User talk:Dirtybirdy78

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 April 2007 2 Please don't unilaterally remove neutrality tags from article pages 3 Albert Boscov 4 Reply to your message on my talk page 5 No Personal Attacks 6 Removal of Warnings 7 Berksguy Userpage

[edit] April 2007

With regards to your comments on Talk:Tom McMahon: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dycedarg ж 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks toward you at all. I only pointed out your flip-flopping and double standards as documented on that particular talk page. User:Dirtybirdy78

You called me a hypocrite. That's an insult. Insulting someone is a personal attack. Read the policy linked to from the template, and comment on content, not on contributers. And I do not have double standards. I really don't think the trash debate section needs to be that long because it is an incident. It happened and it is over. It is also negative and unduly weighted, it is one of the larger sections in the article. Oh and the version I restored? It was the version made by Eskog, in the only edit he made to the article. Since you were going on about restoring Eskog's work, I can't see how you could object to re-adding the only thing he actually did.--Dycedarg ж 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dycedarg if you read Eskogs statement he only neutralized it because it was sticking out compared to the rest of the article. The article has since included a much broader balance. I only used the term hypocrite because on one hand you are saying deleting is not the answer, but on the other hand you make exceptions for yourself. I only used the word to match the action. User:Dirtybirdy78

If someone decides to edit with a massively fascist POV, I am prohibited from calling him a Nazi by WP:NPA. Similarly, you are prohibited from calling me a hypocrite, even if from your point of view I am one. As I said before, read the policy. How you are expected to behave is fully laid out. As for Eskog's statements go, here's his edit summary: "(neutralize - keep "to the point" as with all other statements)". He neutralized it so it would keep to the point. His comment on the talk page: "For the record, my "template" was mostly about keeping the coverage in the article neutral towards all the different events. I certainly don't feel that it represents a great article as I had it. If some or all of the sections can be expanded with factual, cited information which is neither cheerleading nor defaming, then by all means, expand them." Nothing about sticking out. Nothing about comparing it to any other section. It was about making it neutral.--Dycedarg ж 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You once again are flip-flopping Dycedarg. When I made similar edits by deletion to neutralize and keep to the point, you came down on me saying "deletion is not the answer". So which is it? You can't have it both ways.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtybirdy78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 April 2007

There is a difference between what I did and what you did. I removed part of a section because the information itself is non-neutral. The information that you removed is neutral and factual, and if it was non-neutral at all it was because of the manner in which it was presented.--Dycedarg ж 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You got to be kidding Dycedarg. That's like saying we should not mention the extermination of jews under Hitler's article, because it is not neutral and makes him look bad. Facts are facts good or bad. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present the facts, not to be politically correct. User:Dirtybirdy78

This line of discussion ends here Berksguy. Any future comments from you will be deleted. User:Dirtybirdy78

[edit] Please don't unilaterally remove neutrality tags from article pages

Thanks. Dppowell 01:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Boscov

Hi there. I'm assuming you didn't see my notice on the article's talk page; the material you've added to this article must be removed unless there's a a reliable source (please click on that wiki-link for some guidelines on what WP considers a reliable source). The allegations you're posting are potentially libelous. I've removed them. Please don't re-add them without a reliable reference. Thank you. Dppowell 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dppowell I checked your blog out, and why don't you keep your political bias out of here. Oh that's right it's all Liberal Communist Bullshit. Dirtybirdy78

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Albert Boscov, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Dppowell 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your message on my talk page

I do not work for Albert Boscov. I never heard of him before I noticed this article a few days ago (though I think I may have been in one of his stores, back in 1992 or so). Please be civil. Thank you. Dppowell 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Referring to me as a 'political hack' based on my history trail with regards to my politics is a clearly a violation of the Wiki's 'no personal attack' rule. If you do so again I will report you immediately. Thank you.And the truth shall set you free! 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your second warning from me concerning your violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. I consider your constant behavior a personal attack and will not tolerate it further.

I appreciate that we finally came to a compromise on the McMahon page, I even see you removed poorly sourced materials recently. I am not sure what your obsession is with me, assuming that I am someone I am not. I can care less who you are. I do know that you need to change your behavior though.

As you can see on the website you continue to reference on my talk page, the owner of the website is 'Got Truth', I have posted comments there before that he has in fact approved. You and anyone else who ventures there will note that not new posts have been made since July, not have any comments been posted. I have tried to post there a few times to help them continue the Wiki Saga information concerning McMahon but have continually been ignored.And the truth shall set you free! 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Warnings

Please do not remove warning from Userpages that are not your own. The individual at that address made personal attacks and was warned not to do so. If you are going to blank the page you should at least have given a good reason to do so, and even then it is likely not appropriate. And the truth shall set you free! 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berksguy Userpage

If you are going to place a warning on my talk page please be sure to reference the individual you are talking to. I was not the one who returned the material from the Heckman website to my userpage, that was one of the wiki admins who apparently reverted the site way back to remove the attacks from the anonymous individual who has been cowardly making false accusations and assumptions. Rest assured I will not allow the information from the Heckman website to resurface.