User talk:Licorne: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:05, 12 March 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Licorne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! FloNight ^talk 14:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.194.104.5 and 69.22.98.146

Hello, Licorne. Welcome to Wikipedia! To help accurately tally the recent vote on Talk:Henri Poincaré, and so I know which anonymous editors to continue to encourage to register, please identify whether you are the editor formerly known as 66.194.104.5 and 69.22.98.146. The Rod 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please declare whether you are the editor formerly known as 66.194.104.5 and 69.22.98.146. The Rod 17:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reluctance to say whether you are the same editor as 66.194.104.5 and 69.22.98.146 makes it difficult to assume good faith toward you. It leaves the impression that the anonymous accounts are your sock puppets. If you simply say that you are the same editor, it will be clear that you are not intentionally using them as sock puppets.

Are you same editor as 66.194.104.5 and 69.22.98.146? The Rod 04:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of this [this response] by 17.255.240.78 to a criticism of Licorne (Sorry to Licorne, my criticism was bad) you might ask him if he is the same editor as 17.255.240.78, who also contributed to the poll on the Poincare talk page. E4mmacro 05:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask him about all these IP addresses which voted "to retain" in the poll.

E4mmacro 06:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E4, how dare you make false accusations ! Licorne 13:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to avoid answering the question. That refusal, combined with this claim strongly suggests that you are using anonymous IP addresses as sock puppets. If you do not say whether you also edit as 66.194.104.5 or 69.22.98.146, I will file a user-conduct RfC regarding your behavior. The Rod 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP FALSE ACCUSATIONS ! Licorne 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that is supposed to be an answer of "no". Correct me if I misunderstood you. The Rod 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of being everyone on Earth, cut it out !! -- let me ask you rod, are you adolf hitler at 117 ? Licorne 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what "adolf hilter at 117" means, nor do I know what specific accusations are you referring to when you ask me to "cut it out". In order to help manage the dispute about Einstein and Poincaré, I am merely asking you to clarify whether you have edited as User:66.194.104.5 or User:69.22.98.146. If not, I will encourage the editor with those IP addresses to register for an account. If you are the same person, there is no point in doing so. The Rod 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GO ahead tell them to register. Licorne 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne and 69.22.98.146

Licorne posted the personal attack in this post. It was deleted by The Rod in this post. The very next change to the Poincare talk page, in the spot where Rod's deletion occured, contained the words "I have a PERFECT RIGHT to be angry ..." posted by 69.22.98.146.

Although Licorne hasn't yet confirmed or denied that he is 69/66, even though The Rod asked, I think it is obvious: Licorne and 69.22.98.146 are one and the same. Licorne, if you are not the fellow 66/69 who overloads my email inbox with pleas, insults, orders and so on, please say so. E4mmacro 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clear inference from the above is that 69.22.98.146 thought he had a perfect right to be angry and post insults of me under the name of Licorne. The most reasonable explanation I can think of is that 69.22.98.146 is in fact you, Licorne. E4mmacro 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne and 69.22.98.162

Rod: User 69.22.98.162, who has a very similar style and concerns as Licorne and all the above IP addresses, has revealed his name as Dean Mamas with a Ph. D. from UCLA. I think I can now say that Dean Mamas has emailed me many times with concerns over what I or Harald or Green were doing on the Poincare page. E4mmacro 09:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hello, Licorne. personal attacks, like the ones in this post, are not appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. Please refrain from making them. The Rod 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fastfission started it. Licorne 22:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was 2 or 3 attacks on E4mmacro that were deleted. What has fastfission got to do with it? E4mmacro 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who "started it", please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which explains, "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." The Rod 17:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne = De kludde = 69/66?

Licorne, can you give me any reason not to think that you're the same person as the one who's using the De kludde account, and also posting from 69.22.98.146 and 66.194.104.5? --Alvestrand 23:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

There are a few Wikipedia policies you don't seem to understand very well. Please take the time to read them, as it will save us all some time in discussions about article content. These are iron-clad policies and are not negotiable.

