User talk:70.29.239.249

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I am through wasting my time on this site. It is extremely unfair. 70.29.239.249 17:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • please note, if you Blank Alan Shefman or any other article again, you will be reported to the admins. pm_shef 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Note: this is the official warning, but you should be considered warned by pm_shef's warning above. Mangojuice 04:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Taunting other users is considered impolite. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Sifaka 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, "kindly refrain from messaging me and mind your own business" is not a permitted thing to say on Wikipedia; both vandalism patrollers (which Sifaka is) and administrators (which I am) have every right to contact you if your behaviour on Wikipedia is inappropriate, and we have a responsibility to stick our noses into disputes whether you like it or not, because sticking our noses into matters like this is our job. Wikipedia has rules, and they are to be respected. You may not taunt or be disrespectful to other users, and you do not have a right to blank pages. And you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you do it again. Have I made myself clear? Bearcat 04:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Biased or not, as things currently stand he's working within Wikipedia's rules, and you guys haven't been. If you want to dispute his contributions, the correct way to do that is to discuss them IN GOOD FAITH (not the snarky ad hominems you guys are so fond of) on the article talk pages, or to raise an RFC; you do not have a right to disrupt Wikipedia by waging a reversion war. Pm_shef has respected the rules of conduct here, while you haven't. That's the difference. Bearcat 05:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not all that hard. I generally have very little difficulty conducting a civil, reasoned debate with people whose political views are diametrically opposed to mine but who are capable of debating maturely and rationally. For one thing, you don't insult the other person. For two, you don't revert every edit they make without discussing why you object to it on the talk page. And for three, you don't start the discussion from the a priori conclusion that everything they touch is inherently biased. It's really not that difficult to do.
I will post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for someone to assist in the dispute; since I've already been involved in this, I certainly won't be the one to rule on it. Bearcat 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
And, for the record, you are also to cease and desist with the ad hominem attacks immediately. If you want to allege that someone is biased, you are to discuss specific examples of what you believe to be biased editing. You are not to simply assert that the person is biased; either discuss the specific edits you're disputing, and be willing to listen to their side of the story, or put a lid on it. Bearcat 07:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comment removal

Do not remove other peoples comments. That's vandalism and will get you blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you read all relevant materials before you step in and make comments. 70.29.239.249 16:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked

I've blocked you [1] for WP:3RR on Alan Shefman and for general disruption. William M. Connolley 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughan Councillors

  • Alan Shefman has not been redirected yet because it is explicitly against WP policy to blank an article that is currently undergoing an AfD debate (which the shefman article currently is). It is up to the summarizing admin to make a Delete/Keep/Merge decision based on the debate and no other user has the right to delete the page while the debate is ongoing. WP Policy is very clear on this matter, and by redirecting, you automatically blank the page. Thus if I had redirected the Shefman article while the AfD was ongoing (as User:Eyeonvaughan did), I would be in contravention of WP Rules and policy. Hope that clears things up. -- pm_shef 20:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • They probably are watching it, but the standard time needs to expire. I'm not sure what the exact amount of time required is, but I know they have to wait to allow sufficient time for everyone interested to comments. Glad to see you're being a bit more civil. -- pm_shef 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you guys talking about just the one AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (third nomination) or are there others? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have made it a redirect. The info on Alan Shefman is in User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I appreciate it. 70.29.239.249 23:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The rule is that once listed on AFD, the debate stays up for seven days. Administrators have a bit of authority to end debate early under certain very special circumstances, none of which applied in this case, but otherwise it's seven days whether you like it or not. Bearcat 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't care anymore, I got what I wanted and what was fair. 70.29.239.249 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racco

  • As far as I'm aware, Racco hasn't endorsed anyone. I'm sure he won't endorse Shefman, because Shefman supported Kadis over Racco in the 2003 Thornhill Liberal Provincial nomination campaign. I doubt he'll endorse Frankl though, since Frankl got 70 votes (1.5%) in the by-election. I don't even know why Frankl and Shahaf are running. It's nearly impossible to defeat an incumbent in Municipal politics - i don't think it's ever happened in Vaughan. pm_shef 23:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rosati was knocked out of Regional Councillor last election. It does happen, although very rarely. I really don't like many of the incumbents, so I'll be rooting for some upsets in November. 70.29.239.249 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I just saw this now, otherwise I would have responded. Rosati actually wasn't knocked out. He was a regional councillor a number of years ago, 10 or 12 i believe, but he wasn't the incumbent. The incumbents were Frustaglio, Jackson and Ferri. As I said, municipal politicians very rarely get unseated... especially in Vaughan. pm_shef 04:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User dispute RFC

Please be aware that a User Dispute RfC has been created in which your name has been mentioned in connection with the behaviour of user:Eyeonvaughan, in accordance with Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution Process. I would encourage you to comment on this dispute, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan. Thryduulf 10:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.29.239.249.html"