User talk:FormerIP/Archive1

Fascism

I wrote to everyone who had been involved since January on June 17/18.[1] Please read my letter before writing. Here is an example: User Talk:Many Heads#Fascism in the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote first to everyone who participated in the RfC, then to everyone who had contributed since Jan, except IPs. If you edit this page you will see the list in a column.

June 17: Lapsed Pacifist UberCryxic Vision Thing Collect Phoenix of9 4wajzkd02 Synchronism Blueboar Rd232 Soxwon Anarchangel UNSC Trooper Mamalujo Spylab

June 18: R-41 Many Heads Myrkkyhammas Bobisbob2 Slrubenstein Lazzaratron Arationalguy john k Lapaz SlamDiego DanielRigal Mdw0 Zombie president PhilLiberty Introman PMAnderson Happysomeone

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you removed my addition to the article while leaving The Four Deuces's? Both versions are being discussed. -- Vision Thing -- 20:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future when you are reverting me just say "I don't like it" instead of giving bogus explanations. -- Vision Thing -- 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of IP

Your edits refer to an RFC in which a single IP was deeply involved in.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. I don't mind being accused of stuff, provided the accusation is not vague and mysterious. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC, in which a single IP was involved. You have since messaged many of the users who were involved with the RFC, and since only a single IP was involved, it could only be one other person.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't involved in, and I have never referenced, the RfC on Collect's behaviour. The RfC I have recently posted a number of editors about is an RfC which was posted by Collect just over a month ago, not the RfC about him. I have never used a New York IP address. I ask you to withdraw your accusation, unless you have a particular reason to think that I am 207.237.33.36. Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far Right Userboxes

Hi there I noticed your comments on my User talk in regards to my creation of Far Right Userboxes for wikipedia and you are right it is kind of confusing that someone with openly Left-Wing views such as myself would create Userboxes like that but let me explain, I would like you to know that I created them first and foremost due to the fact that the Fascism section of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics was ideologically empty when compared with the other ideological sections of that page and wasn't a particularly detailed list of Fascistic ideology's so I decided to create some for the sole purpose of adding more detail and information to that section of the page to show that there are different types of Far Right ideology and like I stated I also did it because I believe thoroughly in freedom of speech and the expression of various views and as I have also added allot of Userboxes For Far-Left Ideology's as well it would have looked ideologically biased of me to not add various viewpoints to other parts of the page, however, I suppose when I think about it now I did add some very controversial and evil things when I came to adding Userboxes to expand that particular section, which is very controversial in the least, in the name of adding detail to the encyclopaedia and ideological freedom and diversity without thinking of the political consequences at the time but to me at the time it was just a case of expanding the ideological detail of that section of the page and adding more detail to that section like I would add detail to any other section of the encyclopaedia in the name of knowledge and diversity, if I have done anything, in creating these userboxes, to promote the Far-Right and them having an agenda on wikipedia then I thoroughly apologise to my fellow wikipedians for adding the Userboxes, as it was clearly not my intention to promote these ideologies but to merely add detail and make people aware as to what Fascism entails, and I thoroughly apologise for any offence taken by them towards the Userboxes and state openly now that if there is a broad consensus by fellow wikipedians that those kinds of Userboxes should be deleted then of course, in the name of Anti-Fascism and human decency, I will comply fully, but do consider that with those ideology's listed and with those who are ideologically Far-right adding them to their user pages on wikipedia it also allows Anti-Fascists like us to identify and Know who specifically believes in those ideologies and and allows us to be able to counter them from promoting and pushing a Far-right agenda on our encyclopedia so in reverse the Userboxes that I created could possibly also play a valuable part as a tool in countering Fascism and a Far-Right agenda on wikipedia.

I hope I have answered your various questions and points that you made on my user talk page as I thoroughly understand why you were confused as to why someone who is ideologically Left-wing would add those kinds of things, you were not the only one who was confused and may have took offence to these things and were opposed to adding these ideology's as user boxes, I just pray that I have given you a clear view of my position on this matter in what I have written on your user talk page and I state here If you have anything else to ask me about this matter and other points about it to make to me that you would like to share with me then please state them on my user talk page.

