User talk:Hansnarf

June 2018

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Lana Lokteff. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Calton | Talk 16:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Lana Lokteff while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Calton | Talk 16:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page on Lana Lokteff's wiki. I've edited the talk page for the same reason Greyfell did. Quote: "Revert. This is not a forum for discussing white supremacy, this is for discussing the article on Lana Lokteff based on reliable sources"

Thus, he deleted my comment for the same reason I deleted the comment of Benjamin5152414. Furthermore, on said talk page, I've provided multiple sources stating that Lana Lokteff defines herself as a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Benjamin5152414's comment said that all white nationalists are white supremacists, which is a false statement. You've provided exactly ONE article by Vox, a leftist publication (as defined by http://mediabiasfactcheck.com) and in said article it's not explicitly stated that Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist. The article talks vaguely about women who are white supremacists and implies also vaguely that Lana is one of them - which is something she never said nor did she ever say anything that would imply that she's a white supremacist. If you want to declare her a white supremacist - such as SmokerOfCinnamon who is biased himself, as you can see in his original reason for changing "nationalist" to "supremacist" - then you need to provide more sources for that, not just a biased leftist source. His quote states: "Her birthday is on March 14, and Radio 3Fourteen is named after her birthday. Her views are probably more dangerous/radical than Henrik's, which is why she should be labeled as a white supremacist."

Saying that her views are "dangerous" or "radical" implies that he has an agenda and is not objective. I'm beginning to think that you, too, have an agenda. Just checked, I was not logged in at the time. Hansnarf (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lana Lokteff shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your talk page and most importantly, please give Calton the exact same warning and tell him to use the fucking talk page instead of reverting and editing my references. Hansnarf (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your'e a new editor who needs to understand Wikipedia policy on reverts, so I've provided a warning to make sure you understand. Calton knows the rules. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors. Talkpage discussions take time, days or weeks. Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Calton knows the fucking rules, why doesn't he post on the talk page but just reverts my edits? He didn't even take part in the discussion on the talk page regarding the "white nationalist" issue. So how am I in the wrong? Doesn't matter if I'm a new editor, at least I haven't broken the rules in the past, he did. He's proven himself to not follow the rules anyway. Hansnarf (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hatted your comments. You don't seem to understand that Grayfell's comments were about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editing, whereas you responded by some sort of discussion that had nothing to do with Wikipedia. Moreover, you failed to understand their point, that white supremacy and black supremacy (if that even exists) are not the same thing just because some of the words are the same, and that is because history is not the same for black and white--a thing that you and many others don't seem to grasp. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a forum, so I won't go on, but I will tell you that if you continue this kind of discussion, and if you continue with such unfounded accusations as "it's just logical to assume you're emotional" I will happily block you per WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're kidding me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy <- what is this if not exactly what I said it was? So you want to block me because I said something that was factually correct. Nice.Hansnarf (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hansnarf: And you can consider yourself warned about your "How about you stop being so racist towards whites? accusation. Any more of that and you can expect a block. Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation? He has displayed racism towards white nationalists while being totally fine with black, Japanese, Chinese etc. nationalism. Please explain to me how calling him out on his bias justifies a block. Hansnarf (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuse people you disagree with of racism, you'll be blocked. This isn't a negotiation: you've been warned. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was racist because I disagreed with him. I said he was racist because he claimed that whites can be supremacist while other races can not. Whatever, warn me and shit, I'm not gonna bother with doing anything on this site anymore with admins like you pulling the strings. Hansnarf (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to argue that what you were doing was OK after you've been warned that it wasn't, while repeating the accusation, isn't acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, go fuck yourself you dumb cunt. Get a fucking life and stop pushing your agenda. Hansnarf (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're one more crack like that away from earning yourself an indef. Please consider this your absolutely final warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that abusive socking [[1]] I think an indef is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been CU-blocked without TPA or e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]