| Revision as of 21:47, 16 October 2015 editN0n3up (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,665 edits →United States← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:48, 16 October 2015 edit undoGolbez (talk | contribs)Administrators66,950 edits →United StatesNext edit → | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| :::::Nope. We've been through this before, and I quite simply have zero trust for you. It's on you to find the hard copy, not me. --] (]) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | :::::Nope. We've been through this before, and I quite simply have zero trust for you. It's on you to find the hard copy, not me. --] (]) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I could say the same about you, since you don't seem to be 100% sure of what you're doing. Either too lazy or racist-deniant, can't say for certain. I've given you the details to where to find it that even a doltish individual could find it. I'll probably link more sources in the future. (] (]) 21:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)) | ::::::I could say the same about you, since you don't seem to be 100% sure of what you're doing. Either too lazy or racist-deniant, can't say for certain. I've given you the details to where to find it that even a doltish individual could find it. I'll probably link more sources in the future. (] (]) 21:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)) | ||
| :::::::"racist-deniant"? "a doltish individual"? Yeah, you're a real charmer. Fuck off my talk page, now. --] (]) 21:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:48, 16 October 2015
FROM GROßE KAISER: In response to your message, much of the Confederate page seems to be written from a very northern bias point of view. I disagree with much of the page and its obvious others do to. You say you will block me for "engaging in a slow-motion edit war" but it takes more thank one person to have a war therefore if you block me you must also block yourself and everyone else who supposedly participated in the war. I understand what your saying but it isn't your page either. You shouldn't block anyone because they disagree with you. I am simply wanting this page to have no pro northern or pro southern leanings. People's views on the American Civil War should be left out of this article. It should be for informative purposes only. Thank you --Große Kaiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Große Kaiser (talk • contribs) 22:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
---Reason to use "United Statian"---
As a Brazilian, I'm just as American as people from the USA and the other citizens of our continent. More specifically, I'm a Latin American, and further a South American.
If e.g. we wanted to talk about Irish people but refered to them generically as European we would be at once imprecise and unfair to the other Europeans. If that's still hard to relate to, imagine a whole continent going through a revolution and changing it's name to "United Countries of the Earth" and refering to themselves as "Earthlings" and to the rest of us, the people from the other continents, as European, Asian, American, African, etc. That's kinda like how we non-US Americans feel when that type of language is used.
America is a continent, not a country. To reduce a whole continent to just one country is a racist practice from our languages that should be dropped. In Spanish (estadounidense or estadunidense), Portuguese (estadunidense), French and many more languages we have terms for American and United Statian. Which are used in every-day speech.
Also I have read this term several times in many places and the first one was Misplaced Pages. That's why I think it is worth mentioning in an article. The purpouse of an encyclopedia is to spread culture and make this a smarter world.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dembowow (talk • contribs) 07:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm telling you I haven't invented it, I read it on Misplaced Pages for first time. And then I googled it and found it on many more places, like Wictionary. It's worth mentioning. Are you blind, racist or what??
Dembowow (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2012
Kingroyos (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
About Ikaruga revert
About the revert of bullet hell, just for clarification the term best is written in http://en.wikipedia.org/Shoot_%27em_up in paragraph Bullet hell and niche appeal
The Signpost: 23 September 2015
- In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library
- WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?
- Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2015
- Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Misplaced Pages's search function inferior?
- Tech news: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 October 2015
- Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption
- Traffic report: Reality is for losers
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- In the media: Jailed Saudi blogger wins award; PR editing and Wiki-embarassment; Pakistan's third-richest person?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
United States
. Although I left the talk page, I saw someone else post there but didn't read their post. (N0n3up (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
- Pardon, but I am unable to make sense of that sentence. --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I reached a consensus with two other users that the word in discussion would stay, yet there was another editor whom I saw post his message ther but I didn't read it, making the reached consensus questionable, it's in clear english. (N0n3up (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
- Link please on this consensus. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's really hard to since it's archived, making it hard to find my name in the "view history" section. But you should be able to read the part where I saw "thanks guys" in the link with my name signed. (N0n3up (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
- Nope. We've been through this before, and I quite simply have zero trust for you. It's on you to find the hard copy, not me. --Golbez (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I could say the same about you, since you don't seem to be 100% sure of what you're doing. Either too lazy or racist-deniant, can't say for certain. I've given you the details to where to find it that even a doltish individual could find it. I'll probably link more sources in the future. (N0n3up (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
- "racist-deniant"? "a doltish individual"? Yeah, you're a real charmer. Fuck off my talk page, now. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I could say the same about you, since you don't seem to be 100% sure of what you're doing. Either too lazy or racist-deniant, can't say for certain. I've given you the details to where to find it that even a doltish individual could find it. I'll probably link more sources in the future. (N0n3up (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
- Nope. We've been through this before, and I quite simply have zero trust for you. It's on you to find the hard copy, not me. --Golbez (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's really hard to since it's archived, making it hard to find my name in the "view history" section. But you should be able to read the part where I saw "thanks guys" in the link with my name signed. (N0n3up (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
- Link please on this consensus. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I reached a consensus with two other users that the word in discussion would stay, yet there was another editor whom I saw post his message ther but I didn't read it, making the reached consensus questionable, it's in clear english. (N0n3up (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC))