User talk:Interactbiz

Conrad Black
Thank you for all your edits to Conrad Black. The article is much improved. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Conrad Black's "ridiculous" conduct
"Conrad Black's lawyers aren't conceding defeat just yet despite an appeal court ruling Wednesday that upheld Lord Black's criminal conviction and called some of his conduct at Hollinger International Inc. “ridiculous.”"

"That Black and the others would start a newspaper in Mammoth Lake to compete with APC's tiny newspaper there was ridiculous," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's 16-page ruling. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Black
If the material is excessive it would make more sense to spin-off a new article that is specifically on the criminal case rather than simply removed sourced material. Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
If you continue to make personal attacks as you did in this edit, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hardly a personal attack to point out someone's faulty reasoning, particularly when that person contributed: "In that case, fuck you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)"--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FisherQueen has made it very clear that she considered it to be a personal attack (as it is to many people) and yet you applied it again. Editors who make repeated attacks on other editors (especially when they're based on a good faith vote at an AFD) will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By applied again, do you mean that I posted essentially the same message at both danflave and FisherQueen. It seems fair to make each aware of the comment since they were involved in the original conversation. If FisherQueen considers my comment a personal attack, what was the F.U. statement she posted? Perhaps you could explain what the "many people" considered a personal attack. I merely pointed out that person took offense to a statement that she determined was directed to her and it could have been a criticism intended to apply more generally.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the offended editor, no one was EVER singled out by the term "Delete Nazi". The quote was, "I am so sick and tired of these "Delete Nazis" who deign what is "newsworthy" and what is "not newsworthy." It was part of a larger comment that was referring to Wikipedia's general policy. One editor chose to take the comment personally, and responded with vulgarity. If someone works THAT HARD to be offended, they usually will be (I get that, because I am usually the aforementioned offended person; it comes from over-thinking something and NOT looking at the gestalt). I understand what you were saying Norm, and that you were trying to be humorous. It's easy to use faulty logic when reading ANY type of criticism and assume that it is directed at you (again, it happens to me often enough). What he was saying was something akin to "Why do you assume that this is directed at you?" Except Norm did it with humor and style. Lou2u (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is freedom of speech such a dangerous thing that a person should be threatened merely for excising it?

You MUST (that's right I am emphasizing this word) look at the etymology of the word and the context.

From enotes.com "In modern times, the word "Nazi" has meanings that go beyond this. We of course use the word to apply to the actual members of the Nazi Party. But we also use it to refer to anyone who is a fanatic about a cause, especially one who wants to force others to agree with/be like them." and "Either way, the word's meaning (its "semantic range") has grown considerably in the last few decades of the 20th century. The popular comedy show Seinfeld introduced us to "Soup Nazi," for example, and women activists for equal rights are sometimes still derisively called "feminazis.""

Today there are "Shoe Nazis," "Spelling Nazis," "Style Nazis," etc. The list is extensive and could go on for pages actually.

The etymology of words change over time or vary by place. In the US a "biscuit" is called a "cookie," "Crisps" are "Chips," and "Chips" are "French Fries". Over time a "computer" stopped being a job that a person held, and started being a reference to a machine.

People have been PASSIONATE (there I go again using all caps) about this subject, but being offended by some of the comments that have been made really does take an assumption of bad faith on the part of the "offendee" in some instances. Lou2u (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou2u (talk • contribs)

The comment that offends me is being accused by an admin )(ohnoitsjamie) of making a personal attack then repeating a second attack. Additionally, the admin implied that I make "repeated attacks on other editors." I simply want the the admin to recognize his or her overreaction and withdraw the accusations. Reasonable and fair, I think. --Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was offended by the comments that were made against you by ohnoitsjamie as well. They were threats. What you said, "Hey FQuoon, Danflave was talking about "closed-minded, deletion-happy Wikipedians" being delete Nazis. Apparently, you see yourself in that description," was basically spot on. If the person didn't become offended by what was clearly a general statement, there would have been no perceived "attack". To then have the GALL to liken ANY compound word containing the word "Nazi" to what happened in WWII is ridiculous. The original poster used quotations around "delete Nazis" clearly showing how the word was being used. That's like saying "She makes fun of everyone that wears white after Labor Day, she's such a fashion Nazi" is the same as comparing someone to Hitler. Ridiculous. Some people work VERY HARD to be offended. I call "Shenanigans". There was NO PERSONAL ATTACK except when Dan was attacked and later when ohnoitsjamie attacked you. I tried to reason with ohnoitsjamie, but his mind is clearly closed. How do you have conversation with someone who shuts out anything they disagree with? It's like trying to teach a stuffed dog new tricks! Lou2u (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Harassment
I've made it clear that I don't wish to discuss the "Nazi" matter further, and I am in no way obligated to continue to discuss it with you until I see it your way. If you continue to repost it on my talk page, I will report you to another admin for harassment. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Kevin O'Leary
Thanks for all your edits on the Kevin O'Leary article. It really tightened things up, and corrected a lot of sloppy text. Willondon (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)