Thanks. --Fastfission 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use hard SOURCES always Licorne 14:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Licorne, there is obviously controversy surrounding Einstein and issues of priority. There may need to be some revision in the way history apportions credit for various discoveries related to special and general relativity among Einstein, Poincaré, Hilbert and others. You might be able to help in this regard. But the way you are approaching this issue is doing no good. Can we discuss this please? Paul August ☎ 16:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne I am trying to assume good faith on your part. Will you please respond to my request? Paul August ☎ 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Hi, I just stopped by the Albert Einstein article to revert a change someone inadvertently made. I saw the NPOV tag and your litany on talk. All I can say is that you ought to read the no personal attacks, no original research and neutral point of view policies. As it is, you are wasting everyone's time, behaving reprehensibly and liable to get into trouble with comments such as "Are you blind ? ? -- Can't you read English ? ?" –Joke 20:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate. This [1] is unacceptable. Do not do it. Please read no personal attacks. You can leave a message on my talkpage if you have questions about the policy. –Joke 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo Joke. You cannot accuse other editors, such as myself, to be not intelligent. The policy is very clear on it. This has to stop, otherwise continuing the discussion will be senseless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I've opened a Request for Comments about your behavior. You can see it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne and are encouraged to give a response on that page. --Fastfission 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne, I have endorsed the RFC, page. I think I tried to resolve disputes with you by email. I am reluctant to reveal those emails, so have not claimed on the RFC that I tried to resolve disputes with you. E4mmacro 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

Licorne, won't you please respond to my request above? In addition as Fastfission has mentioned above an Request for Comments has been created concerning your behavior at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne. I would also ask you to please respond there, there is a special section reserved there for your response. Wikipedia is a community of editors who are expected to work together to resolve any problems which may arise concerning issues of content or behavior of editors. By failing to respond you are in effect saying that you do not wish to be part of this community. You may well be prohibited from editing if you continue in this way. You seem to have some knowledge in this area, and you could make considerable contributions, but you will have to conform Wikipedia's editorial policies and communities standards. Again please respond. Either here or on my talk page or at the RFC. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are beneath me. I have no wish to speak to a lay person. Licorne 20:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take this a statement that you are opting out of participating in the RFC and making no plans to change your approach on the wiki? If that's so, that's fine by me -- I'll take it as a good sign that the proceedings can be hurried up a bit, as everyone on here seems to want anyway. --Fastfission 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify, so that it is clear you are aware, that the RFC is part of a dispute resolution process. I am accusing you of behaviors which are grounds for you to be permanently banned from Wikipedia. If you blow off the RFC, you are almost for sure guaranteeing that you will be soon permanently banned from Wikipedia. Which, mind you, is fine by me, but I want to make sure you realize what exactly the purpose of all this "attention" is, and what the consequences of being flippant about it will be. --Fastfission 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (I'm not exactly a lay person I have a PhD in mathematics) you don't have to talk to me about technical issues, which you think are beyond my abilities, but what about issues related to your behavior? But if you won't talk with me, won't you please talk about the issues people have with your behavior with someone? Surely you don't think the entire community of editors is "beneath" you? Won't you please respond at your RfC? Paul August ☎ 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are physicists -- None of them is competent in these matters, yourself included. Also I have a perfect right to be as I am with you because none of you, with the possible exception of Harald, has any integrity whatsoever. -- So Stop sending me your incompetent messages, you do not exist, understand ? ! -- Licorne 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what's your definition of "physicist", Licorne? For that matter, are you one now, or did you just get that PhD 25 years ago and quit? Not that qualifications as a physicist would excuse your behaviour - and the issues in the RfC are about your behaviour, not your physics. --Alvestrand 22:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are truly a physicist, then it saddens me that a college could have produced something that has gone so horribly wrong. Delta 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it is terrible how the system has failed in trying to brainwash everyone, some can still think for themselves, isn't that awful. Licorne 00:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning your statements

In Talk:Henri Poincaré, you said "And look Alvestan, don't you ever question me again, GOT IT ?".

Licorne, you've given me no reason to trust you. So I'll have to go on questioning until I have reason to believe you're speaking truthfully.

Given that you've chosen to reveal nothing about your qualifications or your past history, I cannot extend trust to your statements based on other evidence; I have to judge by your statements here on Wikipedia. And I don't see anything there that gives me reason to extend trust.

