User talk:Hasbro

If you're not a sysop/admin or Jimbo Wales, don't bother bossing me around or starting an inquisition.

Citations[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Vary | Talk 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure having people disagree with you isn't fun, but being called an ethnic purist and being informed that I'm talking out of my own ass isn't, either. No one is 'ganging up on you,' and I'm not 'blaming the victim', I'm trying to keep the discussion on topic. Your opinion of me and the other editors involved has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Please provide citations for your claims, and please remain civil. Thank you. -- Vary | Talk 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating my response on the article talk page here.

Hasbro, all we're asking is that you cite your sources. If your additions are sound, that shouldn't be a problem. Please stop accusing other editors of pushing a POV just because they've requested that you abide by Wikipedia's five pillars. This isn't an attack on you, this is not an attempt to push an Anti-Irish, 'revisionist history' agenda, it's just how we do things here. If you want to add something to Wikipedia, you have to provide a source for it. Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. We have rules, and they're important, because without them, Wikipedia doesn't work.

You have broken the three revert rule on this article, reverting four times in 24 hours: [1] [2] [3] [4] and debatably a fifth one here [5]. I ask that you please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, as your comments on this page suggest to me that you don't understand why we're requesting that you verify your additions. No one is trying to suppress anything, there's no Anglophiliac Cabal, we're just trying to make sure additions to the article are properly cited. -- Vary | Talk 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And don't go using Mel Gibson (MEL GIBSON?!?) as a historical source. Its a film, NOT fact. Fergananim 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad that's settled. All of your recent additions still do need to be cited, though. If the information you've added is common knowledge, it should be easy to provide citations. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's most important official policies. It's not optional, and enforcing it has nothing to do with POV. By requesting sources, I and the other editors you've had conflicts with recently are not attempting to prevent you from adding to Wikipedia, we're just trying to show you how the community works and make sure that content added to articles meets Wikipedia's policies. Since you're new, it's understandable that you don't understand those policies yet.

Here are a list of links that are frequently given to newcomers to help them learn about how this community works:

I can assure you that no one's out to get you, but if you feel that you're being treated unfairly or that the fact that you're new here is being taken advantage of, you might want to drop a note on Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Those pages are watched by a large number of people who are willing to help out new editors. The people you talk to there will almost certainly not even be aware of the dispute on Talk:Province of Maryland, which should put to rest any concerns you have that those asking you for sources are being vindictive or carrying out an agenda. -- Vary | Talk 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you, it's really not a POV dispute. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, I know from POV disputes. There can't even begin to be a POV dispute until the content is sourced, because debate on whether or not it belongs in the article is moot until a source is provided. If you don't believe me, please do go to some of the help pages I've mentioned, or ask on the Wikipedia:Village pump, or enlist the help of any editor you choose. I assure you, this is not a content dispute, it's a policy problem. -- Vary | Talk 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with what? My only point is, and has been, that your sources need to be cited. If you disagree with that, you're disagreeing with a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, not with me. -- Vary | Talk 18:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand me. I'm talking about edits like this one. Lots of text, new facts, no citations. Please add citations. -- Vary | Talk 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't. No source at all was cited for that edit, and even if they had been, it's already been explained to you why citing other Wikipedia articles as sources is innapropriate.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Vary | Talk 18:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What wikistalking? I came across that article in the course of the dispute on Province of Maryland. If you remember, Irish Catholic was linked to from that article for a time.

Why did you revert the timestamp on Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board? The comment was made on 22 August, not 24 August, and the conversation is confusing with an incorrect timestamp. Currently, without looking at the edit history, it looks as though Fergananim replied to your comment before it was made. If you want to remove the stamp just because I added it, remove it altogether, don't re-add an incorrect time. And please be aware that the edit summary 'rvv' stands for revert vandalism, and should not be used lightly. Good faith edits are never vandalism. -- Vary | Talk 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've corrected it now. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your contribution to the Irish Catholic page, although interesting, is misleading in that it confuses the term 'Irish' with 'Irish Catholic'. The term Irish Catholic does not include, by any means in general usage, a consideration that people of British extraction who assimilate into Irish society are part of the said group. They may become 'Irish' but 'Irish Catholic' is a definitively racial/relgious hybrid...in exactly the same way as the term 'Jewish' can denote nationhood or faith separately but is taken to always indicate nationhood. Please make this clear in your contribution there or I'll adapt it myself. Wolfe Tone was an Irishman but not a Catholic. Chesterton was a Catholic but not an Irishman. QED etc, etc.Iamlondon 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Seeing your few recent edits, you seem to have violated WP:NPOV and WP:V quite frequently, including especially this, which reads like an opinion piece and definitely isn't non-POV, while phrases like "you people not building a fantasy world out of misnomers" could be interpreted as violations of WP:NPA. I have to advise you to read WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and to avoid edits that obviously violate any or all of the above. Mad Jack 05:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really don't want to get into an edit war of any sort, but this edit [6] is an example of original research, because we can't look up last name meanings and match them to people, etc. (i.e. if someone's last name is "O'Reilly", we can't put in that they are of Irish descent without a source that says so specifically on that person). I have no problem with putting in the specific desginations like "Ashkenazi" (which Rachel probably is, obviously) or "Sephardic", but we'd need a source that said so about Bilson. Mad Jack 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at Talk:Richard II of England[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, and comments like this one can not and will not be tolerated. If you continue in this manner, you may may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors. Thank you. -- Vary | Talk 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the libel and disruptions of Wiki to make points, which was the issue mocked. Fix the problem instead of make it harder on those who wish to take this encyclopedia seriously. Wiki is a dumpster if all you want is to let some people break some rules and other people have to follow other rules. I take allegations of homosexuality about English monarchs very seriously, but you don't care, do you? Faggot. Hasbro 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no libel or defamation, only the mention of cited information that could be added to the article. Note that the editor did not make any changes to the article, but made a suggestion on the talk page, and only said s/he wanted to add that Norman F. Cantor made that claim in "The Last Knight" - s/he did not want to simply add the information to the article as indisputable fact. And if you disagreed with the point, or thought it was irrelevant, you could have made your case calmly, but you chose to curse and call the editor a 'LGBTQ freak' instead.

You can take discussions as seriously as you like, but be civil while you do it, please. Losing your temper won't win you any arguments here. And not that it matters, but I'm straight, actually. -- Vary | Talk 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked you for 24 hours for continuing to make personal attacks after being warned. When the block expires, please be civil. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]