Jump to content

User talk:Tcla75

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

A tag has been placed on Bcjghdjdg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

copyright violation of its source

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Cotter

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pat Cotter, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.patrickcotter.ie.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of vandalism

[edit]

I would like to request an apology from you for the accusation of vandalism which you levelled at me. I explained the reason for my revert quite carefully and sufficiently in my edit summary. You in turn reverted my edit without explanation and then accused me of vandalism. That was assuming bad faith and an ill-considered accusation of impropriety. It was an unfair attack which contributed to an uncivil environment. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have provided links that he is a serial killer you have provided your personal opinion. Until anyone can provide proof that invalidate the links I have provided then I will revert their Vandalism. Tcla75 (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of serial killers by country. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report

[edit]

You are hereby notified of the 3RR report @ Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tcla75_reported_by_User:Seb_az86556_.28Result:_.29. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

What you are doing is a violation of WP:POINT. Please stop. --John (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the IP with which you continued to disrupt Talk:September 11 attacks as well as this account. The article talk page is for discussion of improvements to that article, not for some sort of parity campaign concerning a completely different article. You should confine your discussions on the subject to the talk page of the relevant article. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate: I am open to unblocking, but I would expect you to:
  • Discuss the use of the term "terrorist" on its own merits, not as part of a campaign concerning another article, and
  • To work constructively at the article you're actually concerned with.
I note that you're been blocked for edit-warring before; please remember that edit-warring is unacceptable, and that, having been given advice on constructive ways to approach a concern, that you not continue the edit-war regardless of advice. Acroterion (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Tcla75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason One of the reasons I can see I am blocked is (Disruptive editing: continuing edit war/talkpage abuse while logged out) As you are well aware logins time out and the last edit I put in the talk page was when I was timed out. I did log back in to edit the entry with my username (which if you check records of my logins you will see) but the question I posed was already deleted by that stage. Also how can I get a block for posing a question in a talk page? I believe the question is relevant because it addresses the issue of how that one article is able to ignore wikipedia guidelines and provided another page where guidelines are followed. The use of the word terrorist. My personal believe in this regard is irrelevant and asking me to go to that talk page was irrelevant too. If it was not the right place for that question then if someone pointed my in the right direction I would have had no problem going there but to delete the question and then ban me from editing is unbelievable.

Accept reason:

I've noted a lot of problems with staying logged in myself, so I haven't placed much weight on people editing while logged out. I would suggest that any question about the word "terrorist" should be framed in Wikipedia policy: specifically WP:LABEL, and that you should not attempt to frame it as a campaign to get the word used elsewhere. As I stated above, I'm willing to unblock under the conditions noted. Acroterion (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify I was trying to find out how the word terrorist could be used so frequently on that page and not others. The whole point I was trying to find out was if there is there a special privilege for that page. Yes I believe the word should be used but not on one page only. I do find it insulting that it can be used on the 911 page and not others. Going to the other page wouldn't have answered that and as I said if it was the wrong place to pose that question then I have no problem going to a different page so I can discuss that. Also if I am wrong and the page doesn't break the WP guide lines set out for the use of the word terrorist then I am sorry. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and a lot of the time it can be hard to figure out if you are following them or not. I didn't know I could get a ban for posing a question in a talk page and reverting the deleted question Tcla75 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The use of various labels, such as "terrorist," is set by consensus. There's been a general consensus on the 9/11 page that that is appropriate, but it does get challenged from time to time. I have no particular opinion. I haven't had a lot to do with Irish articles, but am aware that the use of "terrorist" is regarded there as inflammatory, and that editors have followed a policy of avoidance. It's been very ugly over there from time to time. I have no objection to you discussing the use of "terrorist", provided you aren't using it to gain leverage elsewhere on the wiki. Your argument must stand on its own. Wikipedia has lots of rules, and you should remember that 9/11 and Irish-related topics should be approached with some care: if your comment is reverted, you would need to consider wheter it should be reworded to deal with the stated objection. Are you willing to work within the two points I made up the page? If so, I'll unblock. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats fair. I didn't make my point clear what I was questioning but that is my own fault. I agree with and will work within the two points that you have brought up. Tcla75 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your patience and for being willing to discuss the issue. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome and thanks back. Tcla75 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, having been prompted to go read the articles on Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the Ulster Volunteer Force, the word "terrorist" is used, albeit differently than in the 9/11 article - a difference of placement and emphasis, rather than actual use, as I see. Looking at it from the outside, it seems to paint a fair picture of the events in question, and certainly doesn't whitewash the UVF. However, given the tragedy involving your family, I can see how you would feel that it doesn't go far enough. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought, that is related to 9/11: I've heard it stated that funding traditionally provided from North America for the IRA and its offshoots dried up following 9/11, as Irish-Americans finally started to understand what their funds were buying. I don't think the Loyalist factions ever got much support from the U.S. and Canada, but it would be interesting to see what effect was had in both cases. A post 9/11 IRA funding fall-off is mentioned and referenced in Provisional Irish Republican Army. Acroterion (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note from me, Tcla75, to clarify some Wikipedia stuff;

  • A block is not a ban, so don't confuse those terms. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, only for extreme cases, following much discussion by the community.Wikipedia:Banning policy
  • Blocks, however, are to protect the encyclopaedia - and nothing more. They can certainly apply to things on talk-pages though, if the postings on talk-pages are deemed to be disruptive. Blocks are always to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they are not intended as a punishment.Wikipedia:Blocking policy
  • It seems like you've hit on a very contentious area, and consequently things can quickly get out-of-hand, thus blocks to prevent disruption can occur more quickly than in other cases
  • You are already aware, I think, that when editing an article, if another editor disagrees, then you need to discuss it. Well, the same principle applies to talk pages. If you make an edit - anywhere - and another editor removes it, don't try to repeat it. Talk to the other editor about it. If that fails, there are dispute-resolution procedures, and other ways to get help.

Easiest way to get some help, if you need it, is to just put {{helpme}} here, on your own talk page, followed by a question. It's much better to do that, than to get into any kind of arguments.

Thanks for your cool-headed responses, here, in relation to this matter.

In the event of further dispute, keep calm, and - most importantly - always, ask for help. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Tcla75! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! FaktneviM (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

May 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Abrahamic religions are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

Hi Tcla75,
What religion did the Abrahamic religion evolve from?
Your question unwind from presumption that all religions have same root. Thus, "pagan ones", probably have. But "Abrahamic religions" are monotheistic and are revelation from God as they believe. Noone knows, if Muhammad or John Smith really obtain some revelation from demons or from God, but some quidance we could trace back in all religions. All religions we can divide to (1)"Abrahamic", (2)"Dharmic", (3)"Others" (=Spirituality-based, Shamanism, Magic, Mytologic-based, Nature-worship, Animism, Dead Ghosts, Tribal and Indigenous religions etc.). These three main lines are unique and have no root or predecessor. Perhaps, some similarites what could been evolved in Dharmic and Others are shown as well. (= If someone use big fantasy ... they´re are also found some roots in (2.) a (3.) =) I red intersting book "Mankind Search for God" All religions are deeply analyzed inside. Subject of your question.... You could try search yourself.

--FaktneviM (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tcla75&oldid=1076475082"