RacialVariancesAnalyser
Hello RVA, though I agree that Prime Minister-elect is not the correct term (Prime Minister-designate, is), I chose to stop arguing the point (for the sake of the article & the fact Rudd will be taking office soon, barring any sudden changes). I'd suggest you use less colorful language, in your disputes. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Retract it, then. And designated Prime Minister by who? Not by the Governor-General. By The Daily Terror and by Sunrise with Mel and Kochie is as far as I can see it.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will not retract it; the majority at the article prefer PM-elect, you should accept that. Rightly or wrongly, editors at Wikipedia don't like it when a newbie comes across as too pushy. Tone it down, at the Kevin Rudd article. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's being truthy, not facty and even The Master would surely call you on taking your guidance stubbornly from the consensus of the uninformed on that one. They promote a contrived, misinforming and worthless term in steadfast defiance of fact while the truth remains unavoided that one man is quite within his rights at any moment to judge that John Faulkner, Morris Iemma, Bob Hawke or even Rolf Harris should instead receive the relevant appointment - all manner of fatuous speculation to the contrary notwithstanding.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't tell you what to do - The only good about this topic? It'll be null/void when Rudd takes office. Things will be calm until the next PM transition. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- ACTU/ALP powerlust yet again pre-empting the Governor-General and the Australian Constitution, with Wikipedia shamefully pandering to it. Stand for what's right: which is what's accurate and what I've revealed to these know-nothings.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't tell you what to do - The only good about this topic? It'll be null/void when Rudd takes office. Things will be calm until the next PM transition. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's being truthy, not facty and even The Master would surely call you on taking your guidance stubbornly from the consensus of the uninformed on that one. They promote a contrived, misinforming and worthless term in steadfast defiance of fact while the truth remains unavoided that one man is quite within his rights at any moment to judge that John Faulkner, Morris Iemma, Bob Hawke or even Rolf Harris should instead receive the relevant appointment - all manner of fatuous speculation to the contrary notwithstanding.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will not retract it; the majority at the article prefer PM-elect, you should accept that. Rightly or wrongly, editors at Wikipedia don't like it when a newbie comes across as too pushy. Tone it down, at the Kevin Rudd article. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
November 2007
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Incest in popular culture, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Civility
editI'm going to ask you a second time to work on the tone of your comments. You're welcome to have a strong opinion, but the manner in which you're expressing it at times is not a great one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Play the man as you may; I'll keep playing the ball. What have I at all been inaccurate about anywhere to any degree in anything I've said about the issue??RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say "inaccurate", did I? What I said was that your aggressive and combative tone, about which I and another user have previously remarked, is getting in the way of having a reasoned discussion regarding the way the article should be written. You believe wholeheartedly that you're correct, and you may well be so, but that doesn't mean that you're somehow exempt from the requirement that all users remain civil. Additionally, commenting out the heading of this section (which explained what I was warning you about) and replacing it with something suggesting that either I was calling you stupid or you were calling me stupid is not in keeping with the same requirement. This is now the third time I have warned you regarding this matter. There will not be a fourth. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I knew I was right & you know it too.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Due to your persistent combative tone and implicit making of personal attacks via the editing of this section header, you have been blocked for a short period of time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Never once did I bully or threaten in the style you show here. Improve your act. Taking sulks off my talk page will be the start of that, it's suggested.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- That simply is not accurate. Your attitude in the discussion regarding the appropriate terminology to use at present in Kevin Rudd's article was combative enough that both I and another user suggested you tone it down. Indeed, one of your comments was considered sufficiently offensive by another editor that it was slightly altered by him/her with a message to consider your tone. In this discussion here alone, you have referred to me as "play[ing] the man", accused me of "sulk[ing]" and edited this subject header twice to suggest that one of us was calling the other stupid. That's already a long list of instances in which you have overstepped the mark. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Practice saying: "You were right, I was wrong, I apologise and I will go away."RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The next time that would be appropriate, you have my word as a gentleman that I will say precisely those words. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Petulantly and girlishly you put on silencing ban when your threats are stood up to and you're called for your uninvited trolling ad hominems to my page. That known, don't delude yourself as to any personal capacity to some day imitate a gentleman. 'Adult' or maybe just 'ladylike' would be more of a realistic/achievable and appropriately challenging goal for you. Thus suggest you snap out of this maneuvre-to-silence tantrum ahead of schedule, Dear Baroness.
- RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The call to behave civilly has been yours to make from the get-go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fly away and grow up from your classic bullying, threats and petulant silencing. We're all praying for you to, but in the hiatus we're laughing at you.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The call to behave civilly has been yours to make from the get-go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The next time that would be appropriate, you have my word as a gentleman that I will say precisely those words. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Practice saying: "You were right, I was wrong, I apologise and I will go away."RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- That simply is not accurate. Your attitude in the discussion regarding the appropriate terminology to use at present in Kevin Rudd's article was combative enough that both I and another user suggested you tone it down. Indeed, one of your comments was considered sufficiently offensive by another editor that it was slightly altered by him/her with a message to consider your tone. In this discussion here alone, you have referred to me as "play[ing] the man", accused me of "sulk[ing]" and edited this subject header twice to suggest that one of us was calling the other stupid. That's already a long list of instances in which you have overstepped the mark. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Never once did I bully or threaten in the style you show here. Improve your act. Taking sulks off my talk page will be the start of that, it's suggested.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Due to your persistent combative tone and implicit making of personal attacks via the editing of this section header, you have been blocked for a short period of time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I knew I was right & you know it too.RacialVariancesAnalyser (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say "inaccurate", did I? What I said was that your aggressive and combative tone, about which I and another user have previously remarked, is getting in the way of having a reasoned discussion regarding the way the article should be written. You believe wholeheartedly that you're correct, and you may well be so, but that doesn't mean that you're somehow exempt from the requirement that all users remain civil. Additionally, commenting out the heading of this section (which explained what I was warning you about) and replacing it with something suggesting that either I was calling you stupid or you were calling me stupid is not in keeping with the same requirement. This is now the third time I have warned you regarding this matter. There will not be a fourth. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
RacialVariancesAnalyser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
what is this about? More than 3 days ago some person created this 3 day block against me and now I come back and it is still there. Upon what justification and evidences? There can't be any. Innovation of the titling of Kevin Rudd is the only issue I've contributed to, which if you look further into you'll see I'm right on or at least justified about. Unblock is warranted.
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified sockpuppet of DavidYork71. — jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.