User talk:64.110.251.69

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome back.

Information you add to Wikipedia, such as that about the supposed religion "SUKI", must be verifiable. All information on Wikipedia must follow this policy, no matter whether it is about a religion or not. You have to provide reliable sources for the information you add. If you keep adding unsourced information, it will be reverted as vandalism.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 14:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

SUKI (tm) is VERIFIABLE. DO NOT revert my edits in the future. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.251.69 (talk • contribs)

It hasn't been verified at all. Verification requires reliable sources. That's all you need to provide. Until then, you will continue to be reverted, because the fact that this has gone on so long without you providing even one reliable source is a pretty strong indication that SUKI is a hoax.

If you want people to take you more seriously, it would also help if you got a username -- it takes no time and requires no personal information. Just click the "Create an account or log in" link in the upper right corner of the page.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting that SUKI (tm) is not 'verifiable' defies credibility, and you know it Rspeer. I wouldn't personally expect a CS student to have seen much of the world (I know when I was once a CS undergrad..I didn't have much time for intellectual things such as RELIGION, nor much money for travel), but many different forms of RELIGION exist throughout the world, and SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm) is one of those religions.

I don't know if MIT has a religious studies faculty, but I am pretty sure that Harvard does, and the scholars there would be glad to answer any questions you may have on the legitimacy of SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm), and its dramatic rise in membership and influence, first in ASIA, and now worldwide.

64.110.251.69 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your response here is more civil than the one on my user page. Thank you for that.

I could probably get access to the library at Harvard's divinity school. What publications should I look up? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Tawkerbot, please review "Joanne Crofford"

Please review "Joanne Crofford" against http://www.legassembly.sk.ca/members/Bios/joanne%20crofford.htm , and come to the same conclusion as I did -- that the entire article was plagiarised, verbatim, from that website, contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Thnkx.

From taking a look it doesn't appear to be a copyvio, I did a bunch of random phrase matches and I didn't find mutch. Taking information and re-phrasing it is just fine, and well in accordance with Wikipedia policies. In any case, I've unblocked -- Tawker 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I have reported you for a three-revert rule violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. CJCurrie 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie Giant

Before reverting my edits again please read the second paragraph in the section titled "POV tag" on the talk page. Here is a direct link to that section Talk:Prairie Giant#POV tag, please read it in full and please respond, otherwise your reverts are counterproductive. Qutezuce 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatchewan Party

This has nothing to do with my political affiliations, and everything to do with the fact that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy absolutely forbids characterizing a political party's platform as "dishonest"; virtually right across the board your edits were expressing an unacceptably biased view. And the next time you feel some kind of urge to tell an administrator how to do his job, you might want to register a real username if you expect to be taken at all seriously. Bearcat 09:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You (the anon) may also be interested to know that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is (i) not active policy, and (ii) does not prevent supporters of a political party from writing about that party. CJCurrie 01:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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. Ardenn 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I'm not a member of the NDP. I suggest to read WP:NPOV, because the edits really do violate policy. Ardenn 00:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest article is only 'inactive' because it hasn't been edited for a very long time, not because the policy is not in force. Policy exists with respect to soliciting others with similar viewpoints in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy which essentially enumerates the same policy.

I think we are (albeit slowly) moving towards some sort of consensus with respect to what needs to be in, and what should be dropped from the Saskatchewan Party article.

Also, it can be argued that some of the reverters were acting in Agency when they were reverting the Saskatchewan Party article due to the requests of User:CJCurrie. More than 3 reverts, done through agency, is really no different than acting as a principal.

64.110.251.69 07:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Talk:Suki#Evidence is piling up

Please quit this. You have been told repeatedly what is required - a reputable published third-party source such as a book, journal or newspaper - and have failed to provide this (a string of testimonials from anonymous IP addresses is not sufficient). Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and particularly Burden of evidence. In short, put up or shut up. Further persistence with this fiction will be treated as long-term vandalism. Tearlach 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction? Hardly =

Its really unfortunate that you see the SUKI (tm) RELIGION as being 'fiction', when in fact, multiple sources, including a website, reference to religion authorities, and the input of members of numerous nationalities has been received into the discussion pages.

I don't know what I can do to satisfy you. Maybe you have just decided to not be satisfied. Its unfortunate that a certain phnx.qwest.net user has also chosen to vandalize this page with completely innaccurate information about SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm), major international RELIGION.

64.110.251.69 07:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatchewan Party and sock/meatpuppetry

You wrote: “The actions of CJCurrie in requesting that you revert are not appropriate, per the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy…” quoting that policy: “It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated.” To my knowledge, CJCurrie did not “externally advertise”. Posting to User_talk pages is not external to Wikipedia. If he had posted on some web discussion board or email list, that would have been external.

You further quoted policy: “in order to attract users with likely known views and bias,” which is also not applicable since I have no “views and bias” regarding the Saskatchewan Party, not being from that province and having very little knowledge of Saskatchewan politics. What I do have is an interest in politics in Canada, and have contributed to a wide range of articles relevant to that subject. It is entirely valid to request that other editors take a look at a controversial article, particularly those editors with a track record of working on similar articles, in order to bring an additional third-party review to an article.

Your quoting of policy continued with: “in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion.” CJCurrie did not ask me to take any particular side regarding the article, other than Wikipedia’s side which is to maintain a neutral point of view.

—GrantNeufeld 12:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"External" can mean 'external' to the actual wikipedia article, not just 'external' to wikipedia as a website. Thats the position I take on the issue. It was pretty clear that CJCurrie edited the talk pages for a substantial number of wikipedians, many of whom with no pre-stated nexus with the article, in order to ensure that his personal POV with respect to the Saskatchewan Party was maintained as the current revision. Right now the page is absolute garbage, with so much untruth, and unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo that the very credibility of wikipedia would be viewed as laughable to anyone who just happens upon that page the first time they look up an article.

He quite clearly/literally was demanding reversions, not just 'review'. And that is where I believe the line was crossed. Especially since most of the users he requested perform reversions clearly identified themselves as partisans, sympathetic to the opposing cause in general. If it was about randomly soliciting senior wiki editors from out of province/country with a generic interest in politics, it wouldn't be too hard to understand his motives, but this clearly wasn't the case.

64.110.251.69 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page 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. Ardenn 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Ardenn 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, dude! I love that little religion game you have going! Unfortunately the long term abuse thingie has to stay. WhisperToMe 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Syrthiss 12:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Syrthiss 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What have I vandalized? Did you even read the pages in question before you carried out your action? Seriously, this is an instance of WikiBullying, because it should be obvious that Tearlach and others are pursuing an agenda of trying to suppress those whom they do not agree with.

64.110.251.69 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You blanked a section on an official wiki vandalism page, repeatedly. Thats not acceptable behavior. If you disagreed with it being placed there, you should have questioned it at WP:AN. Syrthiss 12:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will, even though making an abuse complaint represents a complete abuse of process.

64.110.251.69 12:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:Long term abuse on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. DVD+ R/W 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)