User talk:Freedomwarrior

Welcome!

You are mentioned on WP:ANI.

Socialized medicine / User:Freedomwarrior (again) User previously warned (only a few days ago) about 3RR, has returned to the same pattern. User history and talk page history have numerous warnings on editwarring primarily on only a few subjects.--Gregalton (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have been here a long time, you are probably aware of the WP:3RR rules. I also see that some of your edits have references, which is good. If you have good ideas, try to work them in and work with others. If the others are aggressive, try to think of a non-aggressive solution. If you wish a neutral opinion, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only read your message to me, not researched the article. However, note that WP is not to overtly express your opinion. Original research is not allowed. So editors can not think of ideas and use WP as a dissertation or newspaper editorial column even if the ideas are true.

What is universal health care? Does Singapore lack universal health care even though it is considered a rich country? http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850 Is the American Medicaid and Medicare a universal health care plan? Japan does not have a universal system if you mean one that the sick person doesn't have to pay for each illness or does not have to pay for insurance. I would need to do some research to learn more.

Keep your cool. A solution is reachable, just not in a few days. It's quicker if all editors are cooperative. Archtransit (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to remain neutral and uninvolved until I am needed. I can't think of a way to define those two terms without being original research. Is there a reliable sources so you can say quote them? Or why not just state the facts? These countries have this system and these countries have that system. Maybe we should study WP:OR? Archtransit (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to informally mediate between parties. I can also point to policies, such as WP:OR, to educate others. However, I am not prepared to approve your edits. If there are a small number of editors involved, I am willing to help resolve the conflict. Everyone must want resolution even if they can't think of a solution now. Let me know if I can help! Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at WP:RFCU and I thought I saw your name. Upon closer inspection, it's a different editor. Part of the name is similar but the name is actually different. During disputes, it may be tempting to create socks to create the appearance of multiple support. It's a violation of policy and a bad idea that can backfire and ruin an otherwise convincing idea that is being proposed. Archtransit (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC) It has nothing to do with the old accusation. There was someone editing something completely different but was named "Freedom-----" (freedom-something, I forgot). Archtransit (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hauskalainen has accused you of being my sockpuppet!

Please take a look at [User_talk:Doopdoop] --Doopdoop (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba Five

"their views are no more irrelevant than the Cuban regime's" is pretty funny. We're talking about Cuban government agents here. The views of their government (primarily in relation to the agents' motivation) matter in a way that random comments by oppositionists which convey no information beyond their own opinion do not. Disembrangler (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

I, I have seen what you have done to edit on Cuba. Maybe you could help with Venezuela, the main Cuba friend. And I really need some help. Look especially at Human rights in Venezuela, Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Voui (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]