Jump to content

User talk:BigK HeX

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 114.73.151.2 (talk) at 02:01, 21 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.





Please Note: I generally reply
to posts on the whichever talk
page the discussion begins.




Hi!

  • If you'd like to begin a conversation, simply click on this link please.
  • Please do sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • Please note: At best, comments containing personal attacks will be deleted and then ignored.


Talk page discourse

[1] Threatening other editors with user conduct RfCs in an article talk page discussion is not very helpful. If you have a personal problem with another editor, take it up on their user talk page. Article talk pages should focus on the topic, not the editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find no problem with my comments. Thanks, all the same, though. BigK HeX (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Cla68. None of these comments are particularly helpful.[2][3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As not-so-subtle hints for a tendentious editor to check his behavior, I find them helpful enough. BigK HeX (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


For this reason, please check civility page out. Thank you.--CnkALTDSmessage 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my post, and would make another such post again now, if warranted. BigK HeX (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it means you will be warned again. Thank you.--CnkALTDSmessage 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if this is how you construe the Civility policies, I ask that you not post on my talk page again regarding anything related to civility issues ever. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that threatening with RfC's aren't helpful, but I also fail to see any civility issues here, nor from what I can remember anywhere else in anything BigK Hex has written. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRU hack RFC

I've removed this from an ongoing RFC because it seems to be mainly an interpersonal dispute. Mark Nutley has been notified. --TS 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also said above that climategate was not the most commonly used term, and when asked what was did not in fact give a reply, would you care to tell me what your research came up with on this? 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I, in fact, did give a reply. That you don't understand my reply is not my fault. User:Hipocrite already put it into bite-sized terms for you above, and you still don't seem to grasp the concept. Even if there were more I could say to enlighten you, given your comments here, I have no desire to do much to dignify your tendentious approach to this issue. BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not, you blustered. You said your research proved climategate was not the name used by the majority of sources, so please tell me the name they are using mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No prob. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KiK SPI

From everything I've seen, KiK is in Australia, and when he's using IP's, they all geolocate there. That second IP on the report is definitely him though - although we must be seriously frustrating him, given the language and tone. Always nice to close another door on him! Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He does seem terribly frustrated! I think it's finally starting to dawn on him that none of his "important" information will be allowed to stand. It only took him this long to realize what any sane person would have noticed 2 years ago. lol BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis of behavior is as bad as your economic predictions (or your sexual predilections). Ha ha ha! I can rhyme and shoot out caustic insults at the very same time. I play with my prey. - NoHopeInFiatMoneyWorld (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

What's up with the revert at WP:Titles? I didn't change policy... I reverted a change to policy. I presume you did not fully realize what is happening here, and was happening, long before I showed up.

The wording I replaced has been established for some time. Here, for example, is a link to the July 23 version which has the "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles" wording. Ah, it looks like it was introduced back on June 23rd.

Anyway, today, without establishing consensus, PMA suddenly changed it. That's a fine bold move, but then it was immediately reverted by PBS, which is normal WP:BRD stuff, and should have gone to the talk page, except then PMA reverted again, so that's when I reverted him. At that time we were back to status quo, but that's when you reverted me, ironically with the comment requesting, "please do not try to change policy without consensus"! What's up with that? Now PMA reverted again, pushing 3RR. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood the edit comments. I'll look into it more deeply. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything that changes my understanding. I still see that Philip Shearer is trying to change policy without consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That wording was there from June 23 to August 10 before it was changed yesterday, without consensus, by PMAnderson. Anyway, discussion in now ongoing on the talk page of WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism poll

I'm really trying to find some common ground. Already interesting is that Xero did not list 3 (there are reliable sources for the general/broad meaning of libertarianism) as a point that he agrees with, but he listed all of the others. If he holds onto this position, that's looking more and more like obstinacy, because, as you know, there are such sources. But at least he cooperated and showed his cards. Please show good faith and participate too. Thanks --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

libertarian principles

I do not see any contradiction. Right-libertarians do not justify private property on Filmer's claim that the Lord gave the world to Adam and he has divided it among his descendants. Left-libertarians do not argue against private property on the basis of equality. Both believe that originally all land was held in common and that a man who tills common land is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Where they disagree is whether labor can alienate land from common ownership. I added in an example to clarify my comments. TFD (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too busy on the 'socialist libertarian agenda' to correct your own illiterate edits

Austrian School, footnote 23. Fix it, please.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigK_HeX&oldid=380072812"