| Revision as of 22:44, 2 February 2008 view sourceBuffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,488 edits comment not needed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:51, 1 January 2025 view source Minorax (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers192,246 edits Notification: proposed deletion of File:San diego state.gif.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{semi-retired}} | |||
| <!--{{Long Wikibreak|]| later this year. He is currently in military flight training which doesn't allow much time for Misplaced Pages, though he may make the occasional edit here and there.}}--> | |||
| <!--{{User:BQZip01/header}}--> | |||
| I hereby explicitly request that any individuals with whom I have worked that wish to apply for adminship please request my review on my talk page. This applies to parties with whom I have both agreed and disagreed (or even those with whom I had no opinion). Notification on ''my'' talk page should not be construed as a violation of ], but an answer to the above request. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Divbox|red|'''Due to persistent harassment from an ], my main talk page is semi-protected. If you are unable to post here, you may contact me on ] You may also contact me via e-mail, by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link to the left.'''|}} | |||
| {{Divbox|red|'''I used to be known under a different user name, however, I was outed by a colleague. Due to concerns about my personal security I request that any users "in the know" refrain from using my previous name in discussions. Thank you'''|}} | |||
| {| style="background-color:transparent;center;border: 0px" | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{click|link=Fightin' Texas Aggie Band|image=Misplaced Pages-logo.png|width=50px|height=50px|title=This user helped to make Fightin' Texas Aggie Band one of Today's Featured Articles}} | |||
| |{{click|link=Aggie Bonfire|image=Misplaced Pages-logo.png|width=50px|height=50px|title=This user helped to make Aggie Bonfire one of Today's Featured Articles}} | |||
| |{{click|link=Texas A&M University|image=Cscr-featured.svg|width=50px|height=50px|title=This user helped to make Texas A&M University a featured article.}} | |||
| |{{click|link=Fightin' Texas Aggie Band|image=Cscr-featured.svg|width=50px|height=50px|title=This user helped to make Fightin' Texas Aggie Band a featured article.}} | |||
| |{{click|link=History of Texas A&M University|image=Cscr-featured.svg|width=50px|height=50px|title=This user helped to make History of Texas A&M University a featured article.}} | |||
| |{{click|link=Aggie Bonfire|image=Cscr-featured.svg|width=50px|height=50px|title=This user helped to make Aggie Bonfire a featured article.}} | |||
| |{{click|link=Texas A&M University|image=Symbol_support_vote.svg|width=50px|height=50px|title=This user helped to make Texas A&M University a Good Article}} | |||
| |- | |||
| |}{{archive box|<small>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]</small>}} | |||
| {{userinfo}} | |||
| {{Divbox|red|'''In my time at WP, I have never asked for people to stay off my talk page until yesterday. It was always my intent to allow for free and open communications for 14+ years now, but the number of people actively taunting/harassing me/intentionally causing angst has reached a point that I do not feel I can continue this policy (this literally includes accusations of murder). It has become increasingly clear that some people are incapable of being ] and Admins are unwilling to enforce civility requirements on WP (beyond just unwilling to even issue warnings, actively deleting warnings and defending incivility). While I still believe in allowing general communication, I see no viable alternative to stop this behavior. This is a very disappointing decision for me, but I will control what I can, even if it is limited to just my talk page. | |||
| ==Photo editing== | |||
| First off, happy new year. second, i wanted to ask you if i could photoshop this picture to make it a little brighter. http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups.JPG have a good one] (]) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups3.jpg ] (]) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I changed the picture on the ] page. ] (]) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Reasons for such choices generally involve ] and ]. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Seeing as how I'm not allowed to keep a list of those I've asked not to and why, I have no choice but to keep this list offline. If you are asked not to comment on my page and you "forget", please know I tried to keep a list so you'd know and be able to check...I will be asking for blocks if it is violated. This is the only warning I intend to make; ] will be my next step. ] (]) 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)'''|}} | |||
| ]. Thanks. ] (]) 09:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!--{{cent}}--> | |||
| ==Re: WTF== | |||
