User talk:Seb az86556/archive43

TB

Hello, Seb az86556. You have new messages at Talk:Gérard_Depardieu#Presidential_Administration_of_Russia_sounds_much_more_encyclopedic_then_Kremlin.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tarre10

We're having quite a problem with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis on Chuck Hagel and other articles so there is a possibility this user is a sock, a friend or could have been hacked? CarolMooreDC 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Iuno; I'll keep watching. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Closure with a parting shot

Hi there. I noticed that when you closed this thread (which I fully support), you took the opportunity to have your say in passing. I think that's the wrong thing to do. If a thread deserves closing because the question is inappropriate, then it seems wrong to be engaging in the answer with the OP or other respondents in the very act of closure. The message I got from your post was "I'm allowed to have my say, but nobody else is". That's not a good template for future actions of this type. It wasn't like you were explaining why you were closing the thread. Instead, you got into the actual matter raised by the OP. You've just had your cake and eaten it too. I've always wondered what it tastes like. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

hm. didn't know that. ah well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

P. W. Botha

Hi, why did you revert my recent edit to P. W. Botha? I didn't add any new information and was only revising a small segment of text. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

no, as stated in the edit-summary, you added a major, unreferenced, controversial claim that is not in the article's body. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"As economic and diplomatic actions against South Africa increased, civil unrest spread amongst the black population, supported by the ANC and neighbouring black-majority governments." — That's just one segment that backs up my claim. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It doesn't speak of any causal relationship whatsoever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK then, for the sake of argument, I will assume you're right. Actually, forget about that, I agree with you almost entirely anyways — the article needs more references, the claim I inserted probably needs a reference, and the subject of South Africa's foreign relations under P. W. Botha ought to be substantiated compared to what it is now. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to expand on it yourself or raise your concerns on my talk page, rather than reverting my edit entirely? I realize the onus of providing a source lies partly with myself, and I would be more than willing to collaborate on providing reliable third-party references, as well as expanding on the information already provided in the article (which is meager at best). I am not a new contributor, and have been editing Wikipedia for several years (using the site as a resource since at least 2005, made my first edit in March 2007, registered in June 2008); I know how things work around here. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is your claim is wrong. Good luck finding sources for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, let me get this straight. I inserted a claim that international pressure on the governmnent in South Africa factored into their decision to grant some concessions towards the Black/Coloured demographics who were subject to racial discrimination under Apartheid. You are saying that this is entirely false, that Disinvestment from South Africa had nothing to do with the concessions at all? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Correct. Botha is known for not having caved to it, but rather for becoming more of a hard-ass. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Heh. Then I guess I was mistaken.

It's been a while since I read up on Botha; I'd forgotten just how much of a dictator he had been. Sorry for the inconvenience — but please, do try to slow down a bit on the Twinkle, OK? You don't want to accidentally override grammatical corrections in the process. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 22:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI FYI

I've just reopened the thread you just archived (Burzynski etc.) given that there seem to be some massive behavioural issues on the talk page (including a stated desire from long-standing editors of good faith that a topic ban ought to be instituted) and ANI seems the bestleast worst place to have that discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, fine w/ me. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Usually I stay far away from discussions like that but this just got under my skin. I'll ask some historians on the Trail of Tears Association for specific names of people. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Nuked....

Hello, Seb az86556. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Syed.hamza.usman.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lectonar (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

sweet Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please care to explain to me why can't I write whatever I want on my talk page? What policy governs it? 184.163.147.52 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DICK. ⁓ Hello71 02:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

also WP:NPA Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

None of it explains my concern. Please show me a CLEAR POLICY that states circumstances under which a user can undo edits of another user on his or her own talk pages. Thanks, 184.163.147.52 (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RPA. In short, there is no clear cut policy, but it is certainly permitted to remove "clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Further down on the page, it also states "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing." ... "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption." ... "escalating blocks may follow."

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia: it's a private website. Userspace pages are provided by Wikipedia for the convenience of editors to communicate in their work to improve the encyclopedia. It isn't your talkpage, it's Wikipedia's, particularly if you choose to edit as an IP. Acroterion (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Derya Arbaş, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Who's "we"?... someone re-write this message. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ani

It is wildly disingenious to claim that I defended someone's right to call others "childraping fascist murderers". DS focuses a significant part of his edits on describing rape cases with non-white perpetrators. That is a fact that can be seen in his edit history. Secondly Handyunits stated that DS had made a specific claim on wikipedia (which I don't think DS has in fact made), but he did not say that he was a racist or that he had murdered anyone, but he made a specific claim about on-wiki editing behavior, which makes your characterization of the argument at best hyperbole or else a mischaracterization of other peoples view - the same offense that you are trying to abolish. I continue to say: We cannot have a working wikipedia if we canto call out POV-pushers or tendentious editors without having our comments removed as personal attacks. And yes if someone accuses me of being a fascist or a murderer that is a clear personal attack, but if they accuse me of pushing a fascist- pro-murder agenda on wikipedia, then I would have to politely request a diff or some other kind of evidence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for clarifying. I completely disagree. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And I would defend your right to do so to the death.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Same here. But you're still wrong :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing that. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

yeah. looked familar :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)