User talk:Kurousagi/Archives/Archive7

...

I understand your leftism prevents you from accepting facts that run contrary to your agenda and blinkered world view, this is a degeneracy you clearly struggle hard against, but please, do not argue with international law. A refugee is a refugee until they leave the first safe country they arrive in, and when the motivation is free money and homes as it is in this case, we call them "economic migrants". We also know, as a fact, that Islamists are going through that border, as was demonstrated in Paris. And Cologne. And Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.71.85 (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "leftism" at all- if I see someone start editing from a non-neutral POV, I revert it. Simple as that. And you're clearly trying to impose your own views upon the article. -Kuro 08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not. What I am trying to do is reflect the facts. You could read European press for yourself, and find this out, or you could continue to labour under the delusion that these people are legitimate. Turkey is a safe country. People are leaving it for a free lifestyle and they all admit this themselves. Then we have international law, you cannot contravene this just because your leftist political agenda cannot tolerate the fact that it runs contrary to your delusions. A refugee is a refugee until they leave the first safe country they arrive in. When they do so for financial gains, as poor little Aylan was a victim of, we call them "Economic migrants". Granted, there will be a tiny, tiny minority actually looking to move for the safety of their family, to work hard and to integrate - in any case, we still call them "migrants", not "refugees". Nor can you restore deleted messages from my talkpage, unless they are describing an active block. I will once again remove your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.71.85 (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT: For your benefit:

• guidelines

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed.

A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

       Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices.
       Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress).
       Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
       For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed.

Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.71.85 (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Yet again, you have been altering my talkpage without permission, as demonstrated by the history, which you appear to have had salted in order to hide it. This is why I no longer contribute properly to this project. How the hell is it going to grow when it is so thoroughly infested by such hardline, unwavering ignorance and stubbornness such as you have just demonstrated? There's no point trying to do anything whilst people like you are in command here. There was once a time when I thought this site would actually change the world, now it looks like it is just yet another actor in the Progressivist lunacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.71.85 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kurousagi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)