Revision as of 06:38, 18 May 2006 view sourceDoright (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,743 edits →I'm not threatening anyone, Robert!: False Charges Against Gooverup← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:24, 18 May 2006 view source SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →kkk: Saladdin1970Next edit → | ||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
] 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | ] 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
==]== | |||
Hi Jay, a question has arisen as to whether ] also edits as ]. They jointly violated 3RR at {{article|Zionism}}, reverting to the same version five times within two hours, and I believe it's the same person. If you have the time, it would be helpful to have a check user done, as Saladdin says it isn't him. See the ] for more details. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:24, 18 May 2006
Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please:
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.
Thanks again for visiting.
Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15
kkk
You accuse me of saying people are Jewish but I dont believe that I have done that even once so I have no idea what you are talking about. I have a thousand edits and most of them have nothing to do with me even making a reference to if someone is Jewish. You reverted my edits and I really believe that you are making a mistake and not conforming to NPOV policy.
- Klan activity has also been diverted into other racist groups and movements, such as Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and racist subgroups of the skinheads.
MY EDIT:
Klan activity has also been diverted into other groups and movements, such as Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and subgroups of the skinheads.
The other way sounds amatuer like it was written by an anti racist liberal teenager who cant go two sentences without saying the word racist. If you want wikipedia to be a joke by all means feel free to do so. Misplaced Pages will just lose its credibility and defy the whole purpose of this website. If you will take notice I didnt remove a setence at the top of the page that said "The Klan preacher racism, nativism, etc. People have to make up their own minds on whether or not Christian Identity and Neo Nazism is racist. Chances are even if I remove the word racist the reader will still think they are racist the only difference is they will come to that conclusion by themselves instead of some editor shoving a conclusion down their throats. Why do you need to mention the word racist every sentence? If you followed the rules of wikipedia you would present the information and let the reader make up their own minds. Please do not change it again.
Thanks
Jerry Jones 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think Misplaced Pages will be a laughing-stock if it cannot use the NAZI regime as an example of rascism. To change, in the article on rascism,
- Nazi racial policy and the Nazi Nuremberg Laws represented some of the most explicit racist policies in Europe in the twentieth century, and culminated in the Holocaust, a systematic murdering of millions of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others "undesirables".
- to
- Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism.
- takes the NAZI's from being rascists to being patriots. -Will Beback 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think Misplaced Pages will be a laughing-stock if it cannot use the NAZI regime as an example of rascism. To change, in the article on rascism,
Threatening Comments
Thanks! It caught be as quite a shock. It's the first time someone has used quite that tone with me in a long time. And that was in real life. --CTSWyneken 02:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Jay: see below and on my page. --CTSWyneken 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not threatening anyone, Robert!
Do not lie, please. And read Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules
False Charges Against Gooverup?
I was intrigued by CTSWyneken‘s claim here and here that User:Gooverup "threatened" him. Not surprisingly, I could find no evidence supporting the accusation. Please read WP:Bite and this: "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor. If threats were actually made, please post the diff right here and I will stand corrected. Doright 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Doright
Would you speak to Doright about ceasing his endless attacks upon me and others on the Martin Luther talk page? I came to the point a long time ago where I will not even respond to him. Yet still he will not stop. In the past, I've talked others out of filing an RfC on him. I do not know that I can find the patience to do it again. --CTSWyneken 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- As usual, never a single link or diff to support CTSWyneken libelous defamation. Do you ever wonder why?Doright 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Case in point, Jay. --CTSWyneken 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
settlement/neighbourhood clarification
Hi Jayjg, I've attempted to more accurately describe the reality of Israeli residential areas constructed in the parts of Jerusalem conquered in 1967, and de facto annexed in 1980, by describing them initially as neighbourhoods, and then stating that they are widely considered settlements. Such formulations already existed on Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Yaakov (in this case, you actively contributed to this statement ), and I extended them to Gilo (neighborhood) and French Hill, and asked for consensus for a similar move on Talk:Har Homa. There, Ramallite questioned the validity of the statement, and I believe considers it an Israeli POV. What, if any, wiki-consensus exists on the topic, and what do you believe would be an appropriate NPOV? Tewfik 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
An appology
I'd like to appologise for being rude and inflamatory yesterday. I invested quite an amount of my time in a rewrite of WP:SOCK and was shocked to see it all go down the drain. But I understand now that the reverting of the rewrite was not an unilateral action by one or two admins (which I didn't understand at the time) and that the revert has the community support whereas the rewrite I executed doesn't. It was therefore my mistake not informing the community in proper way. I would like to appologise for not proposing the policy change the right way and for being rude to people who reverted it yesterday. I will now take a few days to cool off and will then try to propose some changes in policy and to create a broad concensus. I hope that the behaviour I presented yesterday will not influence my proposal as this is the first (and I sencirely hope the last) time I lost my head over something on Misplaced Pages. --Dijxtra 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet revert
I noticed you reverted an edit on Conventional warfare because it was done by a "sock puppet." I don't know if it is or isn't a sock puppet, but I don't see why the edit should have been reversed. The wording as it was before is much better. uriah923 22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
NGO Monitor
Jay, I just wanted to call your attention to NGO Monitor, as I see you were contributed to that page some months ago. The page has become in large measure an anti-NGO Monitor polemic. While I think it's great for an article not read like a press release from the organization, in this case it reads as if the article was written by enemies of the organization. I made some significant edits to restore NPOV. --Tomstoner 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
kkk
Wtf are you? I am not white washing anything. I try to make all articles balanced but people like you are trying to prevent it. Nice how you put up some other guys edits and say that they are mine. Who do you think you are?
Jerry Jones 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Saladdin1970
Hi Jay, a question has arisen as to whether User:Saladdin1970 also edits as User:62.129.121.63. They jointly violated 3RR at Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverting to the same version five times within two hours, and I believe it's the same person. If you have the time, it would be helpful to have a check user done, as Saladdin says it isn't him. See the 3RR report for more details. Cheers, SlimVirgin 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)