User talk:98.118.62.140

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

May 2010[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 Talk:Barack Obama 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. Wikipedia is not a news site. SMP0328. (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (98.118.62.140) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Hello, Before contributing the debate there any further, please take some time to review this recommendation about interacting with others on this article, one that remains as valid today as last September. On multiple occasions now your comments have been quite beyond collegial discourse, and your latest undue personalization was over the top and has been reverted.

As I keep having to repeat - for 9 months now - there is exactly one way to express any point of view on this specific article, and asserting motives, flinging accusations, attacking others, requesting that others "recuse" themselves are not part of that way. You are welcome to rephrase your argument provided it remains strictly focussed on the article, not on the people who happen to have a view different from yours.

Failing that, as you are undoubtedly aware, your privileges to advance your point of view will be removed. Regards, MLauba (Talk) 22:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted MLauba's edit as it was inappropriate, as is his message to you here. Your tone could be better articulate, and MLauba is correct that you should endeavor to argue the content and not engage in personal attacks. However, if you believe that certain users are violating WP policies on ownership, you should feel free to use the proper channels to voice these concerns, despite the bullying of certain editors.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Led - Thanks for the help. Some of the others around here remind me of the phrase "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee". Suffice it to say, if one thinks that another has "ownership" issues, there's really no nice way to state that. Yet state it one must, if one thinks the other person should consider that he indeed might (have ownership issues). In any case, I am not persuaded that others such as MLauba sound all that cordial themslves. In fact, I'd say that his post to me here is geniunely menacing. Once again, thanks for your kindness. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knox article on my sub page[edit]

How would I create a sub page and put an article there?LedRush (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new subpage like this:

1) Navigate to the page under which you want to create the sub-page. In this instance, the page you want to start on is: User_talk:LedRush

2) Look in your broswer navigation field and see the URL which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush

3) At the end of that URL, append the name of the new page (I've already created a new page for you, it's called Amanda).

After you append the new page name, the URL will look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Amanda

Had I intended named the new page "cheese" the new URL you want wiould say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Cheese

4) As soon as you see the URL reading the way you want, hit enter and your browser will try to navigate to that new page

5) However, becase the new page doesn;t exist, the wiki will prompt you to enter some information and thereby create the new page.

6) You do not need a "create page" button as the URL method does it for you. It's a recursive process. You call for a page which does not exists and the wiki prompts you to create it.

Click here to go to your new Amanda page

98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think I already set mine up at User:LedRush/Amanda Knox.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that after I posted. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sheryl Sandberg. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Federales (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2018[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Trump–Russia dossier for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 13:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Again, Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. Please don't use them as such.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to A Rape on Campus— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Did not appear constructive"... how so? It's 100% accurate and correctly introduced the main point of the issue - that the article was a fraud - would you prefer the word "withdrawn", which is already in the Wiki article and is undisputed? The lede must properly introduce the thrust of the Wiki article - and this RS article is very much discredited, fraudulent and withdrawn, so lets go with withdrawn, shall we? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Sidney Powell. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

restore valid edits[edit]

Contrary to your assertion, the discussion was not about "Arguing over present versus past tense". Rather, it was whether or not, it's good editing to deliberately misquote a lawyer's precise words, when understanding those words is the linchpin to readers assigning meaning to the quote. What Powell did, per Newsweek (which quoted her accurately) is assert that certain actors tried to "frame" Flynn, which is her legal assessment and opinion. She did not assert that they "framed". Her assertion is that the steps they took towards the sneaky interview were "part of their efforts to set him up and frame him", but she did not assert that there has been a finding to that effect. Properly speaking, a conspiracy theorist is one who asserts something to be true, usually for off-kilter reasons, and contrary to the established factual conclusions. But there have not been any factual conclusions that Flynn was framed; and Powell does not assert that there have been. However, the DOJ did request that the charges be dropped, and there were internal findings from the DOJ which establish that there were genuine problems with the case, but the DOJ did not concede that Flynn was framed. And even WAPO admits that it was Flynn himself who claimed he was "framed" and that Powell, as his attorney, is making his argument for him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/michael-flynns-defense-claims-without-offering-specifics-that-material-from-justice-department-review-includes-stunning-evidence-of-fbi-misconduct/2020/04/24/abafc742-8664-11ea-ae26-989cfce1c7c7_story.html The point I'm making is that in our rush to paint Powell as a buffoon, we are glossing over important distinctions and are attributing things to Powell which, precisely speaking, are not her words. Also, according to NYT, the DOJ (under Barr, who is certainly no fan of Trump or Flynn) took this position when dismissing the case [the] Agents’ questioning “was untethered to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/michael-flynn-case-dropped.html And frankly, that concession by DOJ certainly supplies a reasonable foundation to the allegation that Flynn was "set-up". And if there's even a smidgen of truth to the allegation that Flynn was set-up, then it's fully reasonable for a zealous defense attorney to assert such. And by definition, reasonable behavior does not make one a "conspiracy theorist" . And this is why we need to avoid saying "framed" as if that word was a) Powell's verbatim word (it's not); rather than b) her client's defense (which it was; part of Flynn's defense, that is)

other folks' user talk pages[edit]

Hey, 98.118. Most editors consider a user's talk page to be the one place on WP they can have some control. It's not considered okay to delete or restore content on someone else's talk. It's fine to do that on your own user talk. —valereee (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok - thanks for the information 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.118.62.140&oldid=999230496"