User talk:Lucas Richards

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

EU accesion of Turkey
Hi, with regards to this sentence:

"Opponents of Turkish membership sometimes cite as example of this conflict between secular law and religious law the Turkey signature to the 'Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam' (5 August 1990)."

Can you give me a citation of Turkeys opponents citing this please? Thanks --A.Garnet 18:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear, I'm providing online sources as much as possible. however, this is a considerable effort, and when i often hear something on say TV, how can we then provide a reference? In those cases, I try to cope with this technical limitation by referring to the named author, as other people also do, assuming that people following this debate should then know the opinions of well-known persons. Still, that does not cover all possible cases.  So, what do you prefer (and maybe just refer to your own efforts in providing actual sources!). Kind regards, --Lucas Richards 10:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did at Turkey. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. MonsterOfTheLake 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear, it is obvious to all of us that any contribution on 'hot topics' might be displeasing to certainj of the militant protagonists in those issues. Therefore, and given that you invode the claim of vandalism, I would expect that you provide at least some explanations abvout factual or orthographic errors, or reasons why you think some parts of my contributions are not good enough. Therefore, I kindly invite you to explain your objections, instead of just a black-and-white blancket condemnation. Many thanks in advance, --Lucas Richards 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is incumbent upon you to provide proper references for your additions. The fact that you believe that mr. Ollie Rehn believes what you write is irrelevant. If newspaper S writes that Mr. Rehn says 'X', you should not report "X", but: "Mr. Rehn stated 'X' ". Not only do most of your edits display a strong bias, many are also factually incorrect. Also, please refrain from involving meatpuppets. --Lambiam Talk 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear, I've read about those statements from Olli Rehn in several dailies. Those are in the same line as other official EU reports for which accurate references were included (by other authors and by me!). Moreover, when I see what is written, 95% of it is unreferenced! So what gives you the right to insist upon higher requirements for facts that you don't like? --Lucas Richards 10:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I always open to a detailled discussion of specific bits of infomation. You pretend there is strong bias in my contributions. Well, just let me know specifically what you think is biased, and be assured, I'm very aware that muy writing is not perfect, FAR from that, so I'm open to any constructive suggestion. That of course, is something fundamentally different from just curtting away whatever one doesn't like (as some frequently do here).  --Lucas Richards 10:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if you would make a detailled study of my contributions, you would find out that I've added both arguments PRO and CONTRA Turkey's accession! So I don't see how that can be biased. --Lucas Richards 10:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - PS: This is the most minor warning I could find, and it follows from a number of personal attacks you've made against various contributors in the AfD discussion (and, in my case, elsewhere). BigHaz 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear, maybe I got carried away, but you will certainly have noticed to that in several cases, other contributors have just deleted certain contributions I made, most of the time without making any contribution on the discussion about the why they do not agree with something. Clearly, the amount of obviously partisan deletions has become quite annoying, disruptive for the Wikipedia process, and irritating.  So in case you have any objection to be made against certain sentences, certain information, etc., please feel free to expolain why. Wikipedia does suggest that way of resolving different opinions. On the other hand, I hope that you will understand that I can not answer non-explained and vague accusations. Kind regards,  --Lucas Richards 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You know full well what personal attacks I'm referring to. At this AfD listing, you have referred to people holding views opposite to your own as Turkish nationalists ... seeking cheap arguments..., ridiculous, and one fervently pro-Turkish militant (the fact that he admits to nationalist sympathies is immaterial, his comments should be responded to based on the arguments, rather than the person who made them). In addition, see this talk page, where I am described as being quite uncooperative for delet[ing] without any word of explanation about each single deldete you applied (in spite of, as is made clear in the responses on that page, the fact that I had in fact explained the removals in my edit summary). I am then accused of disrespect[ing] Wikipedia rules in that you decides single-handedly and without any discussion here what's to be deleted and conducting a unilateral removal of content (which, as discussed a moment ago, is covered by my edit summary). You were warned about personal attacks and civility at the AfD listing and have continued this policy of making the former. Your second warning (in the section below this on your talk page) expressly references the location where the personal attacks are made. BigHaz 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, so it's you who likes to delete information without any explanation, let alone decent discussion! yes indeed, I don't appreciate such vandalising behaviour, and if you think that the fact that I report on this is a personal attack, well, that's your personal problem! You should assume responsibility for your own contributions. By tha way, it is a certain BEHAVIOUR that I'm attacking, and I've described quite well which behaviour, proof: your own copying of my description. An edit summary is NOT the lace that Wikipedia suggests as the appropriate place for discussion! --Lucas Richards 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]]This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. - referring to what I am doing as "vandalism" shows