User talk:Nemesis1981

LaRouce book

Thanks for the info, James--Beth Wellington 23:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -Will Beback 22:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note on truth my friend. If I'm not allowed to call a NAZI a NAZI, when it is a clear case of this, then I would merely ask you whether you seek truth or dictatorship?# Nemesis1981

Slimvirgin

Slimvirgin left a message on my page, whining about my attack for simply deleting my addition without any discussion. I do not rate this person as worthy of any administration capabilities.--Nemesis1981 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. Unsourced derogatory information about living people should not be placed either in articles or on talk pages, and may be removed without notice when found. I'm referring to this edit.[1]. -Will Beback · † · 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, LaRouche and the EIR are not allowed as sources for anything except LaRouche and his organization. As for being true, we have no way of establishing the "truth" of assertions on Wikipedia. We can only determine if something is verifabiable. See WP:V. -Will Beback · † · 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general principles for what makes a reliable source can be found in WP:RS and WP:ATT. The ArbCom has made a specific ruling on LaRouche-related sources, which user: EdJohnston quoted to you on my talk page.[2] You are certainly free to expect other editors to explain their edits when requested. -Will Beback · † · 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I've made a list of the accounts that make nothing but pro-LaRouche edits and who seem to be part of the LaRouche organization. I did it for two reasons: first, the accounts are subject to the ArbCom rulings on LaRouche; and secondly, because we've had a lot of sockpuppetry among LaRouche accounts, so it's important to be able to see the pattern of contributions. However, if you feel it's unfair to keep a list that everyone can read, I can do an admin delete so that it's not visible. I hope you'll consider that a fair compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:and we know who you are. Check this out: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1

--Nemesis1981 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]