User talk:The Squicks/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome To Wikipedia! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay and make constructive edits. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and have a great time being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, I will always be willing to help or you can ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * My Talk Page

Copyrights
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reinsertion of deleted material
I reinserted into the MSNBC article your completely relevant and properly sourced quote from the McCain campaign's letter to NBC News. As I'm sure you've already noticed there are any number of users who troll politically sensitive articles to delete as much "conservative" copy and to provide and protect as much "liberal" copy as they can possibly rationalize. It's all part of the game so learn to enjoy countering it. Cheers. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me. The Squicks (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thank you! The Squicks (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bowling for Gun Rights
I saw your comment at the Expelled talk page, and just thought I'd mention my own experience with Michael Moore's films. I watched Bowling for Columbine, agreed with most of the observations and interpretation, and came out of the experience more convinced than ever that guns should remain legal. I was also more convinced than ever that the NRA has incredibly bad public image management (which I thought when I was a member), and that Michael Moore edits with a heavy hand. That aside, the movie does not actually argue for gun control, at least not as far as I could tell. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That aside, the movie does not actually argue for gun control, at least not as far as I could tell. I agree. The fundemantal problem of the movie is that there's no real theme to it-- it's that Micheal Moore traveling around and having various encounters with people. It's basically Peewee's Big Adventure turned into a documentary :-) The Squicks (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I'm not sure that I see its lack of thesis as a problem. I kind of like a documentary that lays out facts without telling me how to think. I guess there's no accounting for taste. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 04:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK ~ The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006–2008)
On the Main Page now! Thanks for your contributions, Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thank you your for your message. The Squicks (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, you have worked so much on David Petraeus's page here, and i would like to say that i appreciate your work, and appreciate this man very much, I am a guy from Mosul which in he served first time he got to Iraq. and he used to say on our local TV "Ana Maslawi" which means "I am Mosulinian", we have had a very quite days in when he was here, but now, Mosul is like a hell, there for, i want to send him a message, cause i know he can do something to restore peace in my city. please help me to get a message to him. thank you

