User talk:AlanD

This user may have left Wikipedia. AlanD has not edited Wikipedia since 22 February 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Ohhh a fresh and new talk page.AlanD 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've replied.--Rambutan (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop stalking me.AlanD 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not stalking. According to WP:ANI, it's courteous to inform those involved in complaints of what's going on. See Wikipedia:Wikistalking for what is stalking.--Rambutan (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop stalking me. Your behaviour is passive agressive bullying.AlanD 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it's not stalking.--Rambutan (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very pathetic on your part. I've walked away and you continue. Stop your bullying now please.AlanD 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

Hi there, you might be interested in our project. As far as I know, we don't think we have any anarchist bisexuals in our group yet. You would be most welcome. Tim Vickers 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses

Thanks for your interesting reply. I think you can see how this so-called debate can occur between biologists. Certainly the first life form idea is an interesting one. But would first life be or look like a virus, since they're not parasitic? Isn't the whole problem with viruses that they are so stripped down they are useless without other organisms? Of course any argument is conjecture, but it's intellectually fascinating. :) David D. (Talk) 03:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Hi AlanD, I noticed that you added an AfD to today's log on White people. I noticed that the article was protected and that mediation had been started on the talk page. Perhaps it would be best to let the mediation process take place as opposed to opening a deletion discussion on the article right now (the last discussion was just in March, and the article was kept by a supermajority). Thanks -- Samir 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive tag

Please consider removing the tag you have advocating political violence against fascists. "Polemical statements" are prohibited from user pages. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the template (or deleted template) advocates political violence. Some might construe this as intimidating. At any rate it is certainly polemical. I see these sort of comments on user pages as disruptive, particularly when they cross the line from expressing a belief to advocating violence. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is a "polemical statement" which is generally discouraged or prohibited from all of wikipedia except as a sourced statement in an article. Also under the "common sense" suggestion of the WP:USER guideline I think this fails. Common sense doesn't say that one should suggest violence against political opponents on one's wikipedia user page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look... that box is promoting violence and a radical political ideology. That is a violation of our rules and we would be very thankful if you would remove it. Thanks for understanding, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, there's nothing wrong with promoting a radical political ideology - it's the promotion of violence that is a problem. ELIMINATORJR 16:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats the bigger of the two issues. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to reason with this guy. I think this tag template has already been deleted (presumably for advocating violence) but he has a raw copy of it - or it would be gone already. I don't know what would get in someone's head to think this was ok behavior. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of issues here. 1) I find it offensive that in this post holocaust world that anyone would consider opposing facism would be considered a radical ideology. 2) I find it odd that this all suddenly started a substantial time after the tag was placed on there. 3) I find Fourdee's comments have now moved onto being a personal attack. 4) I have asked an administrator to look at the tag and he/she found no problem with it. 5) Wikipedia has guidelines not rules. I have pointed out such things clearly to Fourdee and I don't want to have to rehash the matter again.

I would ask now that Fourdee refrains from his personal attacks and that this silliness ceases. I will edit the tag but only to stop the bullying. It is disappointing that opposing facism is considered to be extremism and this is a damning stain on Wikipedia.AlanD 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks? And then you go ahead remove his compromised userbox that did NOT advocate violence? That is vandalism, which you've been blocked for before. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the tag AlanD. I'd just like to to be clear: I doubt any of us here support fascism... what I find objectionable about militant anti-fascism is the use of violence to promote that end. In any case, the new tag is good. Thanks again! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that Fourdee does and has been banned for voicing those opinions.AlanD 00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog Bash

What you wrote in the comments page is bad Wikipedia form. Perhaps a Wikipedia refresher would be a good idea. Have a look at WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:EQ. Thanks. -- Avg 12:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly divorced with reason. I'm pushing a POV against consensus? Then how come it was me who posted the RfC? How come everyone except AlCapone supports that the shooting be mentioned? You're also good at launching empty threats. Care at substantiating, by quoting official Wiki policies as I did? Please shape up your thoughts and yourself first and then start accusing other people.-- Avg 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are rude aren't you? AlanD (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You haven't edited for a while. Are you retired or just on a break? Hope you come back soon. Alun 09:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Resource badge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Resource badge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2008 (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) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]