I'm sorry that you take offense at that attitude; I think that this will make it very hard for you to work with others here on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand 20:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have all been asses, as is. Licorne 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald is the only one with any integrity at all there. Wait for him to get back. Licorne 20:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta ask you, what is your purpose for your consistantly poor behavior? Delta 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth. Licorne 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You look back, they started it by immediately trying to call me names. Now they get it back. Licorne 21:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not doing much by retaliating with insults, even if they did start it. Rather, you should have held your integrity and ignored them. Delta 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's employees have no integrity. Licorne 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You truly believe that everyone associated with Wikipedia, from the anon contributers to Jimmy Wales himself have no integrity? Zero? Zip? Nada? Delta 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to einstein ? Yes. ZIP NADA. Licorne 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid to ask if you know the meaning of intergrity. Delta 23:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete this as it's not productive, but I'm waiting for accusations of editors here being communists next. NoseyPerson 7th March 06

Albert Einstein

Please stop making highly POV edits to this article regarding Einstein's priority. This is considered vandalism of a high profile article. ---CH 03:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne, you seem to be a man on a mission, but could you please stop making edits regarding the priority dispute thing until the RfC has run it's course? Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. TIA ---CH 05:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your post on the talk page for Albert Einstein; I was going to remove it because it is irrelevant to the topics that are to be discussed on that talk page, but as there is an arbitration for you I'll leave it for whatever useful evidence it may contain. Delta 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for David Hilbert

I've blocked you [2] for WP:3RR and general disruption on David Hilbert. Please behave. William M. Connolley 10:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Licorne, please stop making disruptive edits to David Hilbert. Why not make a serious response to the RfC regarding your behavior here at WP? If you continue to make disruptive edits and to ignore the RfC, I think you are flirting with being banned. Presumably you do not want that to happen.---CH 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You sent me some emails. Can I suggest that your tone - Email me right back this minute !! - is just not productive. We can discuss things here if you want. William M. Connolley 11:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Alvestrand wrote on the discussion page that that quote of Hilbert proves nothing he says it is impossible to see what Hilbert is trying to say. - so delete it. -- which I did. - I'll go do it again. -- Also, Winterberg's point in his article is that the Field Equation is STILL THERE in Corry's proofs -- this absolutely should not be deleted, it is a crucial point from Winterberg's article. - I'll go put it back in. Licorne 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one on the talk page can give you permission to break 3RR. If your attitude persists, so will your blocks. William M. Connolley 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've blocked you again, for general disruption and 3RR on DH. Please stop. William M. Connolley 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail: I think you misunderstand. I am deciding whether you have broken 3RR; not whether your edits are especially meritorious. If other editors on that page were to say "stop; unblock L; you have made a mistake" I would certainly listen; but I don't see that William M. Connolley 22:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I've opened an arbitration case against you, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Licorne, accusing you of violating Wikipedia policies POV-pushing, personal attacks, and incivility. You have the opportunity to give a short statement about this. Failure to give a statement will not reflect well. The end result of all of this is that at the very least you will be banned from editing anything related to Albert Einstein on Wikipedia, and at the very most banned from Wikipedia alltogether. How you want to deal with this is up to you. --Fastfission 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Fastfizzy: Alvestrand said that it is impossible to see what Hilbert means in that quote - So I deleted it. What the hell is wrong with that Fastfizzy ? ? ? And why do you delete the crucial point of Winterberg's article that the Field Equation is STILL PRESENT in the proofs ? ? ? That absolutely belongs on Hilbert's page ! -- And you make it sound like Einstein discovered E=mc2 which is very misleading and you deleted all the qualifiers on that. -- Fastfizzy you CENSOR vital information time and again -- Wikipedia's reputation is damaged by CENSORS like little old narrow-minded YOU ! -- Licorne 14:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you to give you a chance to answer your RFA. But if you make *any edits at all* to Hilbert or its talk or anything like it before the "normal" expriation of your block, I shall re-block you William M. Connolley 16:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Connolley you are new here.- Harald said that the Einstein INTRO needs to be rewritten, so why is the red tag lifted already ? ? Harald is on vacation but he will rewrite it, so do not lift the red tag until then ! --Licorne 17:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley you are witnessing pure censorship -- Fastfizzy won't even address my points here mentioned -- Wikipedia has a real problem of credibility with Fastfizzy being there -- Licorne 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley, Alvestrand said the Hilbert quote that is already there is impossible to say how Hilbert means it ! -- So why has it not been deleted ? ? EXPLAIN YOURSELF CONNOLLEY. Licorne 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley why is Hilbert's clear claim (in 1924) of priority being CENSORED by Fastfizzy ? ? OUTRAGE ! -- EXPLAIN YOURSELF CONNOLLEY ! Licorne 17:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an editor of the article. If I was, I wouldn't be blocking you William M. Connolley 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfizzy will not address any of these points -- Wikipedia should get rid of him fast. Licorne 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems probable that you have been evading your block as User:67.78.143.226; so I've blocked that IP William M. Connolley 20:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne, I don't want to continue a discussion about you on the Einstein page. So I will mention here my view. You say "Wait for Harald". I think everybody is prepared to wait for Harald88 and discuss with him any changes he suggests. One can discuss things with Harald88, whereas you have made it clear that discussions with you are futile. Your insults are tiresome and unacceptable. That is the crucial difference between you and Harald88. Sad, in a way, since you did produce an interesting reference or two. E4mmacro 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One or Two ? -- I successfully redid the entire Poincare page, and now I want to correct Einstein's page. -- YOU are the one who is SAD, trying to CENSOR people. -- Licorne 04:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Winterberg.jpg

