User talk:82.35.34.24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please cite a reference for your claim that Ron Davies is a famed badger watcher

Otherwise, I can only conclude that it is vandalism. Thank you, Fernando Rizo T/C 00:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You replied: You are American and thus not fammiliar with the topic. I know that Wikipedia has a very American-centric slant to the world, but please, if you are not fammiliar with a topic, please let it be.

Ron Davies resigned for the second time as a result of a further homosexual indiscretion in woodland near his home constituency in Wales. He claimed at the time that he was a keen Badger Watcher, and that was why he was poking around in the bushes (sic).

check the BBC if you want for the story.

It's not up to me to check the BBC, because I'm not the one making the claim. If what you say is correct, it could definitely be in the article, albeit in a less snide form as your original edit. Please dig up that BBC.com article if you would like to restore the edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV edit at Robert Maxwell

Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy before making any more edits like the one you made to Robert Maxwell. Thank you, Fernando Rizo T/C 00:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You replied: Are you saying Robert Maxwell was not a thief? Are you fammiliar with the story of how he STOLE, not 'mis-used', millions of pounds from his company's pension funds, to support his failing business?

I'm totally willing to allow your edits as long as it cites a reference and is neutrally worded. Wikipedia is an information resource, not a place to push your personal point of view. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

Firstly, if you had inserted those references and couched your language more academically to begin with, no one would have reverted your edits. As it stands, your edit to Robert Maxwell still violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and will be reverted.

Secondly, calling me names and telling me that I'm ignorant violates a score of policies, including Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I've been quite civil to you and I expect the same in return. If you attack me again or insert another non-neutral edit into an article, I'm going to block you from editing for 24 hours. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise then

All right, how about "misappropriated" or "embezzled"? "Thieved" evokes a kind of vitriol usually reserved for the tabloids. Neither the Encyclopedia Britannica nor the New York Times would use "thieved". Fernando Rizo T/C 00:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Stole works just fine for me. You seem like a decent chap, too, just a bit quick on the trigger. Why don't you register for a user name? You're quite right that the Wikipedia is disproportionately biased towards American issues; you could help correct that. Just don't go around verbally assualting people all the time in the process. ;) Fernando Rizo T/C 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • School's great for me, brother. Studying is easier when you're older than 18 and have some perspective, as I'll bet you know as well. And your notion that Wikipedia eats time is spot on. Lucky for me, my job is pretty relaxed, and I generally spend the whole night at work editing. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Could you please stop vandalising my user page and other Albanian related pages or else you will be banned. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to spread your hate. I have now reported you to the Wikipedia Administrators. -- Kosovar 15:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Davies

Even if Fernando Rizo did tell you you could make that change (which as far as I can see he did not), he is only one editor. As far as I am concerned it is POV and also inexplicable to anyone who does not remember the story. I have explained the 'badger' connection in the article, and if you want to add more detail to that, you can, but I don't think it's appropriate for the lead in the way you keep putting it. Incidentally I am also an admin, though that doesn't give me any privileges over normal editing. David | Talk 17:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your compromise is no good. It's a POV attempt to poke fun at the subject and I am coming to the view that it is vandalism of this article. David | Talk 17:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

I don't deny that the KLA carried out terrorist attacks, but we can't simplify this into "Serbs fought Albanian terrorists". Otherwise we would have to call the Chechen rebels "terrorists" and the Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" as well as many other insurgencies as well. Using the definition you gave, I can also call the Serbs "terrorists" as well for what they did to the Albanians. And the difference between Al-Quaeda and the KLA is that the KLA did not fly airplanes into Belgrade and the Americans did not ethnically cleanse Afghanistan. The idea that NATO is in control of Serbia or is plotting with the Albanians is too absurd to merit a response. Kosovo will probably be independent with close ties with both Albania and Serbia. CJK 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You expect me to take you seriously when you provide the Milosevic website as a source? That guy is a war criminal and isn't being tried at the Hague for no reason. Yes, NATO hit civilians--it's impossible not to. They did not target "residential neighborhoods", just military and dual use areas. If you can't acknowledge (the blindingly obvious) that the Serbs ethnically cleansed Kosovo, there is no basis for discussion. Read some newspapers or books, not Milosevic propaganda sources. As I have already said, "terrorism" was not the sole function of the KLA, and other similar insurgencies carry out terrorist acts. The point is, the KLA never attacked Serbia proper like other terrorist organizations would. CJK 22:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/2/2E/User_talk%7E82.35.34.24.html"