Removal of material on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
I noticed you took the picture down from the talk page. I posted it there because I thought it was important for everyone to know what we were talking about. I will be reposting it on the talk page in a smaller form so it does not block user posts that you want to read. In the future, before removing or altering another person's post on a talk page, you should seek that person's permission. Otherwise, you risk being labelled as a vandal which could result in you being blocked from editing in the future. (See Discussion page vandalism under Types of vandalism at WP:VANDAL). Just a heads up. Thanks for your interest in wikipedia.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to have it there just as a representation for refrence, than why did you refuse to make it smaller? And why not just cite a link instead? The Squicks (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I did make it smaller. You never contacted me before removing it. The photo was already linked. "A picture is worth a million words."--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I just want to let this go. I have no objection whatsoever to having it displayed as it is currently [As of 2:31pm Central American Time] displayed in the talk page. The Squicks (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No prob.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I made this personal. The Squicks (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It's obviously a very sensitive issue. Clearly a lot of people have stake in the article, and the conflict. I personally react strongly to the possibility Wikipedia is being censored for political reasons. The image actually makes me sick to my stomach and that's why I think it must not be censored. I noticed a while ago that disturbing images were being removed from the page, but for copyright reasons. This one look legitimately free so its removal appears to me to be POV pushing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Squicks.
 * I notice that you have twice placed a deletion tag on my article on foreign involvement in the Gaza strife.  And in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, you consistently oppose efforts to present the Palestinian perspective.  The attempt to suppress RS information is, as I see it, an indication of weakness: Those of us who have truth on our side do not need to fear the publication of well-sourced contextual information.
 * I'd like to explore this further, if I may. Your user boxes indicate that you support John McCain, the war against Iraq, and "evangelical Christians", so I am hardly surprised to find you defending the Israeli regime.  I know that many "evangelicals" idolize this regime.  But I also see a "Free Tibet" userbox, and this leads me to wonder how you feel about freedom for Palestinians.  Can you imagine what it is to be like to be under occupation for more than forty years?  Do you know anything of the brutality and terror these people have been subjected to?  What would you do, if you were in their position?  Remember that some of the Palestinians are Christians, like you.
 * It may surprise you to hear that I was once, like you, a fan of Israel. Then I gained access to alternative sources of information, something that was, at the time, very difficult here in America.  What I learned shocked me and horrified me.  I now put human beings and human rights ahead of ideology.  People have a "right to exist"; state-terrorist regimes have no such right.  This anecdote may help you to understand why I place a high value on the information you are attempting to delete.
 * At one point in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, I see you making the "intent" argument that Israeli propaganda so often makes. The argument goes like this: "Israel, we're told, never intentionally kills anybody. All of the wars it starts are purely unintentional.  Palestinians, however, intend to kill everybody everywhere, for no reason at all.  They are subhuman creatures, driven by animal hate.  Therefore, Israel deserves our praise and adoration, and Palestinians deserve to die."  I've presented the argument in exaggerated fashion so that you can see how fallacious and dehumanizing it is.  The truth is that intent applies to individuals, not to races or entire ethnic groups.  We do not know the intent of these individuals, and Israeli propaganda is not a reliable guide to the intent of a Palestinian.  Finally, if you criminalize mere intent, you are creating "thought crime", something I, as an anti-fascist, strongly oppose.  Hostile intent is often justifiable.  If someone breaks into my house and murders my children, and I try to kill the intruder, who is more blameworthy?  By your intent logic, I am! -- after all, I intend to kill the intruder, whereas the intruder, who murders my children in cold-blood, without passion or intent, is blameless!  But that goes against decency and common sense!  We need some other standard besides alleged intent for judging who is a Good Guy and who is a Bad Guy.
 * My aim in posting this is to show you that I am not a Bad Guy. I am not the Enemy.  My concerns are just as legitimate as yours are.  So I ask you to reconsider your effort to get my article deleted.  If you object to portions of the article, feel free to edit it.  Make it better.  NonZionist (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you politely to post your own point of view in the deletion discussion for that page you created. That way, others users can see what you think and then there can be an agreement. You refused to do so. Why? The Squicks (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'm simply going to ignore your personal attack above. Please never post on my talk page again. The Squicks (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I take that back. It was/is unfair to call your statement a 'personal attack'. It was/is not.


 * Regardless, since this page and no other page on Wikipedia is meant to be a forum, I do not want to debate the political issues here. I mean no offense by that. It would be one thing if we were talking face to face, but we are not. I don't wish to debate. The Squicks (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I simply don't want to debate the issues here. The Squicks (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry for the outburst
This has been a frustrating article to work on, there have been several long and arduous discussions about some things over the past few weeks (and to be honest a few posts that were utterly racist), but I shouldn't have started that off with the 'did you even read what I wrote' quip. Just felt my words were intentionally being taken out of context, and I now see there was no such intention. In fact I had been typing the RS stuff before I saw your post, got an edit conflict and tried to answer your questions in the context of my already written post. Anyways, sorry for not just clearly explaining myself without any acrimonious phrases. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. For my side, I should not have taken such a trivial thing so personally and been so overly offended by it. And then the "no, you did say it" stuff was just plain silly. Life is too short to walk on eggshells. Anyways, Shalom. The Squicks (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, I just wanted to clear the air so to speak. I respect your opinion and you are certainly entitled to voice it, but please keep in mind that some of the people that are reading these discussions, even if as in my case am worlds away in America, feel personally impacted by these events. And it definitely goes both ways, when I see people who say things that can be taken a certain way on 'my side' I cringe. I have been slightly annoyed these past few days, so explains some of my dickish comments, but I apologize for that and will not repeat it again. Just that line hit me like a mike tyson punch, rocked me off center for a while. A long winded apology for some of my comments, but peace, Nableezy (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that's no problem. People have strong opinions about this issue. Looking back, I certainly should have worded "I don't care" differently! It sounded like I agree with the Likudniks who dehumanize the Palestinians into nothing. I do care in that, yes, I felt ill after seeing the baby picture and that I have sickened and disgusted by some actions of the government of Israel (as you know, since I posted about my feelings of rage in the humanitarian aid section). When I said "I don't care" I meant that, ethically, even though those Palestinians are real human beings who have suffered real injustice, I feel that it is in the long run best interests of both Israel and Gaza to have Hamas' Islamism fail. In the long run, I think that a fully-realized Islamism in Palestine will generate many times more suffering for their own people than what has happened in the past few weeks.


