This is an archive of past discussions with User:Renamed user 9nc9f7hfgg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I can't just walk away. I know people, who have been brainwashed by the media, won't change their opinion, but I'll continue to express my opinion, because I've had enough of the entire world demonising all Serbs, I've just had enough. And Wikipedia is not the only place I'm expressing my opinion, watch BBC World, and you might just see my name there. Can you imagine what's it like when someone asks me where I'm from, I say Serbia, and they just don't want to talk to me... And why, just because of CNN... Why does the world hate all Serbs, why? --Boris Malagurski₪22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly many people can't overcome the strength of the mainstream western media. I think you may be taking it out of proportion, though. Even in the United States I doubt very many people could locate Serbia on a map or explain any events of the Kosovo War (the few I've tried to inform about it usually dismiss it anyway). I wasn't trying to say you or your opinion were incorrect, I just think perhaps it would be best not to argue about Yugoslav history with the ideologues and know-it-alls of Wikipedia. NEMT22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. But it's stronger than me, Serbs are like that, we can't stand injustice. I feel so sad that Serbs, who always liked America and the West, are now victims of a higher political game. --Boris Malagurski₪23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't take it so personally. Serbs may be disliked by a few in America (actually I'm very surprised to hear you've experienced anti-Serb bias anywhere in North America, but I'll take your word for it), but I know from experience Americans are disliked pretty much everywhere. NEMT23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
How can I not take it personally, when others are taking it so personally. I'm not saying that all North Americans hate Serbs, but most of them do. If an American went to Yugoslavia before the war, people would be smiling at him, being very polite, because people in Yugoslavia loved Americans. Even during the war it was like that, untill the NATO bombing. So, the Americans did do something bad to us, I had to spend 76 days of my life as a 10-year-old in a bomb shelter, so I, and other Serbs have a reason to not like Americans. However, Serbs never did anything to America, yet Americans hate us. I've come to realize that it was the administrations fault for the bombing, so now I don't have anything against those Americans that have nothing against me as a Serb. I can understand why a Bosnian or Croat would dislike Serbs, but why North America? --Boris Malagurski₪23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. While there are a lot of partisan moutpieces here on Wikipedia with an ax to grind with Serbia (mostly due to misinformation) I don't think very many regular people in the US (or Canada) have anything against Serbs, or even realize the US was at war with Serbia just a few years ago. I've always felt the NATO intervention in the war was just an example of unneccessary political maneuvering on behalf of a very incompetent administration, and I feel terrible knowing how much suffering NATO caused in the region in defense of terrorists and criminals. I've also wrote extensively on the mistakes and crimes of Wesley Clark during his tenure as Supreme Allied Commander, though find it very difficult to get anyone to notice, testament to the lack of interest/knowledge in the Balkan conflicts. Anyway, as I said earlier, you'd find it much less stressful to pick your battles on Wikipedia, rather than argue with every anon and nitwit who comes along. Just some friendly advice. NEMT23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. And thanks for calming me down. I probably won't spend as much time on Talk:Milosevic as I did before. All the best, Boris Malagurski₪23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Always happy to help. Though I suspect we have vastly different political ideologies, it's nice to see we can agree on this - if only these anons were so civil, right? See you around. NEMT23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I must protest your actions. My reverts were to undo the unexplained reverts and vandalism by an anonymous user. I was merely bringing the page back to the state it was agreed upon on the talk page - which this anonymous user had been ignoring. I request an immediate unblocking of my account, and an assurance this will not happen again.
