User talk:Poison sf

3RR Warning[edit]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk - ok I'm ceasing reverting to await more neutral people to inspect the matter. I'm only close to the 3RR rule because pretty biased people are reverting with wrong claims. There's an ongoing discussion in the talk page of David Duke, I like how people claimed it's "supported", when there's little support so far, except the statement "i'm uninterested in discussion" from the person in question.--Poison sf 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Poison sf. I have submitted a RfC on this issue.

Monkeyman 20:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been identified as an anti-semitic agitator. Your future edits will be watched by the AeurianOrder. Any racist or anti-semitic POV statements will be promptly removed. AO Charles 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)AO Charles[reply]

Who the F are you, and what authority do you have to threat me? I give my opinions when I feel like it and edit what I think needs to be edited. If you don't like any of my edits, show me wikipedia rules and policies that I break. Or go to Hell. --Poison sf 13:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now. Few campus kiddos to act as "independent Wikipedia administration". LOL thanks for a laught.--Poison sf 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison - There is a new articlue on Hispanic supremacism that Wikipedia users with authority are trying to suppress and ban. Can you look into what they are doing is permissible.

Well, I'm just an ordinary user. To me it looks like everything is by the rules in there - copyrighted information is prohibited in articles, it must be public domain or free license like GNU FDL etc. Though, I think, it's possible to use some information from that theamericanresistance.com article, listing it as a reference. See, some people are rewriting the article to avoid copyright violation here: Hispanic_supremacism/Temp.--Poison sf 16:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Duke[edit]

Hi. You are past the WP:3RR limit on David Duke. Please self-revert. Thanks. IronDuke 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only made 2 reverts. Where're three? (or four, which I believe, are needed to surpass 3RR limitation). Besides, in my second revert I didn't just revert but also restored the claim which removal was contested. No, so far I'm not feeling I'm obligated to self-revert Poison sf 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, my apologies. You are at three reverts (your first edit was a reversion to a prior version). IronDuke 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Although I did made some edits that I already made before, but was it technically a reversion? I rather modified the recent version to include those changes (removed without any kind of sensible explanation by anon user, which was bordering on vandalism IMO, but unfortunately wasn't fixed by other editors in time). I'm unsure though does it count as revert or not. Anyways, instead of reverting I suggest contributing to the article in more productive ways Poison sf 21:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does count as a revert. I'll take your advice under consideration. IronDuke 21:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront[edit]

poison sf, your revert deleted material supported by citations and has reintroduced non-NPOV statements and unsupported material. Please self revert. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nope, the edit was blatantly POV and should have been reverted. I'm currently examining parts of it that are factual and can be reintroduced, with or without fixes. I'm planning to restore parts which are ok very soon. Poison sf 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out with particularity which statements were 'blatantly POV' before editing - I will be reasonable. Please do not revert - make your changes with support for each or they will be changed back. Please do not remove cited information unless you can provide a better cite - if you do not, they will be put back. Please support your own statements - if not, they will be removed. Thank you. Stick to the Facts 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, since your edits introduce a lot of controversial and objectional material, as well as change certain passages which were established after as consensus after discussions among editors previously, it may be a good idea to put that to article's talk page for discussion. Poison sf 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts themselves are not controversial - they are supported. The views of Stormfront themselves are controversial, not the verifiability of my citations of those facts. My statements are not objectionable - the material on Stormfront is. 'Objectionable' material is not material that YOU object to because you have a difference of opinion. As for consensus - I am part of that consensus now. I am not bound by any previous editor in presenting my facts, correcting fallacious arguments, and removing non-NPOV. If you make further edits, support them with cites, valid arguments, and neutral statements. Regards, Stick to the Facts 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're "bound" or not. Ediits that introduce heavy changes into parts of articles that are products of a lot of discussion (sometimes to the point of debating every word or part of sentence) is pretty controversial and good grounds for revert, unless that is based on some VERY good sources and absolutely unassailable proofs, then, perhaps, it's ok. But it's not like that in this case IMO. Anyway, some arguments were added to the discussion page of the article in question, so probably it's best to discuss it there... Poison sf 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to give thorough explanations for each of my posts. However, if you keep reverting, it will be impossible for me to repeat all of the arguments etc. each time and I will be forced to do the same.

