User talk:67.82.83.27

talk pages
New threads should be started at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. You might want to ask for help at the Teahouse.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Also talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not telling us how biased we all (or Wikipedia) are. Please read WP:NOT.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't tell you how biased "wikipedia" is, I told you about how YOUR editing was a blot on wikipedia, with actual demonstrable reasons why, including the sad and inappropriate standard of evidence you allowed on that page. The fact that you try to pretend I was referring to wikipedia as a whole is indicative of how dishonest you are. 67.82.83.27 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments like this are PA's and could lead to a block.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Go away. Or, if you want to claim that I made a personal attack, you're welcome to show that you weren't dishonest and that I actually attacked wikipedia as a whole, which you falsely claimed I did. If you can't do so, then we'll know that I was right. 67.82.83.27 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Miss Universes, including the 2011 in Brazil, the 2009 in the Bahamas, and others, are not evidence of Brazilian or Bahamian interference." talks about subjects unrelated to the topic of the article, and so adds nothing to then debate. "Apparently on purpose to mislead readers" is commenting on users motives (and saying there is a deliberate attempt to mislead by them).


 * More


 * "This article is clearly the result of political biases on behalf of editors, which is an embarrassment to wikipedia."


 * " When you start slanting information on wikipedia out of hatred for Donald Trump, you've become a monster yourself."


 * And lastly this "And of course, instead of defending this, you try to personally attack the respondents and block them from discussing the issue", so even you say that attacking other users political bias is a PA.
 * Now I would suggest if you think the above will not (if it becomes apparent) get you a block, go ahead, they might feel like giving you a chance as a new user. If however (as you seem to say more then once "Now go ahead and block the feedback." (it is odd that a new users knows this might happen with such conviction as you have shown) you know full well that continuing down this road will lead to sanctions then you will get a block, and probably an idef. Please desist and start to use less combative language.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The references to the other Miss Universes indicate that the Miss Universe in Moscow was merely circumstantial evidence and thus did little to nothing to belong in an article labeled "Timeline of Russian Interference in the Election." Unless you also want to start articles on Bahamian interference and so on. Now, you've reviewed my quotes I see, and what do they say? It was a result of political biases *on behalf of editors*, and is an embarrassment to wikipedia." It's not a critique of wikipedia as a whole, but of the people *editing the article.* The second sentence begins how? "When *you* start," and ends with "*you've* become a monster *yourself.*" A reference to a specific person or people doing the editing. So, since you can't demonstrate that I'm attacking Wikipedia as a whole, your critique was, in fact, dishonest. As is your editing of that ridiculous excuse for an article which will either be very different or not even exist in the near future. Not a single other thing you said matters. Get off my page. 67.82.83.27 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)