User talk:Stephen378

Political Bias

Liberal whiner says of the person above: I must ask you to please cease adding biased political propaganda into articles and from this point forward to only make legitimate edits. Anything which you believe is warranted for inclusion into an article, which is, however, controversial should be discussed on the "talk page" first.

A: You made an unsubstantiated allegation. Where is this alleged "biased political propaganda" of which you speak? The bias must lie in your objection to the facts you don't like. Don't make false charges against editors!

A paper tiger says: If you persist in making illegitimate edits action will be taken against you.

A: Such as?

Burningdwarf (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In response to your first question the biased political propaganda that I refer to is the insertion of a link to a web site containing the opinion of Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter's opinion, as well as that of everyone else is biased, an opinion by definition is biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which contains fact, not opinion thereby making the inclusion of an opinion illegitimate. Besides, as OrangeMike pointed out the opinions contained in that article are not really relevant to the subject and therefore violate our standards for external links.

Concerning your second question action that may be taken against you is the suspending of your editing privileges. You should be careful in the future as you have already violated the "3RR" and the "NPOV", committed vandalism, and have made "personal attacks" all of which warrant banning.

You stand on thin ice

Burningdwarf (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) To Dwarf: Your assessment of the contents of my external links to "Treason" as "opinions" is false and disingenuous and merely shows your bias. Any work can be called mere "opinion" if all the facts it contains are discounted. And with all the real vandalism and misconduct on this site -- deletion of substantive article content and adding inflammatory irrelevancies -- to say I am "on thin ice" for my adding two external links is outrageous and shows a an immature overreaction based on your own warped political aversion to the author. Shame on you! Stephen378 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Stephen,[reply]

I believe you mistook the main point of my last statement. What I meant to emphasize is that the link you added to the article Treason does not meet our standards for external links as it is irrelevant to the subject, ergo is not appropriate. If you feel that it is then argue your point on the talk page of treason but do not keep adding it when multiple other editors have removed it and consensus has not be reached in favor of including it. Such an action constitutes vandalism. --BD
- I just started with Wiki and have not seen any talk page related to treason yet. Thanks for the tip. Stephen378 03:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Card Stacking:

Your edits to the page Card stacking violate the NPV policies held by wikipedia as they may be considered libel of the New York Times. Continued reversal of their removal is considered a disruptive activity. --BD
- Libel requires proof of false statements and does not apply to facts and requires proof of malice and damages, as well, when it is not libel per se. Also, anything can be said to violate NPV; your remark is conclusory and has a conspicuous lack of grounds and persuasiveness. Just because you dislike certain facts and logical inferences from them does not mean a NPV violation has occurred. Stephen378 03:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Warren Buffett:

You appear to be engaged in an edit war on the page Warren Buffet. Please present your reasoning for wanting to change the text in the section “Public Stances” on the “Talk” page for discussion, otherwise the current revision should stay due to it not rephrasing a direct quote and using an in-text definition, both of which, according to wikipedia’s policies, should be avoided wherever possible. --BD
- Not everything Buffett utters is deserving of quotation on this site, especially that one, which is (1) limited to a given year and obscures the general idea with unnecessary detail and (2) rests on a false analogy to primogeniture, which is old English common law, a red herring, and not in our laws of intestate succession. My agenda is getting it right, unlike your reflexive unthinking reversions to the prior form, as any mediator should see.

Stephen378 03:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Concerning “Thin Ice”:[reply]

You are not an "thin ice" for adding additional external links, albeit illegitimate ones, you are on "thin ice" for violating the 3RR, NPOV, making edits which constitute vandalism, and making "personal attacks" against both Richard and myself. I must also ask you to please refrain from ending you replies with "Shame on you!" such comments are not productive and may be considered personal attacks. In addition please use the "Show Preview" button when composing edits to avoid cluttering the history page. --BD
- I am not familiar with the "show preview" function -- never tried it; haven't had time to read all the pesky little rules. Stephen378 03:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning changing of “Concerning Treason” to Deletion of external links on Treason entry:

I request that you please explain your reasoning for the aforementioned alteration you made on my talk page to something I wrote without my permission.

Thank You, Burningdwarf 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You say: "alteration you made on my talk page to something I wrote without my permission." Well, I suggest you never write without getting your own permission first. I edited it for greater clarification; if you find it objectionable, please change it back.

Stephen378 03:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Treason. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Richard75 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: No, the author linked to wrote a best selling book called "Treason" in case you missed it, and the link to her allegation of treason, with examples to back it up, is perfectly legitimate. You look like a defender of treason in objecting to the facts presented. Please refute them or refrain from your illegitimate deletions. Where is the proof of your charge of "unconstructive" edits and "vandalism"? How dare you make phony charges against a fellow editor! Shame on you! It is merely an external link, and the reader should have the option to click it. But you denied them that option. On what grounds? It looks like you committed the only violation. And you have the audacity to admonish me for your misdeed! Shameful!

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Treason, you will be blocked from editing. Richard75 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is not a venue for advertising a book that somebody wrote which happens to be called Treason, nor is it a place for linking to a political editorial in a newspaper column, nor a forum for your views. It is for reporting facts, not Ann Coulter's opinions. Your edit has been reverted by other editors as well as by me. If you are not sure why, please check the policy page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Richard75 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, but there was no question in my post, since I prefaced it with "Reply by Stephen378." The more I use this site, the less I like it. Stephen378 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

With regard to your comments on Treason: Please see Wikipedia'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. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site is perfecting the art of making the simple needlessly complex -- with a network of rules and sublinks in a pedantic effort to make it non-user-friendly for some reason. Now I see why so many don't bother to contribute even though they have much to add. It's a waste of time. Stephen378 (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an easy place to get used to. People are often twarted by the fact that though everybody can make any change to wikipedia, not all changes are according to the 'rules' and will be removed, or you will be repremanded for it. I left you a welcome template below.

Welcome!

Hello, Stephen378, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]