Yours Sincerely

Gr8opinionater (talk) 08:22AM, 2nd of July 2009 (GMT)

Talk:Fascism

That's fine, I think we should move on. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Nuclear Terrorism

Hi - I noticed you participated in the Nuclear Terrorism discussion; would you be willing to weigh in on this discussion? This is the second attempt at an RfC on these issues (the first was here). Thanks, csloat (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Socialism, you will be blocked for vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BNP

Just to let you know, the article is under a 1RR restriction, Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a "1 revert per week", which is stronger than a normal 1RR, but according to Elonka it only applies to "troubles" editors. Verbal chat 14:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is one revert a day, afaik, is this your account verbal? I didn't hear about the troubles only editors, I would dispute that unless I got the details from elonka, I would say if notified it can apply to any editor that stumbles by, that is the reason I notified this user id, to bring him on board, so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. I've posted on Elonka's talkpage for clarification. Someone should probably introduce a warning template for these types of restrictions. --FormerIP (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a warning template on the talkpage and as you were new there I wanted to point it out to you as it is easily missed, it is at the topish of the talkpage, it says this...

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume

It talks about all editors and not as verbal suggests only troubles editors, and it clearly says one revert per day, not also as verbal suggests one per week, hope this helps, have a read of template yourself there on the talkpage, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping to one revert per day is always a good idea on contentious articles. Here, Elonka's unilateral extension of the troubles case beyond it's intended and express scope is also contentious. The 1R/per week notice was in case this editor was bound by the troubles case and hadn't seen the template. The application of the troubles sanctions here is disputed. Verbal chat 16:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to talkpage request for clarification). The limitation is 1RR, one revert per editor per article per day. It applies to all editors on the article, though it doesn't count when reverting obvious vandalism, or when reverting anonymous IP editors. Hopefully that helps clarify... If not, let me know! :) --El on ka 18:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for some more clarrifiacation as to exactly what constitutes a revert.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be helpful: Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Application_of_3RR --FormerIP (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RRRR

You have accused me of breaking the 1RR rule on the BNP page. As far as I am aware the 1RR rule applies to reverts. A revert (I am led to beleive) is a change that alters a page back to an ealrier version. As far as I can tell only one of my edits reverted the page to an earlier version [[2]] this was yesterday. Apart from this I have not reversed any other edits backk to an earlier version since then (well my two most recent edits might have undone some very old material) I will undo these if such proves to be an offence.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interperiate it differently to you, I did not reverse your edit, I alterd it. However I shall seek further clarifiication to avoid any futher confusion. Please see this [[3]] "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors." as I have said I did not reverse any of your edits over the past 24 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PilgrimRose running wild

I see that PilgrimRose is having a field day, manipulating the Murder of Meredith Kercher page to enhance defence and undermine prosecution. I would make a comment on the talk page but I am fed up with her character assassination of me (see my talk page if you are interested). The actions of her and Wikid77 are really terribly POV and I really do think something should be done about this. rturus (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated blanking of sections in Murder article

To User:FormerIP: I am taking this official step to remind you that blanking of entire sections of an article can be considered vandalism. A recent edit to article "Murder of Meredith Kercher", performed by User:FormerIP at 03:23, 30 December 2009 (link: diff-2723), removed the entire section titled "Claims concerning bleaching of the crime scene" without prior discussion and consensus on the talk-page. Please note that anyone committing vandalism with a user's account still places that user at risk of involvement. This is a formal notice that entire, verifiable sections of an article require consensus before removal; otherwise, any vandal could use the excuses "unsourced" or "original research" to blank some article sections. Please ensure that no one operating under account User:FormerIP continues removing article sections without prior consensus. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Murder of Meredith Kercher

I saw your report at WP:AN3. In my opinion, your reverts don't fall under the BLP exception explained at WP:EW#Exceptions to 3RR, since they are not unsourced defamation. Except for the one blog report, everything comes from a published source. We are in the domain of WP:UNDUE, which is a matter for editor consensus, and does not justify peremptory deletion to protect living persons. If you join the discussion at AN3 and promise to stop edit warring on this article, you may be able to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Murder of Meredith Kercher. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The full report that led to this block is at WP:AN3#User:Darryl98 reported by User:FormerIP (Result: Both blocked). Reviewing admins may also want to look at the discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Meredith Kercher in which you declined to promise to stop edit warring even to avoid a block. Any admin may still lift this block if you'll agree to take a time away from editing this article. EdJohnston (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your mail. You can be unblocked at once if you will agree to behave differently in the future, but I don't perceive you are offering that. If you want a different admin to evaluate the block, use the {{unblock}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]