 * Of course, I certainly would feel differently if I was personally affected by the Gaza events. After all, Ehud Barack was asked whether or not he would have become an oughtright terrorist if he was born in Palestine and he said: "What else could I say? If I were a young Palestinian immersed from birth in the Palestinian ethos, I'd have become a third-grade teacher!" I can certainly understand why. It's the same reason why the Serbians kept on fighting for Milosevik- because NATO bombing cold-bloodedly murdered their mothers and their sisters and their daughters. But, despite all that suffering, I feel that it was in the best interests of Serbia to have Milosevik fall. The good of the many in the long run is better than the good of the few in the short run.


 * That's what I think. I should apologize as well that I've been a bit insensitive about it, and I completely accept your apology. Shalom. The Squicks (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In other news, I am apparently "clearly a Hamas operative" so maybe you shouldn't listen to me at all ;) Nableezy (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation
Perhaps you should have taken the time to look at the edit summary for my edit. I made it explicit that I am removing images and the reason why. Any accusation of vandalism and misrepresenting edits will not be taken lightly and I will have to see what route should be taken if you do not cease.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead end resolution
Hello. I'm really new to Wikipedia. I need your advice. It looks I've reached a dead end with my talk discussion about Background section. RomaC and Nableezy put veto and claiming OR and refuse to continue discussion. I feel that removal was unjustified. What is the correct way to proceed? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just one sentence. If the clear consensus of editors says to keep it out, then I would just let it go and let it be kept out. The Squicks (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Geert Wilders
Hello, I noticed you making improvements to the Geert Wilders article. Thank you for your contributions. However could you consider using an Edit summary, to notify others of the changes you've made. Also you make a lot of edits in successcion, the "Show preview" button may be of help here. Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to have a wandering mind that contradicts itself frequently. Just after I make an edit I will immediately think about undoing it or something along those lines. Oh, well. Anyways, I didn't use summaries since I thought of the edits as non-controversial. I generally do do that if there's some kind of issue. The Squicks (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, according to this guideline, you are always supposed to make a summary of your changes.--DFS454 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

thought it might be of interest...
Homosexual activity cause of earthquake, Shas MK says--Cerejota (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I facepalmed so hard I knocked my glasses off. The Squicks (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

With much admiration

 * Thank you! The Squicks (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Yon
Thanks for your great work on our article about Michael Yon. Cheers, CWC 16:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kinsey Scale colors
They aren't better, they may be worse, but they are different. As the subject concerns sexuality, which causes much debate, and we strive for NPOV ... what about using graded shades/hues of one color instead? -- Banj e b oi   00:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * what about using graded shades/hues of one color instead? Oh my God. Using just one color brings in the NPOV issues once again, only with a fiercer tension. Is darkness being associated with homosexuality (with the blackest/strongest-color side being '6') mean that the article has a subtle homophobia? But straight people have feelings too, so wouldn't making them the blackest/darkest part mean an anti-breeder bias? Does making gay people the lightest shade stereotype them for being "light" in terms of personality? Is light color inherently good, and would it be homophobic to make straights white?


 * Simply put, there is no color system or shade system in modern human society that does not have a negative connotation in some context. It does not exist. Full stop.


 * Red-shirted communists, white-shirted reactionaries, green-shirted Islamists, brown-shirted Nazis, and black-shirted fascists have all murdered countless gay people. As well, the British proto-fascists who wished to exterminate my ancestors in Ireland have chosen Orange as their symbol. The Vatican is symbolized by the color Gold, which brings different reactions to gay Catholics verses straight Catholics and gay non-Catholics.


