User talk:TheDarkLordSeth

"a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" ?

Hi, TheDarkLordSeth. When you have time, could you control Talk:Imbros and Talk:Tenedos#"a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" ? ?　Is this expression is appropriate and encyclopedic for neutral encyclopedia ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems more like a POV edit. Yes, a lot of Greeks left the island due to government policies but there is nothing to say that those policies were made to discriminate Greeks. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. About geographical name change votes, I would like to let you know that I think travel guides are contraversial sources for common name use since they often prefer local names to English ones. (I am not writing that in your talk page and not in the vote page for now in order to keep the summary section concise) Filanca (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually addressed that point in the talk page. Couple of other European city names were given as examples and I showed decisively how the common English name rather than the local name is used in Lonely Planet guides(Florance/Firenze, Munich/München). Lonely Planet is quite reliable on that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

About discussions, it seems you need to follow Wikipedia:TALKNEW#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages in the 1955 Pogrom talkpage[[1]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What action of mine violates that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Never address other users in a headingAlexikoua (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The heading addresses your edits, not you personally. Please do not confuse the two next time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheDarkLordSeth. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New Message

sent to info-en-q@wiki:

Dear Wiki,

Please refer to the dispute over my editing changes to Edward J. Erickson - VIEWS. See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edward.erickson&redirect=no

Some clown calling himself Darklordseth claims that he knows me personally. He does not. He keeps deleting the following phrase from the VIEWS part of the article:

", however, as a matter of fact his writing is limited to the Armenian rebellion and nowhere does Erickson address the genocide issue."

This is a factual phrase. I wrote it and it accurately describes my work. As a matter of accuracy regarding my "views", I would like the phrase included and I would like it to remain unaltered.

Can you assist me by verifiying my identity and then blocking anyone from changing the phrase? Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Erickson Associate Professor of Military History Marine Corps Command & Staff College Quantico, Virginia 22134 work: 703 432-5482 edward.erickson@usmc.mil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward.erickson (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Prof. Erickson would use the word "clown" to describe anyone. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello TheDarkLordSeth. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My neutrality on Trayvon

Please take a look at some of my edits and stances. I am neutral and not pro-Zimmerman.

Martin

• Against unarmed in the place where I just recently removed it. From March 30th. [2]
• Countering 'drug possesion' for inclusion. [3]
• Nickname Slimm removal. [4]
• Against adding Previous suspensions. [5]
• Against Gangsta photos [6]
• Against adding Email hacking incident to article [7]
• Against race prominence in lead [8]

Zimmerman

• Removal of Mugshot per WP:MUG [9]
• Removal of Political affiliation [10]
• Racial slur used? (Oh ya this is before CNN in which I cite 'goon') [11]
• Weight issue [12]
• ABC's no visible wounds vs visible [13]
• 46 phone call issue [14]
• Against race prominence in lead [15]

Other

• NBA Game statement. [16]
• Double info box removal. [17]
• Removal of pseudo-bios and irrelevant negative bios [18] [19]
• 7-11 distance [20]
• Spike Lee Tweeted address [21]

Times accused of POV: MANY

Notice how I take both Martin and Zimmerman issues even if they are unpopular? Why would I argue to keep off negative attacks Martin if I was pro Zimmerman? Why would I argue to keep off negative Zimmerman attacks if I was pro Martin? What about the other issues unrelated to them? I've acted with the flow of info, and been attacked for my stances on both sides. Yet as a whole, my stance and edits are neutral and careful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about your stances on other issues. You just prove that you're inconsistent even about your bias. Wiki is not a forum. You have no right to evaluate and try to refute information. Your job is to convey it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not evaluating or refuting information, I am presenting arguments with sources to back up said argument. Please understand that it hurts to be accused of bias for any argument or stance I take. It makes me not want to edit Wikipedia when every post results in personal attacks.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You have nothing to edit. None of the arguments you've presented are relevant to the article. You tried to refute certain witness accounts while accepting other's at face value. You clearly don't get what you've been doing. I don't care if your feelings are hurt. That article and the talk page is not a place for your arguments. Go to a forum if you wanna argue the issue so much. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My feelings are hurt and it is really offensive to continue to attack me by stating my views are biased and that I'm using it as a forum. Is not my discussion about the article section? Isn't it specifically dealing with why that information is incorrect. Can all those sources really be 'irrelevant' when they directly cite this anonymous witness account has impossibilities and information which is self contradictory. Typically we label that as such. Someone's statements should not contradict themselves. Even the show itself takes note at her testimony and supports the police in not allowing her to 're-enact' the situation. If you say it is my job to ref, well then those refs state something that fairly challenges that statement. It is neutral to present both sides of the story or point out contradictions with an account for things which could not and did not happen. Flat earth if you will, my sources say round, and the counter is important and relevant to the verifiability of that statement. It is a direct refutation of the claim, not just a counterargument, but a direct refutation. You haven't even seen my would-be edit either, yet want to silence the information which counters the credibility of that statement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)