User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wikifan12345. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

ANI

Please feel free to comment at this thread although it can hopefully be closed quickly once an uninvolved admin had dealt with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your comments regarding other Wikipedians. In particular, your edit on the WikiProject Israel talk page was completely unacceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.RockvilleMD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Mentorship ended

I would like to end this relationship. I don't wish to be associated with your continued misbehaviour. --Danger (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you breaking up with me? :( Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know, I should have sent you a text instead. L8r --Danger (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaza war

Use the damn talk page.Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For one sentence? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes for one sentence. It could be a single word and you still need to use the talk page. You know how controversial it is and you removing it after there has been some good talk while not participating at all is bullshit.Cptnono (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith. Feel free to revert my edit. It seemed so obvious and misplaced. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Screw good faith. We have had enough good interactions that we don't need to. Go say on the talk page why you don't like it and we will figure it out. Here is some more assuming for you: You make a revert and then other editors come in and start acting all butt hurt and making even more reverts. We then get stuck going back to listing all of the names and giving undue weight to certain descriptions while there is even more reverting. Just revert it? That is garbage. That is how certain editors (you know who I am alluding to) handle it. You are better than that.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well sighing doesn't help anyone so kindly stop disrupting the mainspace if you refuse to participate over at talk. That should wrap this up. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a requirement on Gaza War to discuss every edit on the talk before inserting it in the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no "requirement" but you will likely be reverted and maybe even be taken over to AE if you don't. It is best to discuss and you should know that by now.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 I have reverted your edit and it would be perfered if you did discuss edits particularly those concerning the lede on the talk page. People like Cptnono have been working hard at reaching a stable version of this article and the last thing that is needed is drive-by editing. Hope you understand & thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you undo my Edit on the Palestinian page? I've done my research, they are clearly a Levantine people.Lazyfoxx (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You done your own research? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

accusations and edit-warring

If you continue to make inane accusations while edit-warring on a range of articles you will likely get another topic-ban. nableezy - 19:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I haven't edit-warred at all, baiting other users into an edit-war and then sending them off to ANI seems to be pretty standard these days. Don't expect me to bite. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Please help improve the following articles. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories

Hi. I've attempted to systematize the discussion on the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories with regard to racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories#Proposed resolutions. This debate does not concern whether such racism exists, merely whether it is an appropriate part of the article. Issues of WP:POLICY are currently being discussed. You've previously addressed the issue. Please contribute your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

POV subject matter tag on Racism in the Palestinian territories

You've removed this twice now. It refers to the the issue described immediately above, on your own talk page. It also refers to the active discussion under POV subject matter tag on Talk. Please leave the tag alone. I've been doing my best to bring the issue to resolution promptly.--Carwil (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has nothing to do with the tag. If the title is being disputed and a merge is proposed, then use the move tag. Two POV dispute tags are not necessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air (film)

In your 06:36, October 16, 2010 edit to Up_in_the_Air_(film)#Plot, you removed the quoted speech that occurs at the end of the film. Would you please explain why you consider this unnecessary? --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I would prefer that you answer on your talk page. Thanks. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the Old City of Jerusalem and the Walls of Jerusalem be included in this template

Please share your knowledge on this matter here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute your opinion to a stalemated edit conflict

Wikifan, I would like to invite your participation in the deadlocked discussion on the Talk page of "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article regarding my proposed contribution to the article. So far, the discussion has almost solely been between me and Dailycare, and the opinions of other editors is now being solicited. For further background on this, and details of the issues now at stalemate, see the concluding paragraphs of the "Reverted Contribution continued" section on the Talk page, from para. 1.1 onwards. Thank you very much for offering your views. Tempered (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

Sorry, you misinterpreted my edits. I did not "remove cited material without strong consesus and serious rationale". I split Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations into two: itself and Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues, per wikipedia:Summary style, since the page grew long. Whatever. I am tired of this stupid revert war. If you want to keep this two-mile long article in one piece, fine with me. Yceren Loq (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Code Pink

Hi, I noticed that you reverted some edits to the above article, which is fine. Your edit summary "sigh" may indicate that my edits were a bit clueless and going over ground that had previously been discussed. That's okay. Or is there some other reason? Whatever, please explain. At my level of engagement with the topic (which is quite superficial) "sigh" sounds like an indication that I need to be informed. Please inform me. --TS 04:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

See talk. Editor decided to remove whole paragraphs of cited information. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I did this:

I'll discuss it at the talk page. --TS 04:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My turn to sigh. You did not respond on the talk page. See this comment please. Just don't do that "sigh" thing. It isn't how we do stuff here. --TS 04:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion to include the information was made before. I can't help an editor that decides to brand content he doesn't like as part of some attack campaign. I don't own the article, but editors can't gut paragraphs of content because they don't like it. So sigh. You're questioning the wrong editor. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've waited for more than a week now. Please respond on the talk page. If you think editors "can't gut paragraphs of content" you're wrong. Attacks must be removed. --TS 00:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)