Difference between revisions of "User talk:PF Fox"

Revision as of 20:02, March 31, 2007

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --TimSvendsen 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Fascism

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

Nazi article

Conservatism and ultra-conservatism are right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. Parrothead 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

205

Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [1]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific. --PF Fox 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.

Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? RobS 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue? No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid? --PF Fox 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do not remove Talk page comments

Please do not remove Talk page comments. [2] RobS 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --PF Fox 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. RobS 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material. --PF Fox 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--Elamdri 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal?

Can you confirm your liberal status?

Salvador Allende

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [3]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --Ed Poor 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Civility

This makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [4]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:

I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [5] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --Ed Poor 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

Don't say you fear it but something like this:

Please include this information; or,
According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors Uncle Tom's Cabin or Huckleberry Finn because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --Ed Poor 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
+:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".
+:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
+:*Please include this information; or,
+:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).
+:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "User talk:PF Fox"

Revision as of 20:02, March 31, 2007

Contents