There's a reason I brought this issue to the attention of the administrators, whereas no one complained about my restorations of the page. The anonymous whose edits I reverted was removing important information and references - is that not vandalism? I have also been very active on the talk page in maintaining an agreed upon state of the page, whereas this anonymous user has constantly ignored the talk page and the consensus built there. As an administrator, you should use common sense - and realize no one has complained about my reverts, as they are only to counter vandalism and removal of information. Once again, unblock my account immediately, your actions are highly inappropriate. --NEMT22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Still looks like a content dispute to me. If your version was indeed the consensus, then all you have to do it let it alone for a bit and someone else will revert William M. Connolley22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is clearly not a high traffic page, and had been quite peaceful until this anon began reverting again. It's unlikely many (or any) users still have it in their watchlists, or care to make further additions, so waiting around for someone else to undo vandalism is not ideal. It is not a content dispute, as the anon has never once commented on the talk page or explained his/her reverts. Additionally, this still does not justify your highly suspect blocking of me, after I was the one who reported the violations. Your actions in this matter are extremely questionable, and raise serious concerns about your competence as an admin and knowledge of wiki policy. --NEMT22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding something once on Aprils Fools day is a joke. Adding it three times is three times as funny. Furthermore, you started adding it on March 30. Do not engage in further vandalism, please. -Will Beback01:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Adding it on 30 March was just practice for primetime. I'm sorry if you weren't as moved by Teresa's performance as I was. --NEMT01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean no disrespect for Ms. Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz Kerry, but she is one of the worst actresses I have ever seen on television. Her portrayal of a future First Lady was not believable, and was panned by the critics. Plus that Boston accent was horrible- totally fake. Strangely enough, I heard that they thought of casting her in "Basic Instinct 2" to replace Sharon Stone, back when Stone was asking for too much money. -Will Beback01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a little concerned about the screening process wiki has to admins after viewing this Gamaliel character's actions. Thanks for helping with the POV and citation correction, though. --NEMT15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Me, personally?
In casual conversation, I mostly call 'em blues. I've heard all the terms you describe used by other people from time to time; regardless of what you call cops, the meaning's usually pretty clear from context. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)18:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The underlining of links
I'm not entirely sure why the links which used to be underlined are now linked, or why sometimes the links are underlined and sometimes the links are not. If you access My Preferences, and click on Skin, which skin does it say you are using? Bobo.20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
At times they flip from being underlined to being okay again. This is nothing to worry about and is not really a cosmetic error, although sometimes when you use other computers they can render incorrectly. This may appear to be a problem in the future, but it does appear to fix itself rather swiftly. So it's not really a worry. Bobo.20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Warning
Do not readd the link to the image of an arab shooting the italian player into the Zindane article. It is considered vandalism and you will be blocked. Sasquatcht|c22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, do not remove warnings from admins. The only way to properly remove them is when you archive your talk page. Sasquatcht|c05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.
Note the distinct lack of any logical rationale or given explanation for this block. God bless the wiki admin staff and the uninformed new-users with hot tempers and little or no formatting prowess who place their absolute faith in them. IN USERBOXES WE TRUST! --NEMT23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, here's a brief explanation of what happened: I inserted an hilarious animated image on the page for Zinedine Zidane in reference to his actions at yesterday's World Cup final. This was quickly removed by another user, who, in doing so, disrupted the formatting of the page and broke several links. I attempted to repair this by copying and pasting the old code, however, it slipped my mind the gif link was still present. These are the two and only edits I made to the page. THis, of course, hasn't stopped several users from violating various wiki policies regarding personal attacks, 3rr, and so on. --NEMT00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I made no edits to the page after being "warned" by anyone, admin or regular user. --NEMT00:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been ~24 hours, and still no explanation or justification from any admin, just harassment from some previously unseen renegade asspie on a power trip. Would any admin with an actual understanding and appreciation of wiki policy care to enlighten me as to why I've been blocked? --NEMT01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism for starters... and I would suggest you cool down on ther personal attacks. Let it go, your unblocked, go edit. Sasquatcht|c17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on one page, which was not repeated after a warning was given on this talk page, you mean? Additionally, what are these "personal attacks" you speak of? I'll try to avoid ther personal attacks in the future, but FYI: Informing someone of a formatting errorisn't a personal attack. Additionally, "your" is the possessive form of "you," whereas "you're" is a contraction of "you are." --NEMT18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked (again)
I have blocked you for 1 hour to give you a chance to cool down. God of War is allowed to remove your (possibly frivolous) "warning messages" from his talk page if he wants, and your continuing edit-warring with him over it is inappropriate. --Cyde↔Weys19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You have no grounds to block me from editing. The warning message was not frivolous, as it is in response to well documented repeated edits which contained formatting errors and broken links. Additionally, comments from users besides myself (on wiki policy regarding personal attacks) were also removed from his talk page. I am not engaged in any kind of edit warring, I simply act in accordance with wiki policy regarding user talk pages, especially on pages I've left important comments on. --NEMT19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
