offliner's claims (he has now admitted that no such sources exist). I also pointed out BLP concerns in the CfD; as Offliner replied to the post he obviously saw it. And it would be rather silly to claim that Offliner did not realize the three articles were BLP's and hence covered by ], a policy that is well known to him. | |||
| :You also claim the articles say "two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia.". That is not true, they were not prosecuted for actions at a demonstration - as stated in the articles, they were arrested on charges of organizing mass riots, something that is illegal everywhere in the world. In case of Bäckman, it seems that both you and Offliner assume that it is acceptable to incite violence against a democratically elected government. Try to imagine if you would openly and repeatedly call to kill Obama - would you be surprised if you are not allowed to enter USA? And if you would try to do so without travel documents (like Bäckman did), would you be only detained for a couple of hours, then released and not allowed to enter the country for two weeks like Bäckman was? | |||
| :In short, I ask you to fix the errors in ]. | |||
| ::--] 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you - although I obviously disagree with the matter you present the facts, but at least they are closer to what actually happened. A bit of advice, though - in my experience, quoting posts in full tends to result as "tl;dr" syndrome, ie. the whole post is often disregarded, as there are very few users willing to read and analyze the whole thing (Sandstein is an exception to this - one of the reasons along with his impartiality I consider him to be one of the best administrators in Misplaced Pages). --] 11:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Communist genocide == | == Communist genocide == | ||
| Line 61: | Line 45: | ||
| I made a comment on the "sock puppet" page about "Can I". Is "BobIsBob2" in the same category, or different?" ] (]) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | I made a comment on the "sock puppet" page about "Can I". Is "BobIsBob2" in the same category, or different?" ] (]) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Edit warring on ]== | == Edit warring on ] == | ||
| Look, your edit warring on ] is not acceptable. I did block you, but undid it when I saw that I had neglected to account for you starting to discuss on the talk page of the article. An edit like , after SandyGeorgia had explicitly listed the reason for adding each one in her edit summary, is disruptive. Please stop. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | Look, your edit warring on ] is not acceptable. I did block you, but undid it when I saw that I had neglected to account for you starting to discuss on the talk page of the article. An edit like , after SandyGeorgia had explicitly listed the reason for adding each one in her edit summary, is disruptive. Please stop. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | == ] == | ||
| Will you please refactor the section of your edit that consists of a personal attack? Also, please note, e.g., that I support the article name change and also believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring.--] (]) 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | Will you please refactor the section of your edit that consists of a personal attack? Also, please note, e.g., that I support the article name change and also believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring.--] (]) 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:11, 9 February 2010
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Communist genocide
Hi, and thanks for your advice regarding my 1RR sanction. I will think this over and then decide whether to appeal and what to write.
By the way, I made an interesting observation regarding the AfD of Mass killings under communist regimes.
- the EEMLers had canvassed the vote twice, see 20090804-0758 by Digwuren and two days later by Martintg 20090806-0526
- the EEMLers voted for only the same position
- unusually many of the the EEMLers voted
- the EEMLers sabotaged a 2/3 majority
- support: triplestop, shawn, drmies, mintrick, offliner, russavia, abductive, lokiit, rankiri, ezhiki, ironholds, muzemike, passwordusername, the four deuces, good ol'factory, jeff g., irbisgreif, igny, nick-de, calton, rd232, multixfer, soap, dimawik, the red hat of pat ferrick, voluntary slave, soman, lk, csloat
- oppose: piotrus, dgg, martintg, jacurek, hillock65, mandsford, poeticbent, vecrumba, termer, olenglish, sander säde, vision thing, shadowjams, radek, amateureditor, olaf stephanos, fOo, shyamsunder, pectore, smallbones, biophys, merovingian
- support: 29 (of which: 0 EEMLer)
- oppose: 22 (of which: 8 EEMLer)
- percentage of support: 56.86 %
- support (excluding EEMLer): 29
- oppose (excluding EEMLer): 14
- percentage of support: 67.44 %
- 2/3 majority required for pass = 66.6 %
I think this should be pointed out to the arbs and the admins considering the AE threads. Offliner (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
RS/N & Transaction Publishers
If you can find it stated that Transaction Publishers are as bad as I feel them to be, in appropriate reliable sources, then it would be great if you could note the sources criticising Transaction for being a conservative / conspiracy theorist / white reactionist press whose standards of fact checking and faithfulness are those of your average CIA/Ford Foundation establishment that would be great. If it doesn't exist, then their texts will have to be case-by-case with the usual appropriate presumptions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Socks
I supported the request - and also added the notice to his page --Snowded 06:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I made a comment on the "sock puppet" page about "Can I". Is "BobIsBob2" in the same category, or different?" Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring on Hugo Chávez
Look, your edit warring on Hugo Chávez is not acceptable. I did block you, but undid it when I saw that I had neglected to account for you starting to discuss on the talk page of the article. An edit like this, after SandyGeorgia had explicitly listed the reason for adding each one in her edit summary, is disruptive. Please stop. NW (Talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA
Will you please refactor the section of your edit here that consists of a personal attack? Also, please note, e.g., that I support the article name change and also believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)