User talk:Nssdfdsfds

moo

Hello Nssdfdsfds! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mytildebang 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of Neil Woodford

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Neil Woodford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mytildebang 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We obviously don't see eye to eye on the edits for the Center for Consumer Freedom page. I have created a discussion topic (topic no. 26 on the Center for Consumer Freedom talk page) to address my concern with the recent edits to the article. Arthurberkhardt 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Users

I got your note and left a warning on Arthurberkhardt's page. -Will Beback · † · 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group (particularly animal rights people), so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about these edits. Arthurberkhardt 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL on 18 Doughty Street

Stop being abusive towards me. I am merely stating the facts - read WP:CIVIL. I find your page odd - given how many edits you make in short periods of a highly biased nature, yet the total lack of discussion here. Perhaps your IP needs investigating. MarkThomas 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Investigate my IP? Abusive? Seriously take a deep breath, and chill out. Just because not everyone follows your left-wing agenda doesn't mean they are part of some giant conspiracy.

Saying that you are a POV pusher is not abusive in the context of any of the following edits. These are just within the last few minutes, there are others of yours that blatantly violate WP:NPOV

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18_Doughty_Street&diff=106946727&oldid=106945980
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18_Doughty_Street&diff=106947281&oldid=106946871

Using such terms as "extreme right" just isn't acceptable. Your kneejerk "investigate your IP" and silly accusations of abuse don't further your cause. Nssdfdsfds 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also you are in breach of assuming good faith and you just did a 3RR. Want to add any more whilst you're at it? MarkThomas 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. Given that you have made only two edits to the page Iain Dale [1] in the last 2 days and nobody else than me has made any, it would be mathematically impossible to have broken WP:3RR (on 18 Doughty Street it's even less possible, as there are fewer edits there).

I'm not sure what you think I've done thatis not assuming good faith, but given your threats to 'investigate my IP', etc., simply for not wanting articles that use pejorative inherently biased terms such as 'homophobic' and 'extremist', I don't think you are really in a very strong position to attack me on these grounds. Nssdfdsfds 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to you calling me a "POV-pusher" in comments, hardly a good start. The 3RRs you already did is not on Iain Dale but on 18 Doughty Street - one more is a report-case. MarkThomas 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A minute ago you were saying I 'just did a 3RR', as if it were not allowed to revert a page three time (the rule is MORE THAN three times). Now you're acknowledging that this is not the case. So why did you attack me about it? Do you think I should come on your talk page and say "you just did a 3RR. Want to add any more whilst you're at it?" because you have reverted the page Iain Dale three times. It's an absurd thing to do. There's nothing wrong with you warning me that I was in danger of breaking the rules if I continued, but implying that I had already done something wrong is not a very nice thing to do (by saying "You are in breach of [rule x] and you just did a 3RR [implying this was another rule I'd broken].

BTW, I haven't made 3 reverts on 18 Doughty Street. In fact, I see only one revert: [2]. None of the edits before that one could be described as anything other than content edits.

I understand your concerns regarding the 'POV pusher' comment, but you have *repeatedly* added in certain comments which are inappropriate to the introduction to an article about someone who has existed for a lot longer than 18 Doughty Street. Juxtapositions like this: "criticism that Livingstone supports 'gay rights' [omitted] Dale has stated on his own blog that he is gay.", were repeatedly added back despite the subject's of the article's insistence that they were defamatory. Given that you have just been accused of libel, it was wrong to insert these comments at least five times, and without making any attempt to support the accusation that Iain Dale was linked to criticisms of Ken Livingstone for supporting gay rights. While I can see, although I disagree, with the addition of it the first time, given this repeated, and obviously offensive claim, which is not only an attack on another wikipedia user without cause, but also breaches warnings about libel: warnings which you should not ignore - no, you don't have to delete content just because a user says he doesn't like it, but given that he said it was defamatory, the claim that Livingstone was criticised for supporting gay rights needed immediate sourcing, not repeated reversion [3]. In the context, I don't see that my comment was inappropriate. Nssdfdsfds 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Anne Milton. 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. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also you evidently don't read your edits because you were removing far more than the mention of one EDM, and reverting changes to the opening paragraph. You are an idiot. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars would be less likely to occur if you didn't call people idiots for disagreeing with you [4]. If you would discuss why you think the content should be included on the matter on the page's Talk, it would be possible for me to respons and to reach consensus. It does take two. Regarding reverting changes other than this, I'm afraid that abusive edit summary of "Idiot nss, I've selected the important EDMs, and try not to be an idiot in future", is not conducive to anything other than an immediate revert. This the reason for WP:NPA. Nssdfdsfds 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see also Iain Dale where Nssdfdsfds has been engaging in similar behaviour - recent edit comments directed against me include "remove persistent POV pusher MarkThomas" and "rv biased editor". He also completed a 4RR on the article 9/10 February which I did not raise due to wanting to see if we could have a sensible discussion, but I see now he is the type of editor who is uninterested in such Wikipedian trivia as considering other editor's views. Can someone give him a warning block? Thanks. MarkThomas 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your vendetta against me is not helpful. There's a section, right above this one, which you added, in which I responded to your attacks. Fys, or anybody else, is quite capable of reading it, as it's right there. So wasting my time by making me go through it again is more than a little annoying. If you had something else to add to it, rather than dragging it up the same stuff right below it on the page, then you should have done. In addition, you have been asked to justify your changes on the Talk page to the Iain Dale article [5] but haven't done so. Furthermore, I haven't broken any rules, as my fourth edit was made more than 24 hours after the first one, as you can easily see (and in any case the first edit was intended an edit rather than a revert, as I wasn't aware that you had already been warring over this content, as I don't generally check the history first). Considering that you were editing wikipedia after I asked you to justify your claims, reverting the rather scurrilous claims that the figure is somehow linked to US Christian right-wingers, is a perfectly legitimate edit, and isn't edit warring, but complying with wikipedia's policies, see WP:BIO. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to be more constructive. Nssdfdsfds 10:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith ("vendetta") - seems to be the norm with you, doesn't it. There is no vendetta - I just noticed in passing that other editors are remonstrating with you and thought I would ask them to look at other examples. If you don't want to get into fights, stop bad-mouthing people, as you did to me on your very first comment line in my direction. MarkThomas 10:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As your accusations are right there above (fys could not help but read them when posting here), you claimed I broke the 3RR when I quite clearly did not, you've weighed in on another dispute that you've got no involvement in, and you've threatened to have me blocked for no good reason on multiple occasions, this is hostile destructive behaviour, and one that does nothing whatsoever to improve the quality of wikipedia. Can I suggest that you stick to improving articles and not attacking people on talk pages. Nssdfdsfds 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) I made some edits to Iain Dale. (2) Iain corrected them. (3) Fine with me. (4) You steam in and claim it's not Iain. (5) I suggest we ask Iain to email Wikipedia to verify it. (6) You revert my edits 3 times. (7) I warn you this is close to 3RR. (8) You accuse me of POV, of being a "POV pusher", of holding vendettas. Hope this works with some people! MarkThomas 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

1. AfD is not a "vote". It is a discussion. 2. Calling people spammers serves no purpose other than to bite the newbies. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:London1982

Why are you directly editing the talk page for London1982? Is London1982 an account that you control? I am curious if this is so because that account has also involved itself in derogatory edits on Talk:Iain Dale directed against me, a view you apparently share. MarkThomas 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

In the morning I am filing a WP:SSP report on your activities re: London1982 whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet account of yours. MarkThomas 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)