User talk:134.161.137.162

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 3RR

I am sorry to say that I have reported you twice for braking the 3 revert rule. This applies to your revertion on the Animal Liberation Front and Britches (monkey) pages.-Localzuk (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

then it applies to you as well good sir, since you are insisting on your bias being included in the article. I will revert, as needed, until the article is left in the least biased form. apples is apples is apples. 134.161.137.162 00:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He can revert it as many times as long as it's clearly vandalism. But, I'm sure it wasn't a real revert but just him replacing the word. — Moe ε 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
if him placing a biased word in the article is not vandalism, then me taking it out would not be either, in which case neither of use is in violation. 134.161.137.162 01:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The removal of context within an article is considered vandalism. — Moe ε 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
so then he IS vandalising, by removing the context that the ALF stole the monkey... how would I go about reporting his vandalism? 134.161.137.162 01:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you would be the one vandalizing. You are removing the previous context of the page that was there before Localzuk ever edited the article. — Moe ε 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
huh? that makes no sense. He is insting that his bias (that the taking of the monkey which did not belong to ALF, by ALF is NOT theft, thereby implying that ALF was in the right) be included, while the less biased dictionary word "stolen" (which included the context that what ALF took did not belong to them) is removed, leaving less context in the article. Either removing the cotext (that ALF stole the monkey) is vandalism, in which case whats-his-face is vandalizing the article, or inserting his bias is NOT vandalism, in which case removing his bias would not be vandalism either. 134.161.137.162 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR is breached even when reverting blatant vandalism from what I have seen discussed on the Incidents noticeboard etc... It prevents people from getting too tied up in revert wars and becomeing agitated. I am not going to revert for another 24 hours - unless other edits occur between now and then (by other users on other areas of the page). If you can agree to not revert again and agree to discuss it on the talk page then I am sure an admin will see this as a act of good faith and will not block you. As it stands, your attitude towards the the situations would, IMO, make me block if I were an admin (and wasn't already involved).-Localzuk (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh..I'll put it simplier terms for you in regards to my last comment. Localzuk edited the article only after you removed the text "removed" and replaced it with "stolen". The continuing reverting is considered vandalism after it is removed several times. — Moe ε 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
so leave the less biased "stolen" in. simple as that.
If anything the word stolen is more biased than removed. Please take the advice of Localzuk and not edit the article(s) until this is resolved. — Moe ε 01:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is your final warning, if you continue to revert on these articles you will be blocked under the 3RR. Please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting your latest revert to the admins. You have gone against the consensus of the group (see the talk page of ALF). The discussion on the talk page for ALF discusses the same issue - and the outcome is overwhelmingly in favour of 'removed'. Please respect the view of the community. Please take a look at WP:POINT.-Localzuk (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Just because crazy libral animal stealing nutcases say that theft is not theft doesnt make it so. And no, this is not a personal attack, becuase they ARE saying theft is not theft if it is used in the name of a crazy liberal nutcase ideology, i am just calling it like it is. 134.161.137.162 19:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You are still missing the point. I will give an example. Someone has a device in their house that, if left there, will blow up and destroy the entire block. The owner will not believe you and you do not have time to get authorities involved - as they do not believe it either. So a person goes in and removes it, takes it somewhere and it blows up safely without hurting anyone. Now, using your definition the person who took the device was in the wrong. However, without a court ruling to state either way no-one can state it was theft or it wasn't theft as it is a complex issue. Anything being said either way is POV of someone without evidence. -Localzuk (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


that is a bad analogy. The monkey was not going to blow up or in any way endanger thelives of those around it, nor was time of the essence, nor would the authorities not investigate in this case. A better analogy would be for me to break into your house and steal your tv because I claim that the tv was about to short out. No one was at risk here, other than the criminals stealing the monkey (both from the monkey and from the security guards and police) and those working in the lab who could have been hurt when the crime occurred. You are trying to use a false analogy to make your side look less biased than it is. Good try though. Crime is still a crime. 134.161.137.162 19:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. But instead, the monkey was in danger according to the people that removed him. A crime is only a crime if there is evidence from a reputable source to back up the fact that is a crime. You are clearly biased and appear to be trying to push your POV rather than let the community discuss and decide on the issue. Your view is not more important than the view of the rest of the community no matter how 'right' you believe you are.-Localzuk (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


So I can kidnap your child... as long as I claim that i belive they are in danger? A crime is NOT only a crime if there is evidence from a reputable source to back up the fact that there is a crime. It would still be a crime, it just would get no conviction. Besides that, there is plenty of evidence here! the lab would have recipts for paying for the monkey, for keeping the monkey.They would have medical examinations, and some sort of paper trail as to where it came from. That is more than enought to prove ownership. While people are innocent until proven guilty in a court, that doesn't mean a crime has not occurred until a court declares it. If someone was killed, it is still a murder, even if no one is charged and convicted, the crime still occurred. 134.161.137.162 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


It is still your analysis though. Without a source it is opinion. Also, the community has ruled that it should be 'removed' so your view is not helping by revert warring.-Localzuk (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It would be my opinion to say you are a jackass. It is NOT (only) my opinion that taking that which does not belong to you is theft. 134.161.137.161 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA. It is your opinion that it is theft, as you are not a reputable source. We do not seem to be getting anywhere with this. You seem to be intent on disrupting wikipedia in order to have your way. I am no longer going to discuss this with you as you are not willing to listen.-Localzuk (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the dictionary definition is such a hard concept for you.

I am not going to argue with you any more. Please realise that a dictionary is a tool for defining words - these definitions are then open to interpretation. We have discussed this on the articles' talk pages and a decision has been reached to keep the non-weighted, non-pov word. -Localzuk (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 3RR on Britches (monkey)

I have blocked you for 24h for WP:3RR on Britches (monkey). You've been warned above; you need to learn that I will revert, as needed... is not acceptable. Please take the time out to read the policy. You can still edit this page. William M. Connolley 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

you can go to hell. 3rr is supposed to help people PREVENT vandalism, not support it. Way to make the wiki even less respected and valuable and more of a joke by allowing these biased morons to re-write the dictionary so that theft is no longer theft just because it doesn't support there bias.134.161.137.161 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)