Can you provide some proof that Friedwardt Winterberg has released this photograph under the license you have indicated it to be released under? I'm perfectly happy with having it (frankly I think it is wonderful that he is posed in front of his latest LaRouche magazine contribution) but I'll need some indication that he has released it under a free copyright license. (A CC-SA license means that anybody can use it for any purpose so long as they don't claim a proprietary copyright to it, basically. That means that it could be used in for-profit situations, for example, without Winterberg getting any royalties). --Fastfission 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Winterberg to ask him for a picture and he sent me that one. Licorne 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did he say that he had released it under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license? This is a copyright license with specific legal implications.(click here for the basics). Because that is what you labeled it with. If you have labeled it incorrectly, you are probably violating Winterberg's copyright rights. Now try and be honest here. --Fastfission 21:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Winterberg to email me a picture, he told me to just take the one off his university page, which is exactly what I did. See Winterberg's faculty page at the bottom of his wikipedia article, it is the same picture, he told me to put it. Let me know if there is any problem with that but Winterberg approved it. -- I didn't deliberately label it with anything, I just stored it to my documents, then put it into Wikipedia.Licorne 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the problem is that on Wikipedia we have very specific concerns about copyright licensing, and unless Winterberg has agreed to license it according to our licensing, we can't include it unless it qualifies under the fair use clause of U.S. copyright law, which a picture simply identifying him probably does not. Now I'm not saying this to get on your case, and this is completely separate from the above gripes with you -- it's a fairly common thing that people misunderstand the details of copyright licensing. --Fastfission 14:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to email him ? Or do you want me to email him to ask him for something ? What do you need ? I know he wants the picture there he told me that. Tell me what you need. Licorne 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need an explicit statement from him that he releases this picture under a sufficiently free license (and that he is qualified to do so - typically the photographer, not the subject, holds the copyright). A direct email should be fine, but it has to be explicit about his right and intention to release it. For an example, see [3]--Stephan Schulz 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His email address is winterbe@physics.unr.edu Please request it directly from him, I'm sure he'll send you what you need, thanks, Licorne 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO CENSORSHIP ! -- Stuff your committee ! --Licorne 04:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I ask -- if you are happy to write something like that, guaranteeing your soon departure from this website, why even bother to stick around further? You're not going to get your way, and by your own hand you've guaranteed that there will be very little difficulty in figuring out whether you are worth keeping around. Why waste your time this way? --Fastfission 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insulting your superiors. Licorne 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it as an honest question, not an insult. You're acting irrationally by any standard. If you really wanted to get the Einstein article changed, the way to do that isn't by getting yourself banned and typing in all capital letters. You've completely undercut your own credibility by any rational definition, and guaranteed that you will be viewed as someone with nothing to offer. It just seems counter-productive to me, that's all. --Fastfission 03:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission You Started it. -- And look at the nasty page you had started to insult Dr.Winterberg, I cleaned up your nasty comments there on his page. -- You are the insulter ! --Licorne 03:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually even read what people post on your page? It's not really clear that you do. --Fastfission 03:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission Wikipedia should dump you immediately for insulting people and CENSORSHIP ~ -- Licorne 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a "no". --Fastfission 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr again

