User talk:66.142.251.253

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dgw (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 17 December 2007 (subst:'ing and swapping unsignedIP for unsigned where appropriate using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

August 15

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
And out of curiousity, where do you get that the Nobel Institute considers the nomination to be legitimate? --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page

Please take it to the talk page. The current consensus is that the "nomination" doesn't belong in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation. It's always nice when people are willing to discuss their edits when they go against consensus.
I won't revert you again, but I'm confident someone else will come along and remove the nonsense soon enough. --Onorem♠Dil 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Onorem♠Dil 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cited numerous sources of evidence. If a nomination doesn't belong in this article, I invite you to remove all acadamy award nominations from all actors wiki's immediately. You're clearly trying to censor me, and it's absurd. The nomination stays. I appreciate your enthusiasm and will however the "consensus" is just you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.251.253 (talk)

You will soon be reported for violating the 3 revert rule. Please use the talk page in the future. The consensus is not "just me". It's completely non-notable, and the circumstances are nothing close to academy award nominations. It's nice to see you're finally willing to communicate. --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd.. "circumstances are nothing close to the academy award nominations" ? It's a MUCH more prestigious nomination, I find the nobel peace prize to be substially more notable then an acting award. You keep throwing conditions and requirements at me, which I continuously meet (see: sources), and then you further require additional information... it's never ending. If it is not just you, then why have I not seen any other people disagreeing with the change? Furthermore, I've received no other complaints nor can I find anyone from anyone other than yourself. It appears that I've made an addition you don't agree with, you then complain to me about it, and then your going to tell on me to have it removed because I disagreed with your removal of my addition 3 times? Clearly you're of the opinion that it isn't suitable. I understand your animosity, but honestly how else do you expect me to take your attacks? I've supplied sources and evidence of the nomination, yet you have supplied nothing of the contrary to why it shouldn't be included, other than you don't agree with it. First, your reason was I had no sources, I found sources. Next, your reason is nominations shouldn't be included, I find that to be ridiculous as nominations are throughout all awards and commendations on almost every wikipedia page I searched. Third, you ask how did I know it was legitimate? I supplied a second source showing a reply from the institution themselves, and their own comparison between Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. Now, you say theres a consensus which you provide no evidence of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.251.253 (talk)

The academy award nominations are verifiable. Not only will the Nobel Committee not officially discuss who has been nominated, Mark Levin and Landmark aren't qualified to make a valid nomination. I'm also not the only one to revert your edits, so I'm not quite sure how you can say I'm the only one who disagreed. Your sources are not reliable. Press releases don't count. The nomination has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page, and consensus said to leave it out. If you'd payed attention to any of my previous messages, you would have noticed that when you went to the talk page to discuss it. --Onorem♠Dil 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Third, you ask how did I know it was legitimate? I supplied a second source showing a reply from the institution themselves, and their own comparison between Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh."
What? You didn't provide any source from the institution themselves. You provided a press release from Landmark Legal Foundation and a blog article by John Berlau. Which one of those is from the "institute"? --Onorem♠Dil 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases don't count because they show the Nobel institution does in fact discuss the nominations? Seems rather convenient that my evident just doesn't happen to be good enough. Funny thing is.. according to Nobel, they also don't release who is capable of nominating someone..so that argument doesn't mean anything actually. Clearly we can agree that Landmark nominated Rush Limbaugh, your questioning their abiltiy to do this... however you will be unable to provide any evidence that they are not able to do so. I can clearly provide evidence that he was nominated, the letter itself, many, many articles on the net concerning the nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.251.253 (talk)

The press release doesn't show that the Nobel Institution does discuss the nominations. Where are you getting the idea that it does? John Berlau's article only summarizes the Reuters article by saying they reported that Mjoes was "leaning Gore's way", but Mjoes never commented on Gore's nomination. Who can nominate is laid out pretty plainly, and it's not likely that the nomination was valid. In any case, do you have a problem with using, or even just looking at, the talk page? You can go look at it and see all these arguments which have already been made. --Onorem♠Dil 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with the original writer here. The nomination is certainly worthy of recognition. I also find the comparison of academy awards to the nobel peace prize hilarious, and I feel Onorem has failed to make a case here, clearly it appears he is unreasonable. --User:Pyrex238♠User talk:Pyrex 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.142.251.253&oldid=178418760"