This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) at 03:22, 16 September 2008 (warning re disruption on LaRouche topics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:22, 16 September 2008 by Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) (warning re disruption on LaRouche topics)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hello, Terrawatt, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Citizens Electoral Council
Thanks for your input here! Cricketgirl 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I notice you looked at my {{clarifyme}} request on the CEC article - what I was after was a clarification of "recent". Any ideas? Cricketgirl 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Schiller Institute
Thanks for the compliment.:) I have given my opinion on the article's talk page for the mo- please say there what you think are the issues this article has.Merkinsmum 23:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Attacking Wiki entries out of spite
After calling me an Internet Troll on the National Caucus of Labor Committees page you quickly went to my outside world entry as Chip Berlet and added a nasty paragraph of criticism. See here. I think this is underhanded and reprehensible. Arbcom was quite clear that this practice was not acceptable. If you do this again I will pursue the matter and seek appropriate sanctions.--Cberlet (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Kronberg
Sorry for the tardy response. As you can see, I did join in the discussion. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg
Can you explain how you came to edit Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg? It is an obscure image used only on an article that has been protected since before you opened this account. There is an appearance of being a sock puppet for the last LaRouche editor who edited that image page, the banned user Maple Porter. Will Beback NS (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. It isn't paranoia but rather a rational response to repeated sock puppetry by a banned POV warrior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edits at Synarchism
Misplaced Pages:No Original Research means what it says. Please add only well-sourced material that is directly relevant to the subject of the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008
Block was in error, lifted now. —EncMstr 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|I think there has been a mistake. If you look at my contributions, you will see a grand total of 3 edits, so I didn't violate the rule. I also contacted User:Loremaster on his talk page, as well as on the article talk page, to advise him that he was violating policy on OR and BLP. By the way, removing BLP violations is not covered by 3RR. Please unblock. Thanks in advance, Terrawatt (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)}}
Perhaps I'm completely blind or doing something wrong, but at a glance, you have at least fifty contributions to the article namespace, with several reverts immediately visible at the top.--Liempt (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)- I'm an idiot. Now I see what he was trying to say. It seems like he has only made three reverts and it does seem like he was merely obeying BLP policy. I'd say this user deserves to be unblocked--Liempt (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake. I apologize for incorrectly blocking you. I failed to look deeply enough at what you were doing. —EncMstr 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Relata refero (disp.) 21:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Oh, no, I looked at the history and your talkpage and noted that nobody had warned you about 3RR recently. The others seem to be longer-term editors. It wasn't meant to single you out in any other way.
I think you misunderstand my concern about articles. I do not expect any problems to surface that are not of the kind already faced by WP in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. However, it would be foolish to not expect such problems to surface.
About sources, I broadly agree with you, though I must say that Rupert Murdoch's papers are more pro-PRC than not - he does, after all, have considerable business interests inside China. Chinese papers are reliable sources for the views of the Chinese government: there are places where the official Chinese view must be stated, and in those places it will be. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
September 2008
There has been a recent uptick in your activity related to LaRouche articles and your level of disruptive editing.
There are multiple prior cases which established precedent that this particular problem area has a lower threshold for disruptive activity than other topic areas. In particular here, your activity over the last few days has gone from that of an active but very topic focused (single purpose account) to a problem point. This has as you noticed been discussed on WP:ANI.
If you continue with further disruptive editing in this topic area, administrators may block your account to prevent the disruption. If you can limit your editing to more constructive contributions on this topic you will be fine. If you keep pushing things, your ability to contribute will be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent disruption to the project.
Please tone things down yourself. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)