| Revision as of 00:11, 4 October 2008 edit216.153.214.89 (talk) Will you PLEASE leave my talk page ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:07, 4 October 2008 edit undo216.153.214.89 (talk) That other page IS my talk page. Anyone who want to leave me a message can do so there. that page is NOT write protected. Check the server logs I started that page!!!!!Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Obvious== | |||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| You are so transparent in your use of IP-socks to disrupt Misplaced Pages. But hey, dare I say welcome back {{user|Rex071404}}/{{user|Merecat}} after your recent departure? | |||
| == June 2008 == | |||
| ] {{#if:Talk:Barack Obama|Regarding your comments on ]: }}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ]<sup>]</sup> 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I made no attack. It's clear that I am referring only to that editor's obvious behaviour and have made my best effort to refer to it tactfully. Please stop with your attacking of me. Are you trying to bully me? ] (]) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If you're unable to participate in a Talk discussion without as espousing "religious zeal," you'll be reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard and likely blocked. The community's grown tired of the rampant incivility at ], and I highly doubt anyone'll be tolerant of your transparent goading. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I respecttfully disgree with your approach and harsh tone. I have re-edited my comments a 2nd time, to account for your specific offense at the term "religious zeal". If you had bothered to ask me, I would have explained to you (as my subsequent posting to that talk page made clear) I am contending that SCJessey is making non-fact, moral-based arguments against content inclusion into the Obama article. Specifically and at length, he has stated regarding various Rezko facts that there's "nothing wrong with that" (wrong being a moral judgement) and has used that judgment in measuring the significane or lack thereof of those Rezko facts. Wikpedia is not a moral-judgment arena. No editing decisions are based on the editors moral assesments of the rightness or wrongness of a subject person's activities. Rather, we edit from the perspective of notability and verifiability. If it's information that's notably the public arena, we include it. We do not pass moral judgements and having done so, draw conclusions about what to include or not based on those moral judgements. My reasoning on this point is sound and you are in error to chastise me. ] (]) 05:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps you missed all the drama around the article a week or two ago. After some edit warring, incivility, and various accusations, some administrators stepped in and more or less everyone editing the article agreed to be on their best behavior, with good results. For now this article is being held to a higher standard of civility than others, and talk page comments that would be just fine elsewhere, or at least one can get away with, are seen as too harsh for this article. One big piece of the mess was that everyone was accusing each other of biased editing, incivility, and some other things. So we all agreed to hold our peace on that, and not accuse each other, even if we feel we have good reason. I think the editor you complained about was pushing the envelope on that a bit, but not over the top. To keep the truce it's probably best to address it gently. Hope that puts some things in context and explains the reaction to your comments. ] (]) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your kind words. As you can see, I did accept guidance and I did strike the term which was offensive. However, I do feel that the "nothing wrong" conclusions are a form of moralizing and takes our eye off the ball. That editor needs to think about what I am saying. ] (]) 20:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please indicate whether you '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' each of the three proposed wordings of the Rezko paragraph. ] (]) 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] {{#if:Talk:Barack Obama|Regarding your comments on ]: }}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ''Comments such as "Perhaps this fact escapes your non-pedantic mind" are unnecessary, and do not promote civil discourse. Your point is adequately made without it, Addition of the comment serves no purpose except to insult the editor at whom it was directed.'' ] ]/] 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' | |||
| == Rex071404 == | |||
| Please clarify: Are you the same person who operated ] and ], who was sanctioned during the 2004 United States presidential election at ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] ]/] 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I am not interested in any of this star-chamber foolishness. I have done nothing wrong and if I am not wanted here, I will simply go away. This will be my only response to any allegations regarding me as a person. Whomever it is that has an interest in this witch-hunt type of tomfoolery is evidently enthralled by such nancy drew type investigations. So be it. My interests on wikipedia are limited to 1) modest edits and 2) reasonable talk page dialog that relates directly to those edits. I will not engage in any discussion, dialog or action other than those two things. What this means to my access here, well that's not for me to decide and I leave it whoever's hands that control is in. ] (]) 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no interest in a witch hunt. I merely wish to determine whether you are in fact ] so that I know whether the sanctions posted at ] apply to you. --] ]/] 07:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To 216.153.214.189 - if you're not interested in drama, how about stating straight up whether you are or are not the person who edits/edited as Rex071404? ] (]) 08:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration Committee sanctions and personal attacks == | |||
| Please be aware that per ], '''you may not revert any removal of your comments which have been deemed insulting'''. In accordance with this, I've removed your previous personal attacks from ]. Should you revert in violation of your Arbitration Committee sanctions, you '''will''' be blocked. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Incivility == | |||
| This edit and a number preceding (e.g. ) are ] and a ]. You have been repeatedly cautioned over this. I am noting this again for the record, but if you will kindly heed these cautions that would be great. Please stop. Thanks, ] (]) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Obama article probation notice == | |||
| ] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed{{#if:Talk:Barack Obama|, ],}} is on ]. {{#if:Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at ].|}} {{#if:|{{{3}}}|Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.<br><br>''The above is a ]. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''}}<!-- Template:uw-probation1 --> | |||
| == Redericting Talk Page == | |||
| Please note that you are not allowed to redirect your talk page to someone else's page, as you did here. Your talk page is for other editors and admins to discuss matters with you, and should be available. ] (]) 06:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| That other page IS my talk page. Anyone who want to leave me a message can do so there. that page is NOT write protected. Check the server logs I started that page!!!!! ] (]) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:07, 4 October 2008
Obvious
You are so transparent in your use of IP-socks to disrupt Misplaced Pages. But hey, dare I say welcome back Rex071404 (talk · contribs)/Merecat (talk · contribs) after your recent departure?