I offer a compromise. Stop reverting and I'll do the same. That will save us a lot of work from the changes that we and others make in between.

Next: I am going to revert again, and then I am going to address the issues you raised. I will change some things that you wanted changed. After that point, feel free to make changes. But: if you delete one of my citations, or anything that is supported by them, then unless you provide a better cite, it goes back. If you make any other changes, provide arguments and/or cites and/or explanations and if they are valid, they stay. If they aren't, they get changed back. Before changing anything, I will give a very detailed explanation why. You can then rebut. If you don't persuade me, it goes back.

Finally - I don't expect you to agree with everything I change, and I won't agree with all of yours - but if you don't provide support and arguments and if you persist in sloppy scholarship, I will make it a point to scrap every single last iota of unsupported information in the entire article, and every bit of language that is the least bit slanted - to the letter. I have been very lenient. I can think of one instance off the top of my head where your 'reference' is merely a link to the same unsupported statement on the stormfront website. That is not a proper reference. Again, I have been lenient. Before you flame me for being a hypocrite because I also include references to to the SF website, bear in mind that those are references to support my statements regarding the actual existence of material on the SF website. There is no more convincing evidence than direct proof. See the difference? Regards, Stick to the Facts 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thank you for not reverting and taking this one step at a time. I meant it when I said I would be reasonable. Stick to the Facts 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really did mean it when I said I'd be reasonable. Note that "I'd" means "I WOULD". I said I *would* be reasonable if you provide cites, arguments, and explanations for your additions/deletions. I also cautioned you not to delete cited references without a better cite, or reasoning why the info mischaracterizes the cited reference. To save you a bit of time - If I say "stormfront website says XYZ", and I cite to exactly where it says "XYZ" on your website, that is NOT self research or an unrespectable source - it is the best possible source since it is direct proof of what it indeed says on your website. On the other hand, if you say "XYZ happened", and you point to some post on your website that says "XYZ happened", that is NO cite at all. You need to prove that it happened and the reference doesn't do that. If I need to prove that your site says what I claim it says, all I have to do is cite the proof. So don't complain that there is a double standard of me tearing your cites to your website out and filling the article up with mine. They are used in two totally different contexts - the ideal proof in mine, no proof whatsoever in yours. Stick to the Facts 03:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate posting things in two places at once. Why do you keep posting it here, while there's a discussion in Stormfront article's discussion page? It only creates a mess. I won't discuss anything here at length because it's already being discussed in there. But I can but smile at pretentious and laughable claims like "ideal proof is mine". Poison sf 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Stormfront. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Stick to the Facts 22:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told by several editors (not just me) at Talk:Stormfront, you're not supposed to abuse the term "vandalism" without reason. Removing content is only vandalism in obviously and clearly bad-faith edits, not in disputes where there're several positions supported by arguments (regardless of which side is right). Material at the Stormfront article is getting edited and rearranged according to discussion in article's talk page and based on consensus of several editors, so that it is conforming to Wikipedia policies such as neutral point of view and no original research. I understand that you may dislike that, but throwing accusations such as vandalism around frivilously is not going to help you. See: Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not Poison sf 14:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM[edit]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!

The links you hve added to certain articles is considered spam based upon it's advertisement of you political views.
66.246.72.108 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that I didn't add any spam anywhere. If you want, clarify what links. Poison sf 07:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sock/meat puppetry[edit]

You have been reported for suspected sock/meat puppetry. Stick to the Facts 05:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider using a different user name on wikipedia than you do on Stormfront if you really want your sock/meat puppetry to be more effective. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nbX84k_0hEsJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php Stick to the Facts 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm ok with my account and don't see any reasons to change it. Poison sf 10:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything makes sense, as long as you twist the facts enough. *lol*-- ExpImp^{talk con} 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront (website)[edit]

The Stormfront (website) article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]