User talk:Vision Thing

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source
I don't see how you can take material clearly reflecting that a source says critics have complained about Krugman's recent writing, then remove the word "recent" so that the quote then incorrectly implies that the criticism is about all his writing in general, and pass that off as "tweaking" or "shortening". At best, this was a very careless error, and at worst, it gives the appearance that you're deliberately trying to distort the source. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a comment on a talk page of the article. Please state your objections there. -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Punishment
Being on Wikipedia and dealing with the types you are dealing with tells me that either you are a masochist or you have a lot of free time on your hands and a mission http://www.archive.org/details/EssayInformationOnTechnocracyDesignAndHowItIsPortrayedOnWikipedia People like Lawrence Khoo etc. and friends. No doubt special interest cartels run this show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.61 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

fyi - blpn

 * - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Hi, your edits to the Paul Krugman BLP are the subject of a BLP noticeboard report. Please comment there, thanks -   You  really  can  18:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Which Party Controlled the 107th Senate
Just looking at, and noticed that the 107th Senate was coloured red. In fact, it should switch from red to blue when Jim Jeffords left the Republican party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.188.5 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Krugman
Look dude, my suggestion to deal with the Krugman article is to give up. You've run up against 2 of the most liberal editors on Wikipedia: Loonymonkey and Gamaliel. As an example notice how they agree that an opinion piece citing the Economist as a source is invalid, but original research (and ironically using the google results to form an opinion on the "standard textbook" argument) is ok. As an aside, Krugman IS considered to have written a textbook that does a pretty good job introducing economics and dealing with it so and numerous universities use it so it's probably ok to call it as it is. But I feel for you man, espc once admins who have allegiance to one ideology get involved, you've got no hope. Also, here's hoping you see this before either Loonymonkey or Gamaliel do...they have a habit of deleting things off of people's talk pages that call them out on their biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.17.241 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moral support. -- Vision Thing -- 13:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure :D 173.73.17.241 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC
Hi. I'd like to start an RFC on your conduct - particularly, my perception that you frequently violate NPOV, and that you engage in stale revert wars without engaging in fruitful talk-page discussion. While I could easily drum up other certifiers, it is likley that doing so would make the process more contentious than if you waived the 2 certifier requirement. Are you willing to do so? Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. -- Vision Thing -- 12:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow Hipocrite, you are a drama QUEEN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.17.241 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC
I have filed an RFC regarding your slow-mo reverting and failure to appropriately judge consensus at Requests for comment/Vision Thing. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking for your help!
Hello, Will/are you able to help build a new article on "Libertarian Fascism". It has been growing as a new concept, I have tried to present an article on it, but it is deemed "not fit". Please let me know if you can add/change anything on it? Cheers. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Libertarian_Fascism

Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)