User talk:Akulkis

Hi Akulkis, I agree with alot of what you have said on the NLP article and talk page. Just can you tone the language. Making personal remarks is not acceptable on wikipedia by anyone. His group of editors are experts at trolling techniques designed to incite irrate replies, I suggest you think about it before replying with the same sort of fire. We don't want to give them any excuses or replies they can use at arbitration. --Comaze 03:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically where we are at the moment on the NLP page is that anything that is stated must be attributed to an authoratative source, it must be verifiable. You may have had experience where NLP has worked but this must be backed up by solid evidence from reputable sources, and balanced with the view that criticises the use of NLP. --Comaze 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akulkis - here's one more editor asking you to observe the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. In this case I'm talking about your remarks on Talk:Joseph McCarthy, in which you called KarlBunker a "Marxist zealot" without "any sense of honor", who should "go away" and "grow up". There has been more than enough of that kind of thing on that talk page, and I'm sick of it. The talk page is for discussion of the article - not your opinion of Marxism and definitely not your opinion of the other editors. ←Hob 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akulkis. One of your recent edits was undone by an automated bot as likely abuse of editing privileges. Our welcome page provides information for new users who would like to contribute. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you feel you have recieved this notice in error, please contact the bot owner. Thank you for your interest in our project. // Tawkerbot2 07:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic programming

Hello, thanks for your contributions to the NLP workshop page. Your participation is welcome. However, this article has been the subject of an arbitration case the result of which are some very strict guidelines on participating on this page. You probably weren't aware of them, but there is a strict no incivility policy. People who violate that policy may be blocked and their comments removed. You recently said: The idiocy of your argument against NLP is quite laughable, Camridge, and your AGENDA to push a point of view DESPITE DEMONSTRABLE FACTS is quite flagrant. Please don't make comments like this -- don't cast aspersions on other peoples' opinions simply because they differ from yours, or fail to assume good faith about another Wikipedian. Thanks again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katefan0. You may want to look at Akulkis' history also. He has been making personal attacks for months, and has even made attacks on other editors within the past weeks during the workshop. I am in the process of making a formal complaint against him and Comaze for general disruptive behaviour, multiple deletions, obsessive editing, the recruitment of meatpuppets, and other such misdeeds. Camridge 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny coming from User:Headley Down, a (now-banned) abusive master of sock-puppetry (running into the dozens of names) and meatpuppetry. Akulkis (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do not edit other people's user pages

Talk pages are where comments and criticisms should go. Please do not edit my userpage again. I have removed your added sentence. Not that I'm ashamed of being a Marxist or wish to hide it - note the "This user is a Trotskyist" userbox. You do know who Trotsky is, right, with your extensive knowledge of how being a "devout Marxist" can be demonstrated by writing and language? Kalkin 17:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Marxist twits just can't stand being called out for the misanthropic assholes that you are, can you. Akulkis (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and be more civil, Akulkis! I understand that you're just expressing your opinions, but please do so more constructively, or failing that, keep them to yourself. People might assume you're insulting them if you don't :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for DEMONSTRATING the precise humor-deficiency I was talking about. Sheesh! Akulkis (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism???

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as feminism. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't do the deleting to put your opinions there it would be fine (in my book) but when that delete key, or backspace key removes other's work, thats what ticks me off. Believe you me, I'm open to both sides. --~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made ADDITIONS you illiterate dork. The person doing the deletions is DanielEng (probably some Dworkinite who can't handle the truth getting out). Akulkis (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I reverted deletions. And then I was directed to your talk page. So, if I offended you I apologize, just think of others in the future. --~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Feminism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war / 3 R rule on feminism and child support

Make your complaints to User:DanielEng, as this is entity (probably an enraged female) who is an admitted Marxist and objects to overt mentions of the connections between Marxism and Feminism. It is precisely to AVOID an edit war that I marked the page NPOV, which DanielEng has repeatedly removed (despite the fact that the talk page ALSO shows evidence of repeated concern that the page is VERY POV-slanted). Interesting how the SAME person is making accusations that all edits which aren't pro-feminist orthodoxy constitute vandalism. Akulkis (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing your edits on the talk page... a number of your additions are unsourced paragraphs, and your additions also push a specific POV, whereas the current version is not POV'd. You're about to violate the 3RR, even if you aren't the ip as well, so reign yourself in and discuss this rather than attacking other editors, as you're doing right here. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. the person who started the knee-jerk reversion was DanielEng, therefor DANIELENG is the 3R violator.

2. I did source my edits. Are you blind??? Akulkis (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's removing POV and unsourced edits, which is perfectly valid. Also, some of what you say is sourced, some: "In aspects of life in which men and women differ, feminists of all stripes condemn male those traits, characteristics or behaviors which are typically male." is not. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an extremely long edit history, both under my login name, and under my IP address (because the damn system keeps doing silent log-outs) which EASILY demonstrate that I don't go around vandalizing entries, and in fact, correct them when I see them. As for the edit to DanielEng's user page... what I inserted was the truth: DanielEng opposes violence ONLY towards women, but not men, and that *is* sexist, as it is blatantly anti-men. Typical Marxist though...freaks out whenever the truth is written or spoken. Akulkis (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to edit other people's user pages. He only listed that he is opposed to violence against women. He probably omitted against men because there's no userbox for that one. You believing that omission means he isn't against it is an example common fallacy... I forget what it's called though. So don't use it in arguments. And you persist in personal attacks, which you will be warned a final time for, now, before being blocked. Stop accusing him of being a Marxist, and accusing him of the supposed behavior of such, which is also stereotyping, and a bad one, since I've never heard it. Gscshoyru (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological disagreements are not a license for vituperation and name-calling. I am proud to say that I am a member of more than one minority group which real Nazi stormtroopers put into the extermination camps; and I find your rhetoric objectionable in the extreme. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And YOU put YOUR LIFE on the line to protect anyone's rights when, exactly? Spare me the rhetoric about the trevails of other people whom you are associated only by accident of birth. I've done more, and risked more, in the cause of human rights, justice, and equality than you ever have. Akulkis (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gscshoyru (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quit provoking shit. You're just stirring shit up in an attempt to later try to use it as an excuse to wrongly apply sanctions. Akulkis (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I'm warning you that if you persist in your personal attacks against DanielEng or any other user, you will be blocked. Using the standard templates. I apologize if you interpret it any other way, I'm not trying to stir up anything, rather, I'm trying to get to to calm down and discuss your changes civilly. That's all. Gscshoyru (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. You already took sides before doing even the most cursory of examinations. For instance you gave NO warning to DanielEng, even though this person started a revert-war, to prevent DOCUMENTED NPOV information from going into the page. As I wrote on your page... if you're going to use administrative powers, then you have an OBLIGATION to use them responsibly ... not picking sides in a dispute before even communicating with the other side. Akulkis (talk)