June 2008
Regarding your comments on Talk:Barack Obama: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shem 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I made no attack. It's clear that I am referring only to that editor's obvious behaviour and have made my best effort to refer to it tactfully. Please stop with your attacking of me. Are you trying to bully me? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're unable to participate in a Talk discussion without attacking other editors as espousing "religious zeal," you'll be reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard and likely blocked. The community's grown tired of the rampant incivility at Talk:Barack Obama, and I highly doubt anyone'll be tolerant of your transparent goading. Shem 05:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I respecttfully disgree with your approach and harsh tone. I have re-edited my comments a 2nd time, to account for your specific offense at the term "religious zeal". If you had bothered to ask me, I would have explained to you (as my subsequent posting to that talk page made clear) I am contending that SCJessey is making non-fact, moral-based arguments against content inclusion into the Obama article. Specifically and at length, he has stated regarding various Rezko facts that there's "nothing wrong with that" (wrong being a moral judgement) and has used that judgment in measuring the significane or lack thereof of those Rezko facts. Wikpedia is not a moral-judgment arena. No editing decisions are based on the editors moral assesments of the rightness or wrongness of a subject person's activities. Rather, we edit from the perspective of notability and verifiability. If it's information that's notably the public arena, we include it. We do not pass moral judgements and having done so, draw conclusions about what to include or not based on those moral judgements. My reasoning on this point is sound and you are in error to chastise me. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed all the drama around the article a week or two ago. After some edit warring, incivility, and various accusations, some administrators stepped in and more or less everyone editing the article agreed to be on their best behavior, with good results. For now this article is being held to a higher standard of civility than others, and talk page comments that would be just fine elsewhere, or at least one can get away with, are seen as too harsh for this article. One big piece of the mess was that everyone was accusing each other of biased editing, incivility, and some other things. So we all agreed to hold our peace on that, and not accuse each other, even if we feel we have good reason. I think the editor you complained about was pushing the envelope on that a bit, but not over the top. To keep the truce it's probably best to address it gently. Hope that puts some things in context and explains the reaction to your comments. Wikidemo (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. As you can see, I did accept guidance and I did strike the term which was offensive. However, I do feel that the "nothing wrong" conclusions are a form of moralizing and takes our eye off the ball. That editor needs to think about what I am saying. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please indicate here whether you Support or Oppose each of the three proposed wordings of the Rezko paragraph. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on Talk:Barack Obama: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Comments such as "Perhaps this fact escapes your non-pedantic mind" are unnecessary, and do not promote civil discourse. Your point is adequately made without it, Addition of the comment serves no purpose except to insult the editor at whom it was directed. Clubjuggle /C 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Rex071404
Please clarify: Are you the same person who operated User:Rex071404 and User:216.153.214.94, who was sanctioned during the 2004 United States presidential election at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404? Shem 05:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/216.153.214.89 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Clubjuggle /C 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not interested in any of this star-chamber foolishness. I have done nothing wrong and if I am not wanted here, I will simply go away. This will be my only response to any allegations regarding me as a person. Whomever it is that has an interest in this witch-hunt type of tomfoolery is evidently enthralled by such nancy drew type investigations. So be it. My interests on wikipedia are limited to 1) modest edits and 2) reasonable talk page dialog that relates directly to those edits. I will not engage in any discussion, dialog or action other than those two things. What this means to my access here, well that's not for me to decide and I leave it whoever's hands that control is in. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have no interest in a witch hunt. I merely wish to determine whether you are in fact User:Rex071404 so that I know whether the sanctions posted at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404 apply to you. --Clubjuggle /C 07:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- To 216.153.214.189 - if you're not interested in drama, how about stating straight up whether you are or are not the person who edits/edited as Rex071404? Wikidemo (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee sanctions and personal attacks
Please be aware that per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404#Enforcement, you may not revert any removal of your comments which have been deemed insulting. In accordance with this, I've removed your previous personal attacks from Talk:Barack Obama. Should you revert in violation of your Arbitration Committee sanctions, you will be blocked. Shem 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Incivility
This edit and a number preceding (e.g. ) are uncivil and a personal attack. You have been repeatedly cautioned over this. I am noting this again for the record, but if you will kindly heed these cautions that would be great. Please stop. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama article probation notice
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.
Redericting Talk Page
Please note that you are not allowed to redirect your talk page to someone else's page, as you did here. Your talk page is for other editors and admins to discuss matters with you, and should be available. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That other page IS my talk page. Anyone who want to leave me a message can do so there. that page is NOT write protected. Check the server logs I started that page!!!!! 216.153.214.89 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)