User talk:HonourableSchoolboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, HonourableSchoolboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  -Will Beback · † · 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edit warring over the inclusion of LaRouche sources

Please read and follow the rulings in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche. If you continue to edit-war over the inclusion of LaRouche-derived theories in Free Trade you may be banned. -Will Beback · † · 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List and Carey are heroes of the LaRouche movement, and inserting references to them (and the American System) is a hallmark of problematic LaRouche editors on Wikipedia. The quotation you added was also from LaRouche movement source. -Will Beback · † · 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Freedman and Schultz are well-known villains of the LaRouche movement. Your mention of their views on drug policy in the Laissez-faire article does not appear to have been intended to provide a blanaced view of the application of that principle to social policy, but rather an attack on the individuals. As for the WSJ, you were making assertions not contained in the sources, and overlooking the fact that one of the articles cited clearly centers on LaRouche, who is mentioned in the title. As I said on talk:Free trade, LaRouche's viewpoints are well-covered in the various articles about him. Feel free to add more to them about his views on these economic topics. But please don't add LaRouche viewpoints to unrelated articles. -Will Beback · † · 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has previously had problems with followers of LaRouche adding his movement's concepts and sources to articles. Those problems have resulted in specific ArbCom rulings pertaining to the promotion of LaRouche and the use of his materials as references. Another editor has recently requested an appeal of those rulings but it appears the appeal won't be granted and so the rulings are still in effect. I'm only interested in those edits of yours which violate those rulings. If you'd care to edit topics on which LaRouche's group haven't expressed an opinion then I won't have any interest in them. I suggest writing about your hometown, favorite team, or other neutral subjects. I suggest you not edit economic, political, and cultural topics where it's difficult to avoid promoting the LaRouche viewpoint. -Will Beback · † · 07:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Calton, please provide edit summaries that have something to do with what you are actually doing.

I am. Your inability to pay attention is not my problem. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Free Trade and related articles.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
In response to your question (which I happened to notice elsewhere) There is the Mediation Committee (MedCom) which is a formal mediation process set up originally by Jimbo, and there is the Mediation Cabal (MedCab) which is an ad-hoc, informal mediation. With MedCom, mediators must be accepted, and can be vetoed - somewhat similar to Rfa. With MedCab, anyone can mediate, no oversight or approval exists or is required to mediate. With either, however, all parties must agree to mediation. More details are available at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - the navigation box at the side really gives the overview best, IMO. I hope this helps - please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Will is right when he states Mediation cannot overturn ArbCom rulings, which I was enforcing. - if there is an ArbCom (Arbitration Committee) ruling on something, there is essentially not much point - mediation cannot overturn Arbcom. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query about your comment

As a matter of interest, what are my "purposes"? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche

Yeah, I probably should wait for the page to become unprotected before editing it further. Sorry about that... WhisperToMe 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet account of Tsunami Butler (talk • contribs • count • total • block log), as confirmed by check user. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "See explanation below"

Decline reason: "Checkuser and contributions are too coincidental. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This is retaliation for disagreements in editing. I am not a sockpuppet. --HonourableSchoolboy 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am being given a permanent block for reasons that are "coincidental"? Please. --HonourableSchoolboy 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)