User talk:Altetendekrabbe: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:07, 11 June 2012

For what?

[1] I had nothing to do with that SPI, and you were blocked as a confirmed sock puppeteer when I looked at the SPI. I will give you some advice though, Elen told you to stop with the personal attacks, calling Ankh a sock is one. Maybe you should take a day off to calm down. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dude, do u remember "atomspan2", the single-purpose account who was making personal attacks on my page? do you remember reverting him/her? i thanked you for that.-- altetendekrabbe 14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I thought you were on about the sock allegations. I do not think you are socking for what that is worth. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no prob, bob. why should i sock anyways? i like to fight (and swear). now, i'm off for a beer or two. later.-- altetendekrabbe 15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hr for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Unfortunately, you seem to have caught the attention of banned User:JarlaxleArtemis. I will keep an eye on your pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. could you also ban the racist ip-accounts indefinitely? they're banned for a week but that's totally inadequate. probably socks of the same user [2]

As a rule, we don't indef-block IP accounts - among other reasons, because they are often dynamic IPs that aren't the same user from one day to another. These attacks happen when JarlaxleArtemis (because he's a coward) goes on 4chan /b/ and asks random users to post the attacks. A lot of the time, they are so stupid that they include the command "Place the following in the large text box" in the attempted vandalism. Consider it a badge of honor. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islamophobia

Please explain why you want to include Eurabia in Template:Islamophobia on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Your recent editing history at Eurabia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Estlandia (dialogue) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any vandalism as claimed in your edit summaries at Eurabia; this appears to be a simple edit war. Kuru (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please note users like estlandia. they are tag-teaming to push through their political agenda. if "eurabia" is not an islamophobic conspiracy theory then what is? please, check their edits.-- altetendekrabbe 12:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altetendekrabbe - when you get into an edit war, it is best to use the talk page to explain your edits. When you do this, you find that other people agree with you.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, but i lose my patience with certain editors here on wiki who are tag-teaming. please keep an eye on pages like eurabia, islamophobia and so on.-- altetendekrabbe 13:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not tag-teaming with anyone, I'd never ever met the other users who reverted you.Estlandia (dialogue) 13:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have partially reverted your edit to the article on Eurabia.[3] If you feel that your exact wording is best, please argue the case in the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why did you do that? it was *not* my wording to begin with. check the edit history. the academic sources are *clear*: eurabia is an islamophobic conspiracy theory. suggest you revert back to the original version i.e. the version that existed before the edit war. i am blocked and cannot argue on the talk page.-- altetendekrabbe 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I look for compromise in these situations. I do not know whether you are 100% right or not on this subject; but edit warring does not work in these situations. Discussion and compromise do work.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to strike the above violation of WP:NPA? If not, I will have no choice but to extend this block further (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I saw your revert here. I definitely agree with your revert, but I think you should leave a message behind on the talk page (esp. cause you said "see talk"). Even if you feel your message would be redundant, you should still leave a message. Discussion is how disputes are solved. Takk! :-) VR _talk 00:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reverts

Why did you remove the context which clarified the comment by Bernard Lewis? Your use of nasty language and blind reverts is unacceptable. 85.81.20.149 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i don't trust you. you continued the edits of a banned racist editor.-- altetendekrabbe 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what I am saying? I didnt want to hear about your odd feelings, I wanted to hear about why you remove the context that I added to the comment by Bernard Lewis. -- 85.81.20.149 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 Why did you remove the context which clarified the comment by Bernard Lewis? Your use of nasty language and blind reverts is unacceptable. [[Special:Contributions/85.81.20.149|85.81.20.149]] ([[User talk:85.81.20.149|talk]]) 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 : i don't trust you. you continued the edits of a banned racist editor.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">[[User:Altetendekrabbe|<font style="color:white;background:red;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;altetendekrabbe&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
+Do you understand what I am saying? I didnt want to hear about your odd feelings, I wanted to hear about why you remove the context that I added to the comment by Bernard Lewis. -- [[Special:Contributions/85.81.20.149|85.81.20.149]] ([[User talk:85.81.20.149|talk]]) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)