User talk:Ad Orientem

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Usertalkpageheader Usertalkpageheader

Edit on the USS Liberty Incident

Yes you reverted the edit. It's important in good writing to use a more specific word rather than a general word to describe an event factually. Thus, instead of an "attack" it would be better to use "attempted sinking" as torpedoes were used. Do you understand what the Zionists did? An "attack" could mean anything from just one 5.56 round up to a sinking. An "attempted sinking" is far more specific and conveys the intention of mass murder. 68.79.127.40 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags when there is clearly no consensus, is not appropriate. Pleazse do not remove the tags w/o talk page consensus.. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Regards the warning you dropped on my talk page, I have made exactly two (2) edits on this article in the last month. You however are rather clearly engaged in an edit war with multiple editors. I suggest you take a deep breath and consider the talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Mets

I see you're a Mets fan and I see you know your way around Wikipedia so I was wondering if you wanted to support the WikiProject proposal. Thanks. Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Please do not refer to edit you disagree with as "vandalism". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN. Thanks for the note and sorry about the delay in responding. I am traveling at present. Regards the warning I posted, normally I would agree with you. However, the user in question was persistently deleting an unquestionably factual statement from the article despite clear consensus and being reverted by numerous editors and repeated warnings. I'm sorry but AGF has limits and does not require the suspension of common sense. I was about to reply to their comment below when I checked and saw that he has been Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk)

Excuse me?

Just what in God's name do you think you're doing?

Explain yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: User indeffed. Moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk)

Europe and the Liarbour putsch

It gets better, England (1:2 - Iceland) are out of Europe twice in seven days and the Bliarite rump in the PLP have played their last hand. Corbyn is manning it out so far, much to my enjoyment and COMbbc are tying themselves in knots trying to lie about everything. The corp-0-rat media propaganda, that an out vote was a racist vote, isn't making much headway and the fact that the parteis that endorsed an in vote are all institutionally racist is irrepressible. Who needs a soap opera when this shower gets going? ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Common sense is not a loophole in our original research policy. The material you inserted plainly violates that policy and WP:V. - MrX 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX. No it does not. If you had checked my edit summary I cited Refs 4&5 both of which make it clear that the assassin proclaimed his hatred of white people and his desire to kill them. This is a matter of public record and can be found in pretty much every reliable source that is covering this incident. When a person says they hate a specific ethnic/racial group and want to kill them, it is not a violation of Synth to label that racism. Seriously. As I noted in the talk page discussion which I also referenced in my edit summary, if this was a white person with the same record of overtly racist statements and affinity for known racist organizations, all of which is well documented by RS sources, we would not be having this debate. The man was clearly motivated, at least in part, by race hatred. I don't see how any reasonable people can deny this and I view this entire debate as symptomatic of the left leaning bias that is so prevalent on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That's terrible reasoning, and it's based on information that you have evidently made up. Allow me to break it down:

1. "the assassin proclaimed his hatred of white people" - Actually, no, they say he was angry with white people. There's no mention of hate.
2. "This is a matter of public record" - We don't use public records; we use sources. Not a single reliable source has been identified that says "racial hatred".
3. "When a person says they hate a specific ethnic/racial group and want to kill them, it is not a violation of Synth to label that racism" - Except that he never said that he "hate[d] a specific ethnic/racial group"
4. "it is not a violation of Synth to label that racism" - Actually, it is. WP:OR includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. ← and that's what you did.
5. "If this was a white person with the same record of overtly racist statements and affinity for known racist organizations, all of which is well documented by RS sources, we would not be having this debate" - If sources don't refer to the person as racist, then neither do we. It doesn't matter whether its a black or white person, we use sources, and we don't misrepresent them.
6. "The man was clearly motivated, at least in part, by race hatred." - That's nothing more than your personal opinion. Adding "clearly" to your argument doesn't make it less fallacious.
7. "I view this entire debate as symptomatic of the left leaning bias that is so prevalent on the project" - That's a canard. What is stopping more right-leaning people from participating in the project and restoring balance? Perhaps they're not as interested in building a free encyclopedia as they are promoting social stratification and smaller, but more authoritarian, government. Or maybe they just can't follow the same rules everyone else is expected to follow. Cheers.- MrX 01:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page of the article and posted an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)