Boxerhorse
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Please refrain from adding hostile and uncivil comments to your edit summaries, such as the following:
Thank you. --Rrburke(talk) 14:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- you sent me an message about the comment posted below:
It might be best to reply on the users talk page by clicking on his signiture then click discussion--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 04:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
edit- "its OK to state that Middle Easterns were bashed but not white Australians??? AGENDA?? R U MIDDLE EASTERN?"
- can you please explain where that comment is "hostile and uncivil"...
- the article at present in the introduction states that Middle Easterns were "bashed" but when i attempted to balance the introduction and wrote that Australians were also "bashed" it was reverted - a clear antogonistic revert which unbalances the article...
- therefore, as the revert unbalances the article, a rational and resonable conclusiuon is that there is an "agenda" being palyed out - how is that "hostile and uncivil"?
- also, i have no non-neutral sentiments toward Middle Eastern people - therefore, i asked if the revert editor was Middle Eastern as that may be the source of the agenda - if you think asking someone if they are Middle Eastern is "hostile and uncivil" then you are racist because clearly you see being Middle Eastern as a negative and insluting thing, otherweise you wouldnt interpret it as "hostile and uncivil" - therefore you are racist...
- Boxerhorse wrote:
- how is that "hostile and uncivil"?
- Let's take this from the top. A shouted ALL-CAPS edit summary in which you assert that another editor's ethnic background is a possible reason for a putative agenda motiviating their edit is repellent, prima facie hostile and abusive and simply won't be tolerated. In future you will assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that what motivates other editors is a desire to improve the article.
- Secondly, as to this:
- if you think asking someone if they are Middle Eastern is "hostile and uncivil" then you are racist because clearly you see being Middle Eastern as a negative and insluting thing, otherweise you wouldnt interpret it as "hostile and uncivil" - therefore you are racist...
- I think I've answered this adequately: it was your repugnant intimation that another editor's ethnicity is the reason for their contributions that is the basis for me characterizing your edit summary as hostile and uncivil. But as to this in particular:
- then you are racist
- therefore you are racist
about Rrburke's open threats
edityour threats will not intimidate users of Wikipedia - you cannot take yourself off on a fascist frolic and intimiade other users with threats because you misinterpret their comments... it IS racist to interpret a question about Middle Eastern as "hostile and uncivil" THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING MIDDLE EASTERN... had i asked "are you Australian" you would not have interpreted that as "hostile and uncivil" because you are racist towards one or the other - you are not consistent - it seems you think Middle Eastern is a "negative thing" that seems racist and i can make such 'observations' on Wikipedia without you threatening to have me blocked - your threats and intimidation are in themselves are cause for you yourself to be blocked Boxerhorse 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - lets work through it - i at no time "intimiated" that the user was Middle Eastern - i merely asked... if you think you can make a compalint against me for stating that you are RACIST for interpreting Middle Eastern ethnicity as "hostile and uncivil" then i can also compalin about you for stating that i am "hostile and uncivil" in the first place - you cannot have your cake and eat it too - first you misinterpret my comments and tell me im "hostile and uncivil" for asking someone is they are Middle Eastern, but its not ok for my to state that is "racist" - how can you call me "hostile and uncivil" but im not allowed to call you "racist" - it seems onsided to me... Hence, if you make an accusation that i am "hostile and uncivil" then i will also write you up at WP:AN/1... thats seems fair doesnt it.... Boxerhorse 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, you do a lot of work on this website and in the end all you get is a kick up the arse. About the cronulla riots, well I haven't read the article, I think what the Australians did in the first place was wrong and wear were they when the reprisals took place. A bunch of cowards is what I say and thats coming from an Aussie. When it comes to the article itself I simply remove anything that does not look encyclopedic--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Australians did a bit more than throw a few bottles, several innocent middle easterners who had nothing to do with the gang rapes were bashed, I mean if they want to protest then protest but nobody should have been bashed. That was totally out of line. Also what happened to all those people that where at the riots when the arabs retaliated they were no ware to been seen, which makes it seem even more cowardly. If I had a girlfriend that was packed raped by a group of arabs, I would not go around blaming every other Arab for it. In my opinion what the Aussies did made us look bad in that we needed numbers to gang up and bash people but when it was time to fight the entire group we were no ware to be seen--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 04:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also would you blam every Aussie and half cast Abo for thisCLICK HERE.