a lack of understanding of the term and is a direct personal attack on me. A reading of this page will demonstrate the fact that one should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?" in the summary, which I did. The policy makes it quite clear that any removal of text should be documented, which I did. To say that I am not assuming responsibility for my actions is patently false as I explained what I did as I did it (and then entered into discussion at the appropriate place, the talk page of the article). Note further that I entered into discussion, while you appear to have simply assumed bad faith and made personal attacks. I would suggest that you read this policy, which describes the difference between what I am doing and vandalism. For example, and I quote: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. While I deleted content, I was not in fact attempting to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia - rather, the links I deleted were misleading by their presence because they either did not work or did not contain the information you claimed they did. Further, in the section entitled "What vandalism is not", we read Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. I feel your pain in having links removed, that sort of thing has happened to me in the past, but it's not vandalism. Remember, further, the words of this policy, which contends that the article becomes the property of all as soon as it is written. If you want to write something with dead links and links which don't contain the information you claim they do, that's fine - just don't expect those links to remain for long. If you continue to refer to what I do as vandalism, you have every right to report me to an admin. That said, you will need to demonstrate violations of the vandalism policy, which I think will be quite difficult to do. BigHaz 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Referring to comments made here
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Lucas, I had already explained my rationale for deleting those links at the time you made these comments. If you wish to continue to impugn my motives and criticise me for taking perfectly reasonable actions (to say nothing of drawing my name into a discussion which was to do with your sockpuppetry rather than anything I'd done), you will receive further warnings. If you review my interactions with you, you will see that I have been nothing but reasonable at all times - many other contributors would have flown off the handle long ago. BigHaz 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to make certain that you know exactly which phrases I'm referring to here: most vague (BigHaz, ...) accusations is borderline as I have not made any "vague accusations" to date. [V]ague criticism as those on my own page from BigHaz, MonsterOfTheLake and others, is very difficult to appreciate. Hope you understand my frustration about seeing all those blind cutters just vandalising my contributions. is significantly overstepping the mark, as you imply that I have "vandalised" your contributions when I have in fact done no such thing. BigHaz 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I amalgamated you with others users that commited such ferocious cutting without explaining, but I've stressed what kind of behaviour I suffered, and you just neglect this, and focus on your hurted pride! I will check histories again, and check who did cut away without explaining things! And I very much hope that you will respect my frustrations about that censorship. And more important/ if you are really not involved with that un-Wikipedia-alike behaviour that I've so clearly described, why then do you react so strongly, so as if you are the author indeed? It would have been more then OK if you would have shown a more clearly different style and behaviour, not, like the cutters, just cutting away critical contributions, BUT more FIRST discussing, then improving text, and not just making information disappear. So, to summarise, IF i falsely accused you, be sure, I will apologise, and I must apologise.  --Lucas Richards 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why my initial comment regarding personal attacks contained the phrase "stay cool". As I previously indicated, if you felt slighted by the removal of anything connected to an article you'd written, or a challenge to its existence on Wikipedia, that's normal. Where you crossed the line was by unloading bile on everyone concerned, and falsely in my case. BigHaz 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
You failed to respond adequately at WP:RCU regarding which account you wanted deleted. Be aware that there is more than sufficient evidence on that page that you and User:Rudi Dierick are the same individual. Given that the latter account is older, I have indefinitely blocked this one as an abusive sockpuppet (the voting of both on Articles for deletion/List of persecuted Turkish writers is inappropriate) and refer you to WP:SOCK on inappropriate uses of sockpuppets. -- Samir  धर्म 05:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And wich question did I not answer then? --Lucas Richards 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your appreciation: I explained that I'm using public facilities from a relatively big organisation, and then NO further so-called evidence was brought forward! What more do you want? Exclude anybody working from this kind of facilities? --Lucas Richards 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You will certainly understand that I find this procedure very expeditive and excessively fast. Moreover, you have not contributed to this discussion, and now you just come in, telling me that you are going to kick me out of here because others persons pretend that there is somebody else who would be the same as I am. Is this the way Wikipedia works? In a few days, accusations are raised, I answer, but there is no reaction on the information I provided, and that it????? And I did answer! What more information is needed?

This way of working where people unknown to this discussion, and without any constructive participation (as an attempt to clarify things further, ...), suddenly barge in and try to kick me out, that appears very much against the spirit of Wikipedia, spirit of promoting dialogue, consensus-seeking and thus, forcibly, allowing for sufficient time for discussion. Sorry, but I very, deeply disappointed, especially after all the time I invested here! --Lucas Richards 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)