User talk:Ratttso

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Grsz¹¹ 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate page content

The content on your user page was inappropriate per WP:BLP, WP:NPA, etc., and I have blanked it accordingly.[1] Please take the time to review those policies and others available regarding constructive editing. Use Wikipedia constructively, for purposes of improving encyclopedia articles, and do not use your user page as a soapbox to make accusations against people on or off Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I don´t really have the patience to deal with the Obama pages right now. I disagree strongly with editors closing discussions without a clear consensus to do so. It is an attempt at a unilateral action that is not conducive to harmonious editing. That said, you are going to get not traction if you cannot put the hysterical claims of bias aside and attempt to edit in a collegial way. When you make the statements that you have made you sound like a lunatic and you end up ignored and eventually blocked from the articles in question or even the project. When you make the claims that you do , and in the way that you do, you discredit yourself. What is worse, you discredit the Right,making it easier for folks here and off project to marginalize conservatives. What little respect I get on this project was hard earned, and I resent when people come charging in blethering inanities that invite the kinds of comments user Sceptre made last night. The goal of Wikipedia is not to expose some fantastic left wing conspiracy; It is to build an encyclopedia. If I picked up a Brittanica and read the kind of crap you want added, I would want my money back. Now you can get all pissed off with me, and probably yank me in front of ANI for some of my intemperate comments here. I suggest you find something else to edit. I have seen a lot of people come and go on the Obama page. Your behaviour and attitude are similiar to many off theirs.I predict a short editing half life if you do not maoderate the things you put forward. So that you know, I am not interested in fantastic stuff. I´m not interested in a Die4Dixie and Ratttso dianmic dual to fight the "liberal bias" on the project or search for conspiracies. There are plenty of things to be added to the article, but you will never get them added because of your message and tone. Does the article lack balance? Yes. Will you fix it like this? No, because everything you say will be judged through the lens of the garbage that you promote. My grandaddy always said," If you step in green shit, it will come up between your toes." I don´t want any green shit between my toes, thank you.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the green was indeed shit that would be true, it is not.

This (above) is why I never became a "Conservative", because when the going gets critical you go and smoke your pipe(s) and don't involve yourselves (not insult just cold comment). Someone should have involved themselves when the nut Bush was in the nomination. Now look at the pickle. Leaving the ACORN story completely out of Obama is absurd, when it broke it was on all the major networks and locals were all over it. Further, Wikipedia presenting itself in a fashion where these aforesaid main media may not be, somehow or some way sourced is absurd, as well. Further absurd, is the fact that all YouTube sourcing is disallowed. Everybody knows that was Lou Dobbs on that YouTube sourcing that was posted and strong sourcing indeed. Saying anything else is disingenuous. I can find no way to source my evening network news at Wikipedia? If so tell me how, because I've search around quite a bit in Wikipedia policy and can't find it. I am a bit new so stop biting the newbie, please... you guys are supposed to be helping us. Cc2po (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

yandman 08:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this block. Ratttso, if you have any good intentions with respect to Wikipedia, ask for help on my Talk page; as IP, not logged in, you can still edit User talk:Abd/IP, since my Talk page is semiprotected because of frequent vandalism. (admins: please do not block IP solely because of edits to that page, except for clear vandalism there.) Please be patient, it can take me some time, occasionally, to notice edits there. You may also email me. While I support the block, because your edits were clearly disruptive and contrary to policy and guidelines, I also will assume good faith and mere ignorance of them. At first. My door is open, come in and sit down, if you are sincere and would actually like advice as to how to do what you want to do, at least that part of it that might be legitimate. I may also see your replies here, if you haven't been prevented from editing this page. I also accept email. --Abd (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|Attorney General Eric Holder says the American people are cowards and won't speak out. Would that apply here? I don't think so! I'll talk any time any place, but see what it gets me? Well we all now know the truth about that here don't we you cowardly blockers of the truth"? It is you women and minorities who fail and have to cheat to win, block speech, steal through affirmative action and are destroying the world out of jealousy for white men. I'll speak to you any time any place you criminal Holder, got that? So unblock me right now and let me say it in talk Wikipedia, cowards to the truth! Ratttso (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Can we please edit protect this page too? Whether it's trolling, personal issues, or simple racism, nothing good can possibly come of this.Wikidemon (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled your template; since you weren't making a request for unblock. If you just want to express your opinions, please don't use the template. In fact, it would be better to put your political opinions on your blog rather than here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. Bye-bye Rattso. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to disrupt the activities of others by barging into the place they work and shouting. From a Family Dog poster in the late sixties: May the Baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind. If you change your attitude, ask for help as I described above, I'm not withdrawing the offer, though it is now even more clear that the block was justified and your lapse of civility not simply transient. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your house, Abd. But my house was invaded by Holder and I was insulted by his "shouting" that "Americans are "cowards"". Also, Ratttso was blocked without comment before he began to "shout", then was insulted by Holder, not to mention several other editors that actually used proffanity herein. Typical Wikipedia setup and you know it. Besides, all he and anyone on the apposing side here have said that needs to be said at the beginning, that was technical was conveniently taken as derogatory clearly indicating the fallacy of wikipedia policy of allowing deletions for percieved attacks even though the deleter well knows that it was not meant as such but simply communicating a technical point. That policy should be changed to "generalized" insults of a non-technical nature. I'll take up Rattso's cause and the others that have been nefariously deleted and insulted, Abd. Game? Cc2po (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no. If you (meaning Cc2po or Ratttso) have anything constructive to add to the projec in terms of encyclopedica articles, please do so. But the last thing we need is nonsense soapboxing about politics. If you are offended by what a politician did, feel free to express yourself and take part in the political process, but not here. This is an encyclopedia, and our aim here is to provide background information about the state of knowledge in the world...not the latest grievance. The deltions and complaints are not nefarious. If you do not bu into what we are trying to achieve here on Wikipecdia, perhaps you should spend your energies somewhere else. Wikidemon (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been everywhere "else" and I'm going nowhere from here right now and I have submitted materials (ACORN) that was sourced by every major network such as Lou Dobbs of CNN. You like Larry King there, I like Lou Dobbs. You would like to characterize my material as soapboxing when it is only setting forth constructive material pertinent to this page. Conversely, it is you who are imposing your opinions as above not I, and I did not ask you anyway. You go away... and stop trying to start more trouble. Cc2po (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are, as well trying to cast my simple and technical discussions on the subject of creating an article as soapboxing, that is where your thinking went flawed. Cc2po (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]