On David Hilbert again. Blocked again. William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why 66.194.98.232 66.194.104.5, 66.194.98.232 66.194.104.5, is back, I guess. Could these IP adresses originate from the same college campus or library in or around St Petersburg, Florida? Can the anonymous 66 find enough IP addresses to evade the 3RR rule? E4mmacro 23:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again: [4] William M. Connolley 15:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-03-05 22:03:39, William M. Connolley (Talk) blocked #111944 (expires 2006-03-06 22:03:39) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Licorne". The reason given for Licorne's block is: "3RR and vandalism on David Hilbert (again)".) [5] William M. Connolley 16:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another clone is back 67.78.143.226; [6], [7]. E4mmacro 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A repeat... blocked as sock evading ban. I could re-block L for this but I won't, cos its about time L answered the arbcomm case. Or so I hope. William M. Connolley 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. Despite a reasonably creative attempt to make lots of changes without 3RR'ing, you've stepped over the line. Take some time off for a chance to review your behaviour William M. Connolley 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Licorne. One of your recent edits was undone by an automated bot as likely abuse of editing privileges. Our welcome page provides information for new users who would like to contribute. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you feel you have recieved this notice in error, please contact the bot owner. Thank you for your interest in our project. // Tawkerbot2 06:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Connolley is that Kosher ?

Mr. Connolley you had banned me for 24 hours, said period is now expired, so I check in to see that meanwhile you slipped in a three day extra extension ! -- Is that really Kosher ? -- Licorne 23:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was 48 not 24. Now its 72. *Please* stop playing silly games on Hilbert. Go answer your RFA when the block expires. Or answer here, now, and someone will paste it across for you William M. Connolley 23:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly games ? -- I have a PhD in Physics from UCLA, it is Macrossan who puts utter rubbish in Hilbert's mouth. Licorne 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it when I am in an edit war with Michael Macrossan it is I who is always banned and never Macrossan ? -- Our edit wars are always equally done, but he escapes bans, why the double standard ? Licorne 23:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I you have not yet read WP:3RR, please do so, because it explains the "Three-revert" rule. Have you seen any specific edit from another user violate that rule? If so, which edit? (Note also that your "is that Kosher" title appears to violate the "No personal attacks" rule explained in WP:NPA.) The Rod (☎ Smith) 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is one, E4 Michael Macrossan has violated the three revert rule on the page of David Hilbert, so ban him. --Licorne 00:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know he was Jewish. But it's just a common expression in the US. Don't be so sensitive.Licorne 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Connolley why did you not ban Michael Macrossan after our edit war ? ? -- Licorne 00:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne, if ten people each revert what you write one time, the community is not in violation of 3RR.

You seem to be unable to realize that there are MANY people who've decided that both your behaviour and your opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. --Alvestrand 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO NOT TRUE, it was not ten people as you claim, it was just Macrossan and I, you go look at the record on Hilbert's page, it was only Macrossan and I, in a edit war, Connolley knows that, and you hypocrits only ban me never Macrossan, it is your hypocritical double standard. -- Licorne 13:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 10? I'm sure the 4 others who participated will be happy to know that you didn't notice their contribution. --Alvestrand 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, you are talking about all day long. -- But I was banned for a particular edit war with Macrossan alone, for which Macrossan escaped a ban, because of your hypocritical double standard. Licorne 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:29, 12 March 2006 edit Alvestrand (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 27,075 edits →‎Mr. Connolley is that Kosher ? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:05, 12 March 2006 edit undo Licorne (talk \| contribs) 1,274 edits →‎Mr. Connolley is that Kosher ? Next edit →
Line 241:		Line 241:

	:::March 10? I'm sure the 4 others who participated will be happy to know that you didn't notice their contribution. --[[User:Alvestrand\|Alvestrand]] 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)		:::March 10? I'm sure the 4 others who participated will be happy to know that you didn't notice their contribution. --[[User:Alvestrand\|Alvestrand]] 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
			::::NO, you are talking about all day long. -- But I was banned for a particular edit war with Macrossan alone, for which Macrossan escaped a ban, because of your hypocritical double standard. [[User:Licorne\|Licorne]] 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)