User talk:Fastbackpinto

AfD nomination of Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity
An article that you have been involved in editing, Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Burzmali 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a fork of the original page which only concerns biography of hannity. This is a documentation of fasle statements or bias towards a specific end, only related to the radio show, which is not at all the focus of the original bio work.

No Bio information, as you have seen, is included in this page as it has an entirely differnt goal.

it wil be regulalry updated and expanded. Leave it alone. thank you.


 * While I sympathize with your position, Wikipedia is not a blog, nor is it a place to advocate a position. As this article stands, it is hard to see how it can maintain a Neutral Point of View on the subject, when the title of the article itself posits that Sean Hannity is both biased and makes inaccurate claims.  In addition, you have yet to include any Reliable Sources that the statement you have made in the article are true.  Keep in mind that Original Research or conclusions you have drawn based on listening to his radio show should not be included in Wikipedia unless they have been substantiated by reliable Secondary Sources.  As to whether or not this article will be deleted, you can state your position at Articles for deletion/.  Burzmali 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not vandalized anything or disrupted anyones article. You are out of line interfering with a legitimate page. Commentary on political positions expounded by an individual is eye-of-the-beholder, there is not a right or wrong which is unique to politics. I am not asserting that all algorithms that can be mathmatically computed are wrong and then denying documetation to the contrary. Unless I attribute statements that are not accurate of have not been made. thanks you again.

Regarding your edits to Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity:
Your recent edit to Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a non-talk page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up
Threatening people by telling them that they might lose their editing privileges isn't a good way to behave in AfD discussions. If people are behaving objectionably, they can and will be sanctioned appropriately, but making threats like that isn't a good way to start. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is not at all a good idea, and whats more important, I did no such thing. I cited Wiki policy that the goal should be to bring a topic into compliance and that mine was a serious topic that I would bring into compliance if helped to do so. NOWHERE was any mention, of any sort, made of anyones editing priviledges BY ME... Burzmali, the guy who started the attack on my page has no pages he created that I can find under that handle anyway, and his editing priv`s seem to start only earlier this year with no track record. He seems hot to censor peoples pages despite creating nothing under that name himself, and did not comply with wiki policy to offer guidance to a newbie who want to comply..now I am accsued of threats that I didnt make. Where is Burzmali`s sanction? there wont be one. --Fastbackpinto 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. - A l is o n  ☺ 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Sasha does not have even an Iota of basic credentials to be assessing anything.

1/ she is 16 2/ she has created ONE page that consists of a single line 3/ she has no lide experience or editing experience of any type 4/ she is passing jusdgement on pages much more complex than anything she has created

If pointing that out is an `attack`, then i would disagree, it should be a wakeup call to Wikipedia that you ahve to ahve some standards for those siting in judgement of others or you get a massive power trip for someone who gets to tear up others stuff with impunity --Fastbackpinto 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have more than one bureaucrat that's younger than 16. Age is neither here nor there. Also please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors and try to remain civil. There's no excuse for what you just said there - A l is o n  ☺ 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually- the excuse is the 1st amendment... thankfully we all enjoy it. I didnt say NO 16 yr old kid could ever be an impartial and knowledgable arbitor, I said THIS ONE has no experience at all, the most amateurish single lone site I have ever seen, AND as was noted on her own talk page by your staff when she sought even greater authority on your site, she cant justify being entrusted to sit in judgement with absolutely nothing to BASE that judgement upon- go look at her talk page `cause it isnt just MY opinion apparently  --Fastbackpinto 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of Wikipedians who don't get to enjoy the First Amendment off of Wikipedia. (Although for some, I'm sure the Charter of Freedoms gets them some portion of similar rights.) That said, Wikipedia is a private forum, and as such, the First Amendment is not the guiding principle for expression here; the Wikipedia guidelines are, and one of them is WP:CIVIL. Finally, when it comes to AfD and DRV discussions, it's not the credentials of the editors that gives weight to their arguments (single-purpose accounts and anonymous editors excepted): it's the merits of the arguments. —C.Fred (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I thought something was missing from the title, but just calling it the Charter I feared was too vague. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take back the `easy bake oven` comment.. I guess I should keepin mind she is just a 16 year old kid. Im keeping my 1st amendment rights though- later --Fastbackpinto 02:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You should keep in mind that she's a fellow-editor with the exact same rights as you have on Wikipedia and is obliged to follow the same rules as you do and is deserving of the same respect. That she has revealed her age is her choice and as such, should have no bearing on anything here. WP is a private resource, belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation; your First Amendment rights stop at the login prompt, thus the obligation to pay attention to WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - thanks - A l is o n  ☺ 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revocation of GFDL
The GFDL can't be revoked. Please see WP:REVOKE for more on that. --Core desat 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)