User talk:Mr. Hicks The III

Yeor

What on earth are you on about? Hornplease 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasons were explained on the talkpage and in edit summaries. Don't go around calling people vandals while concealed under a new account, whoever you are.

'Sourced' information that misinterprets a source is always open to removal. In any case, you performed a blind revert, not only of material that was 'sourced'. Hornplease 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Thanks awfully for letting me know about 3RR! You know, I would be amazed if someone blocked me short of 3RR for encouraging people to try discussion on the talkpage! It would be such fun to take that to AN/I. I note you haven't yet bothered to explain your blind revert.

Oh, and less charitable, forsooth. Someone would have to be twelve to call something that removes a peacock-y phrase and inserts sourced material vandalism. Hornplease 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do take it to AN/I, please, please. My edit comments pleading with people to use the talkpage are so pathetic, they deserve a wider audience.

That my edit removed 'sourced' material is nonsense. As I have explained several times- including already on this talkpage - the citations to course pages do not support the text that the term is now widely used independent of BY's work. And removing sourced material is not a 'no-no'. Its done all the time. (As you no doubt already know.)

And as for my past behaviour on that page, I note that I am the only one on the talkpage. Heh. Hornplease 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

camera

the article you've been debating about with another user has been mostly validated on battle of jenin. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. Mr. Hicks The III 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

a few days ago, User PalestineRemembred explained why CAMERA is non-RS, however, there was similar discussion on battle of jenin regarding that source, which led to it's acceptance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Ok, I'll edit the article accordingly - and would appreciate your support there. Mr. Hicks The III 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has repeatedly claimed that CAMERA is a valid RS eg here - notice how the discussion continues endlessly in that archive page of the Battle of Jenin article as consensus is reached and then trashed again. Eventually, the matter was taken to an RfC where it was immediately swarmed, in particular by a POV editor later topic-banned for tendentious editing and serious other offences. However, some non-involved editors did participate, I have summarised the results here. As you will see, CAMERA was rejected there by non-involved editors (2.5 to none I called it - or perhaps 2 to none if we accept Jaakobou's valued interjections). CAMERA has been subjected to scrutiny on several other occasions (often with much better participation from experienced editors), and has always been rejected. It is difficult to understand how a careful editor, familiar with the use of sources, can repeatedly make such bad mistakes. PR^talk 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assesment of CAMERA. It is a partisan source, but not an unrelaible source. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't behave as if the procedures and conclusions of the community don't apply to you. PR^talk 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You should be he last editor on wikipedia to talk. Nevertheless, I am not behaving in any such way - I disagree with your assesment of CAMERA, and your claim that it has always been rejected as a source is simply false. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A land without a people for a people without a land

I hope that you will take another look at A land without a people for a people without a landHistoricist (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been editing Wikipedia longer than I. I am flummoxed and would truly appreciate your assessment of the page and the ongoing edit war.Historicist (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Saving you time. I believe that the issue is now settled. thank you for your time and attention.Historicist (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias towards historicist

First off yes that editor was me. It was a mistake. Twice I though I was logged in and later found out I wasn't. It was nothing more than that.

Secondly you have real nerve. I have asked a total of two people to help me out with this article and they happen to be the two people who were involved with putting the tag on in the first place.

Meanwhile historicist has canvassed at least 5 five people, one of which includes you, to help him out with this article. I don't see you lecturing him for canvassing. Unless you know something about the actual debate it is wrong for you to arbitrally remove the tags when you don't know the context of why they were put up in the first placce. annoynmous 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A neutral message, he basically went to you to guard this article for him. Plus me going to ask the opinion of two people who put the tag on in the first place is canvassing?

Plus how about this on canadian monkeys page:

In August you engaged in a debate on the page "a land without a people for a people without a land" over the appropriateness of the tags that have been hung on it like a Christmas tree. I came recently to the page, and improved it in ways that, I believed met the objections of the tagger. I am not saying that thepage is perfect, only that it is now so heavily sourced from multiple, reliable scholars, that the tags no longer apply. There is a single, adamant editor involved. I recently copied your old artuments, all excellent, to the bottom of the discussion. It would take a few minutes only for you to revisit the issue and arguments. thank you.Historicist (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have a minute, I would appreciate it if you could make another brief visit to A land without a people for a people without a land.Historicist (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Canadian_Monkey"

That doesn't sound very neutral to me. If historicist can ask for help from him than I can ask for help from eleland. annoynmous 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine then I want you to go to historicists page right now and leave a similar warning on his page not to request help from Peter Cohen, Elan26 or Canadian monkey. annoynmous 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Great so historicist did the same and in much greater quantity, but I'm the one who gets lectured. It's obvious whos side your on and that you are not imapartial and you know I'm not going to let you limit me. I have the right to ask the opinion of people who were involved with putting the tags on and it is bias for you to limit me while showing favoritism to historicist. annoynmous 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars

This was unnecessary. Thanks for your concern, but I was not restoring identical material, and everything I added was properly sourced and cited. Please do not template me again. If you have problem with my editing, drop me a note to join you at the talk page. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do whatever you think it appropriate. I reverted once to the text that has been in place for months after Tallicfan20 altered it to delete important information and introduce weasel words and unsourced editorializing.[1] He reverted to his verson, saying the links cited in the original were dead.[2] I added new links and wrote a new text.[3] He reverted to restore the original text with the dead links.[4] I restored the material I wrote because the links were live (I could not understand why he would complain about them and then restore them after they had been corrected (that's one revert to another version).[5] I left a message on his talk page asking him to discuss his issues there and at Ethnic cleansing.[6] (He deleted that message [7]) He came to the talk page only there; I answered his questions. He asked some more questions; I answered again. He added the author's name to the beginning of the sentence I wrote, and I have not touched the article since. If you think that warrants me being templated and reported, by all means go ahead and do so. Tiamut^talk 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Efraim Karsh. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 11:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw you give a warning to Zero and noticed you were edit-warring with him at the time. Since you seem to find these an appropriate means of communication and you forgot to template yourself, I thought I would. Tiamut^talk 11:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Using an alternate account to edit project discussions

I am concerned that you are using this account to participate in project discussions, when it appears to be a secondary account. Please see WP:Sock which clarifies that alternate accounts are not to be used in "project discussions," including arbitration proceedings. Would you please clarify whether you have edited with another account that would explain your focus on enforcing policy in this topic area? Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong - check out my contrib history, which includes a higher percentage of main article edits that even yours. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

removing others comments

It is not your place to determine whether or not the AfD falls under the topic ban. If you feel it does you, as it appears it is your only purpose here, open a request at WP:AE for an uninvolved admin to make that determination. Do not remove others comments. nableezy - 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)