 * Perhaps the best thing is to delete the table for good. The Squicks (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or prehaps the whole thing is just paranoia, and the table is fine as is. Whatever. Personally, I find even the articles about abortion or the Israel-Palestinian conflict to be calmer than pages on sexuality, which is different because everything is always taken personally by everyone- killing reasonable debate. The Squicks (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lieberman article
Seems like you're one of the few (if not the only one) attempting to edit in a NPOV manner. Thanks for working on his bio.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. The Squicks (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP Violation
Please stop editing Daniel Pipes, and take your concerns to talk. You are, I am reasonably certain, violating WP:BLP, by misreading the source(s) in question. IronDuke 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "As some of my oldest friends and closest allies are called neo-conservative, I happily accept this appellation." There it is. In black and white. The Squicks (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "I have never quite figured out what views define a neo-conservative, and whether I am one or not..." There it is, in black and white. Does that look to you, or any reasonable person, like Pipes is referring to himself habitually as a necon? You are serially violating WP:BLP, and should stop now. Take it to talk, at the very, very least. 04:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you just now took it to talk. Thanks for that, but please stop reverting until this is resolved. IronDuke  04:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I did take it in talk.


 * But, for God's sake, if someone wrote something about Christians and then said "We Christians do ______"- wouldn't you think that they consider themselves to be a Christian? The Squicks (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When did Pipes do this? IronDuke  04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense to you at all, but let's keep this discussion in the talk page since I don't want to confuse statements. The Squicks (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * None taken, and that's a good idea. IronDuke  04:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your GAN nomination of California Proposition 8 (2008)
Hi -- Just a friendly question before I decide whether to undertake reviewing it or not -- it certainly looks like a nice article, but is it stable? The topic is something that is fairly controversial and a subject of the current political debate, and thus might not pass the stability requirements of our good articles. Ray Talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been edited constantly recently, but those edits are building on each other primarily and are pretty constructive. There was severe content edit warring before, but that seems to have passed a while ago. The Squicks (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I didn't see any ongoing edit wars or I'd have phrased my question differently, but ... I think I'll pass on reviewing this one. I don't want to review an article and have large chunks of it be completely different a month or two afterwords. Good luck -- it is an important topic, and you've got good coverage. Ray  Talk 18:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of DontGO
A tag has been placed on DontGO requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to 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. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Response on the related talk page. The Squicks (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So I note that this isn't the first time that someone has taken issue with the way you are escalating your concerns. I'm just going to reiterate my comments that you not make edits of a nature that have been rejected in the past, for the valid reasons noted elsewhere. It's been a challenge re: assume good faith concerning these types of edits in the past, hence my comment, "we'll be watching". I'd also note that this is not intended as a threat. It is rather my pledge to you that I am committed to following the guidelines of Wikipedia to improve the content of the information here as part of a broader, collaborative effort. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I ignored your threat. I will continue to ignore such things in the future. The Squicks (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem very helpful.... Oh well.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am ignoring your threat, okay? Can we leave it at that? The Squicks (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that I didn't threaten you, fine.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, we will leave it at that. The Squicks (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)
Hi there. I have committed to undertaking the GA review of this article. I wanted to flag with you an issue I have raised at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: that this article may meet the 'quick fail' criteria, not because it is in any way poor, but because it "specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint". I have sought other editors' advice in response to my query and I will not quick fail it without some feedback from other editors on this question. You can see the details of my query at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations If the article ends up being quick failed, I would encourage you to renominate it after incorporating the findings of the court (and any public reaction from major players), once the decision is handed down. Best wishes. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Pretend"
Refactor your last comment immediately. I have never "pretended" to have any position, and that is a direct personal attack. Your second of the day, I might add. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was you who decided to make a mere policy disagreement into a personal thing in the first place- by claiming that everyone who dares to disagree with you is a "right-wing POV pusher" and not a human being. I responded to your personal attack with my own.


