Hello, Sempi. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi, where you may want to participate. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
No wonder you are defending the actions of this group to unfairly suppress and delete information from this article! You Rich Wales, seem to have a conflict of interest! (link removed) If you still support Barack Obama, then you would have an interest in suppressing information about the natural born citizen clause, which might make him ineligible. So this really was politics all along? Sempi ( talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Finally, did you invite Anythingyouwant into the discussion, or anyone else from the article history that may have suffered similar deletions? Or only your deletion pals? Sempi ( talk) 03:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
So I see I still cannot reply or edit anything!
How about we invite all those that have had Law of Nations contributions deleted in the past month or so? Though I doubt any of them will show up, because most people don't hang out at at Wikipedia pages, and even less check their talk pages. I certainly didn't - the last time I checked my talk page was probably four years ago.
The people that hang out here as the self appointed gatekeepers of information in the natural born citizen clause article, are those that are doing the deleting regarding the Law of Nations, rather than editing and collaboration. Abusers like Weazie, Mystylplx, Loonymonkey, Johnuniq, and Fat&Happy. Most of these below are probably just regular people passing by, unsure how to contribute, and only participate in Wikipedia in a very casual way, but they all had material deleted in the past month, so it's worth a try:
On the other hand, Richwales acts like pro, and a gentleman, but unfortunately after reviewing the history, he still seems to have had a bias for a while, at least a month:
I don't think anybody was asking to give it undue weight, at that point in the history it merely looked like people were just asking to give it some weight, period.
The history also shows that Weazie is the clear tool of the group; his focus on complete deletions for whatever excuse he can give. Sempi ( talk) 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The bottom line is, there are two paths you guys could have taken, the collaborative where you helped new people edit and properly format and source their contributions, including the Law of Nations, or the exclusive where you simply delete new contributions for any reason.
Weazie, Mystylplx, Loonymonkey, Johnuniq, and Fat&Happy, have been choosing the latter. And for some unknown reason RichWales has been backing them, even though he knows better. Sempi ( talk) 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to be sending out written invitations to the RFC based on who you feel agrees with you on an issue, Sempi. The RFC is not based on the article where this all started. The RFC is based on your conduct. I'd advise you to make your comments there (when you're unblocked), and comment directly on your own behavior and not that of others. You are the subject of the RFC. Dayewalker ( talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Please review the talk page guidelines to determine what type of comments are appropriate on the talk page for an article. It is rarely appropriate to discuss other editors on an article talk page, and it is never appropriate to accuse other editors of ignorance or lying. Linking to a page which purports to show information about an editor is WP:OUTING and is strictly prohibited ( diff), and if repeated will lead to a block. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reposting to the wrong section at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi. Your comments have already been reposted into the appropriate section, the Response section. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 08:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 08:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This account has been blocked 24 hours by admin Dcoetzee ( talk · contribs), for: "Repeatedly posting link that outs an editor - do not post again". -- Cirt ( talk) 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi because of inactivity, and because you've stopped editing. If you return, please improve your behavior as requested in the RFC. Chester Markel ( talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Sempi. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi, where you may want to participate. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
No wonder you are defending the actions of this group to unfairly suppress and delete information from this article! You Rich Wales, seem to have a conflict of interest! (link removed) If you still support Barack Obama, then you would have an interest in suppressing information about the natural born citizen clause, which might make him ineligible. So this really was politics all along? Sempi ( talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Finally, did you invite Anythingyouwant into the discussion, or anyone else from the article history that may have suffered similar deletions? Or only your deletion pals? Sempi ( talk) 03:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
So I see I still cannot reply or edit anything!
How about we invite all those that have had Law of Nations contributions deleted in the past month or so? Though I doubt any of them will show up, because most people don't hang out at at Wikipedia pages, and even less check their talk pages. I certainly didn't - the last time I checked my talk page was probably four years ago.
The people that hang out here as the self appointed gatekeepers of information in the natural born citizen clause article, are those that are doing the deleting regarding the Law of Nations, rather than editing and collaboration. Abusers like Weazie, Mystylplx, Loonymonkey, Johnuniq, and Fat&Happy. Most of these below are probably just regular people passing by, unsure how to contribute, and only participate in Wikipedia in a very casual way, but they all had material deleted in the past month, so it's worth a try:
On the other hand, Richwales acts like pro, and a gentleman, but unfortunately after reviewing the history, he still seems to have had a bias for a while, at least a month:
I don't think anybody was asking to give it undue weight, at that point in the history it merely looked like people were just asking to give it some weight, period.
The history also shows that Weazie is the clear tool of the group; his focus on complete deletions for whatever excuse he can give. Sempi ( talk) 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The bottom line is, there are two paths you guys could have taken, the collaborative where you helped new people edit and properly format and source their contributions, including the Law of Nations, or the exclusive where you simply delete new contributions for any reason.
Weazie, Mystylplx, Loonymonkey, Johnuniq, and Fat&Happy, have been choosing the latter. And for some unknown reason RichWales has been backing them, even though he knows better. Sempi ( talk) 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to be sending out written invitations to the RFC based on who you feel agrees with you on an issue, Sempi. The RFC is not based on the article where this all started. The RFC is based on your conduct. I'd advise you to make your comments there (when you're unblocked), and comment directly on your own behavior and not that of others. You are the subject of the RFC. Dayewalker ( talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Please review the talk page guidelines to determine what type of comments are appropriate on the talk page for an article. It is rarely appropriate to discuss other editors on an article talk page, and it is never appropriate to accuse other editors of ignorance or lying. Linking to a page which purports to show information about an editor is WP:OUTING and is strictly prohibited ( diff), and if repeated will lead to a block. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reposting to the wrong section at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi. Your comments have already been reposted into the appropriate section, the Response section. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 08:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 08:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This account has been blocked 24 hours by admin Dcoetzee ( talk · contribs), for: "Repeatedly posting link that outs an editor - do not post again". -- Cirt ( talk) 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi because of inactivity, and because you've stopped editing. If you return, please improve your behavior as requested in the RFC. Chester Markel ( talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)