--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Put it this way, they are out breading us, the Australian population birth rate is at an all time low, while each one of these muslim familys has about five children each. Give it a few more generations and the entire country will be full of these people, they will even work their way up through parliament and eventually we will have a arab muslim primister. It wont happen to soon but one day it will happen. The Islamic goal is to spread their religion and to dominate the entire planet, what you see happening now is just the beggining, I live in Bankstown and becuase of these people we cannot go to McDonalds and have any bacon produts, just about every meat product that we buy today is halal, even if the shop is not run by muslims. This is the begging and it will not go away, its only going to get worse especially when they are outbreading us. Even the ones that where born in this country seem so foriegn that you would never even think that they were born here. They are like that because thats how their parents brought them up, their religion teaches them to hate all Jews and Christians and from what I have heard there is nothing in the Koran that states that women need to wear vails or burqas or whatever the fuck you call them, this is a man made belief. I don't think that starting some kind of race war will help anything. TO BE CONTINUED. TO WEARY--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also would you blam every Aussie and half cast Abo for thisCLICK HERE.--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Australians did a bit more than throw a few bottles, several innocent middle easterners who had nothing to do with the gang rapes were bashed, I mean if they want to protest then protest but nobody should have been bashed. That was totally out of line. Also what happened to all those people that where at the riots when the arabs retaliated they were no ware to been seen, which makes it seem even more cowardly. If I had a girlfriend that was packed raped by a group of arabs, I would not go around blaming every other Arab for it. In my opinion what the Aussies did made us look bad in that we needed numbers to gang up and bash people but when it was time to fight the entire group we were no ware to be seen--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 04:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, it won't be continued at all. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. If I find you using abusive epithets like "Abo" and prattling on about Muslims' "breading" [sic] habits and plans for world domination anywhere on Wikipedia, I'll take you to AN/I and seek a long-term ban of your account. This is Wikipedia, not Stormfront. --Rrburke(talk) 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- USER Rrburke - I DIDNT MAKE THE ABOVE COMMENT - I AM USER Boxerhorse 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC) AND IT WAS User:Mindys12345!! ALSO User:Mindys12345 IS ALLOWED TO EXPRESS HIMSLEF AS HE PLEASES AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE TAKEN TO DOING ON MY TALK PAGE - OPEN THREATS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED - IT IS INTIMIDATION OF OTHER USER BASED ON YOUR INTOLERANCE OF OTHERS - THAT IS RACIST TO MY RELIGION IN ITSELF - I WOULD LIKE AN AOPOLOGY Rrburke and one for user Mindys1234 - the sheer arrogance in stating "no it wont be continued at all" i dont indorse the comments at all, but who the hell are you to state that he will not continue - CONTROLLING SPEECH IS FASCIST and UNACCEPTABLE and INTOLERANT and RACIST!! Boxerhorse 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that there is something left to discuss on this topic. There isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to discuss the merits of a race war or related lunacy. If you try to use it for the latter purpose, your account will be blocked. Talk pages, including user talk pages, exist for the purpose of fostering discussions related to improving encyclopaedia articles. Wikipedia is not your webhost.
- My comments to you are not threats, but warnings that your behaviour violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no comparison between my informing you that your edit summaries are hostile and uncivil and your calling me a racist. The latter is a personal attack, strictly forbidden on Wikipedia; the former is a comment on the quality of your edits, and the way in which they violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One will result in the user's account being blocked; the other will not.
- Contrary to what you appear to believe, neither you nor Mindys12345 "IS ALLOWED TO EXPRESS HIMSLEF AS HE PLEASES." Your talk page is not yours, and is subject to the same policies and guidelines as other Wikipedia pages. You can also spare yourself further embarrassment by ceasing any further burblings about free speech and fascism. Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. It is an encyclopaedia.
- Two more things, when you finish leaving a message on someones talk page you should sign your name with four tildes your name will automatically appear. Aslo when you want to leave a message go to the talk page, its probably not a good idea to leave a message on the actuall user page like you did with user Rburk. I will send you some quick links information that might help with editing. Thanks--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 09:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is a tricky question, let me think about this and I will get back to you with some conventional and unconventional methods. But I don't think that ten people bashing one is the answer. I may get back to you--HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Quick links
edit
|
.gif)