What makes you think I didn't read this in detail before reverting you? I just got the third revert instead of the second is all. Your stuff is from POV sources, which are not reliable, and much is unsourced. He was doing a perfectly valid revert, as have I. Maybe if you took time to discuss on the talk page, we might find some valid, verifiable and reliable sources and include some of this in the article, though not in the POV-pushing form it's currently posed. Try discussing it civilly, and we can come to a compromise that satisfies everyone, what do you say? Gscshoyru (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between answering all of this NONSENSE and having to back-track because of all the reversions, I was never able to get all of the sources in before that OrangeMike then stuck HIS nose into things and just blocked my editing privileges.

I was in the MIDST of making edits when all of this started..DanielEng started acting like some reactionary asshole [And no, I'm not making accusations of DanielEng being a Marxist... read his/her/it's user, talk, and contribs pages. They are ALL left-wing POV, and the whole reason this started was because he/she/it objected to any information being on the page which contradicts the agenda held by the majority of people who have that POV...which it seems, includes transforming Wikipedia from an information site yet another propaganda outlet. We've seen this same thing time and time again with any page that has anything to do with left-politics...as soon as someone tries to bring in any information which contradicts the left-wing orthodoxy, there's immediate demands that such information not be allowed into the article. The pages on Senator McCarthy, and McCarthyism are a perfect example. Now, I'm fed up with you and this merry band of trumped-up-charge-makers who go off half-cocked, just because yet another leftist can't tolerate inconvenient facts finding their way into Wikipedia.

Provoke me with more threats of irresponsible use of administrative privileges and you'll discover the truth behind the saying "Revenge is a dish best served cold." Akulkis (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

The source you gave on the Feminism article [1] is not a reliable source meeting WP's criteria. It is an article posted a (partisan) website that appears to be no overall editorial control. Reading the WP:V and WP:OR should help you identify more appropriate sources in the future.--Slp1 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OLDE Discount Stockbrokers

Hi Akulkis...Could you please write a short article about Olde Discount Stockbrokers...I couldn't find anything on that company. I know it probably doesn't exist anymore. I used to trade stocks with them in the 1980's...A long time ago!!! Thanks a million in advance!!! .--User:jimking —Preceding comment was added at 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 37th Infantry Division (United States disabled this wrong redirect has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Until It Sleeps 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yeah, I kinda noticed that, which is why I reverted my edit, and tagged it for speedy deletion. Sorry if my actions bothered you in any sort of way. Until It Sleeps 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit to 21st Army (Soviet Union) has been changed to remove the {WHAT YEAR?) comment, as it has been deemed to be unconstructive. You could have just as easily brought it up on the talk page of the article, or better still, researched the subject and put the year on, thus improving the article even more. I personally would like to thank you for your efforts to improve this encyclopedia, and hope that this does not put anything harmful between us. Thank you.

Rachel Corrie

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Black Kite 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My, isn't it strange how truth is now called vandalism.

Thankyou for the addition to my talkpage. Unfortunately it was also reverted as vandalism and a personal attack by another editor. Anyway, one of the great rules of Wikipedia is that the more editors refer to their own original research as The Truth^TM, the less likely it is that it's actually true. Regardless of this, an edit throwing in comments such as "foolishly" and claiming that someone is an illegal weapons dealer without any sources is always going to get reverted whether it's true or not. Black Kite 12:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

In your disputes, please focus your commentary on the content issues. Personal attacks against the character of other editors, such as you made here, are not acceptable. Dragons flight (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between saying: "You're edits are total crap" and "You are total crap". The former is a disagreement about content and is allowed (though not encouraged), while the latter is a personal attack and is not allowed. In general, comment on the content and not on the contributor. Personally, I would suggest that angry and vitriolic messages are unlikely to be effective anyway, and you would accomplish more by discussing your disagreements calmly and rationally. Dragons flight (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your ACTIONS include those of terrorism, that makes you a terrorist. Likewised, if your ACTIONS include those of censorship, that makes you a censor. If you don't like the characterization, then stop fulfilling the definition of such. Akulkis (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of War Plan Green

A tag has been placed on War Plan Green requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Anita Sarkeesian, you may be blocked from editing. Woodroar (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the the personal attacks as well, or you will be blocked. We have a policy on biographies of living people you might also want to look over. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to prevent you from conversing on the topic of source reliability, nor to "whitewash" anything. You came back and immediately began attacking people, as you've been cautioned about previously. You're free to to make constructive additions after the block has expired, however further harassment will be just as unwelcome. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all bullshit, and you know it.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]