 * Two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm striking it out. But I would advise you not to make personal attacks again. The Squicks (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Beauty pageant contestant
Hi, I changed queen to Beauty pageant contestant since it's more accurate, and beauty queen was a redirect. Better to use the more accurate term. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I remind you your own words?
'How about= The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza police and police stations as inherently equivilent to armed soliders since, it believes, Hamas has incorporated them into its military wing. HRW has said that police and police stations constitue valid targets only if they are targeted when they actively participate in hostilites. The PCHR (...)' That's what you wrote. And that was my reply: "The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count". That was a week ago. The latest debate discussed another sentense in another section. If you still have reservations, please go to talk page.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Geert Wilders
hey, i'd be interested to get a comment from you here. i'm concerned about a low level edit war going on in the lead and wondered if citations might help. i personally don't really care what's in the lead as long as it complies with wp:v. jimmi's confrontational approach to other editors doesn't help much either despite being quite entertaining.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly and Roger Cohen. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.


 * I would like to point out that I DID NOT make three reverts. I made two. And then I stopped. Please don't fill my talk page with stupid lies that I did. The Squicks (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And I am in no such edit war on Roger Cohen. Someone made various edits. I kept some, and removed others. That's hardly a war. It's a collaborative back and forth. The Squicks (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You've made 3 reverts on Juan Cole, and 4 on Roger Cohen. In case you are unaware of what WP:3RR says, please review it carefully - a revert is undoing another editor's works - it does not have to be the same revert 3 times, nor are minor variations to the text you are putting in the article (while removing another editor's text) excluded. Please stop you edit wars. Calling a polite warning placed on your page a 'stupid lie' is not going to incentivize me much towards not reporting your behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have to give you incentives. I don't have to give you anything, okay? This tone of yours is un-like Wikipedia. The Squicks (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I made four edits on Roger Cohen about different issues. Two of them covered the same thing. I respect 3RR in that case and I dropped the issue, since I don't see it as a big deal. The other edits were about different BLP violations that attributed things to Cohen that he did not say. The Squicks (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have such an obsessively negative view of me that you must report me (rather than the other edit warring editors whose POVs you happen to personally like), than do it. The Squicks (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it makes no difference if you reverted different things with each revert, and you were not reverting any BLP violations. You've been warned - proceed at your own risk. NoCal100 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, no threats and no personal attacks, okay? If your going to do something out of spite, then do it. The Squicks (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * if I was going to do something out of spite, don't you think I'd have reported you already? Nowhere have I attacked you - I gave you a polite warning, hoping to end your edit war on multiple articles. If you stop it - you're good. NoCal100 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm confused. You just wrote not going to incentivize me much towards not reporting, which implied that you are going to report me. Now you say that you won't. Will you or won't you? (An honest question, not meant to be sarcastic or leading)The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might want to revert yourself on Roger Cohen to avoid violating 3rr, if you have violated it (keeping in mind that reversions of different material still count as reversions). NoCal is being nice to warn you, I think you should either 1) revert yourself or 2) make it clear that one of the four edits you made was not a reversion of some previous content. IronDuke  03:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any further action if you stop edit warring. If you continue to revert on either of these articles, or move that edit war elsewhere, I will. I hope this clarifies things. NoCal100 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A BLP violation can be reverted all as is necessary.
 * Honestly, don't you think the claim that Roger Cohen "supports the Iranian nuclear program" is a BLP violation? It seems like black and white to me. Things were attributed to a person that they do not think. The Squicks (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it is a BLP violation. WP:3RR makes it clear that you should take such issues to WP:BLPN rather than reverting. NoCal100 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Started. And my edit was reverted by me. The Squicks (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger Cohen and Iran nuclear program
Roger Cohen clearly supports Iran's nuclear program. Read this column:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html Whyzeee (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I very politely asked you to respond here on this page, and not on my talk page. Please delete your statement above and respond there instead. The Squicks (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked politely, and I am not responding to your statements unless it is there. Okay? The Squicks (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)