| lol, I'm bored. Sorry to hear about your son - hope he gets well soon. Happy New Year btw. I'm already counting the days until football season starts. ] (]) 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :My sentiments exactly on all all fronts! Take good care of your son and have a Happy New Year! I also hope you can ] as you ] the ]. Best, ]\<sup>]</sup> 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive box|<small>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – ] ]<br>]: ] ] – present </small>}} | |||
| ==Jim Bowie== | |||
| <!--{{userinfo}}--> | |||
| Hi BQ. Haven't seen you around lately, so hopefully everything is going to be okay. I have a favor to ask, if you have time and energy. I have ] nominated at FAC, with one support and 2 comments asking for a bit of copyediting by a disinterested party. You do an awesome job of identifying prose issues. Could you possibly take a look at the article and help me tighten the prose just a bit? Thanks. ] (]) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==WikiProject College football ]== | |||
| The ''']''' of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ==Final Words== | |||
| == USS Illinois FAC == | |||
| I've been a Wikipedian for 10+ years, but the leftist tilt/bias and open hostility to any dissent (with backing of multiple admins who openly profess anti-capitalist/socialist/communist leanings) has me reconsidering my contributions of any kind. The fact that others are probably cheering right now should give you a massive pause and force you to re-look at this situation, but I doubt it will. | |||
| I have taken a stab at improving the article since you've been gone; would you consider giving the article another look? ] (]) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages has become a leftist cesspool categorized by groupthink and punishing any dissent, basically as corrupt as academia or mainstream press (where extreme leftists are highly dominant...in the US, 96% of journalists vote Democrat and 90% of Academia does as well). ...and that's not just my opinion; check the link! Differences of opinion are viewed as opposition to "reliable sources" and, therefore, evidence of malfeasance/being an unreliable source. Claim NPOV all you want, but it isn't when you declare all media that doesn't toe the leftist party line as "unreliable". No, I'm not talking about InfoWars or any other right wing extremist garbage, I'm talking about anything that's right of left of center. | |||
| == Campus of TAMU == | |||
| First off, happy new year. next. | |||
| I am trying to update the ] page. I have a ] done, and I would like someone to look over it before I post it. ] (]) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''And the media is TALKING ABOUT IT!''': . Note that 2 of the admins who blocked me are featured in this national publication. | |||
| == Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
| An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} ] (]) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC) <!-- Template:Idw --> | |||
| It sure is easy to be "correct" when no opposition is allowed. All you are going to get is what agrees with you. | |||
| == Re. RFA == | |||
| Furthermore, those on the right are actively and aggressively punished while rampant incivility from the left is given a pass. I've been cussed out, insulted, shamed, and a host of uncivil behavior with no warnings whatsoever. I have been blocked by an admin who is an avowed leftist/Marxist/Communist for "following someone" (when, in fact, I was continuing to do what I'd announced I was doing 3 days prior). Not even a warning was given to her. . I was even blocked for undoing ''clear'' vandalism, an exception in our policies...but that's no matter if you don't mind ignoring the rules you've said you'll uphold (look at my block log for all the evidence you need). | |||
| Thank you for contacting me, BQZip01. It's good that you expanded your answer, but I shall maintain my oppose this time. I believe that you need more experience in admin-oriented areas, as is patent by some terms you use (such as "blocking authority"). I recommend that you withdraw this RFA and greatly increase your participation in tasks that usually require admin intervention. Keep it up for a couple of months and you're likely to succeed. Regards, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You can substantially increase your vandalfight with the help of a tool such as ]. Report vandals to ] when they have transgressed their last warnings. Request protection for heavily vandalized pages at ]. Participate in ]. Etc. There's plenty. :-) Regards, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The remaining part of Misplaced Pages seeks to tear down the work of others by pointing out flaws rather than take time to improve an article. Wikipedians are celebrated for taking pride in tearing down others rather than building anything productive. | |||
| ==Perspective== | |||
| I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel? Then apply those feelings to an absurdly long wait from an admin after asking for his or her help to -protect a page? -block a vandal? -report a misbehaving isp address? Its too long, and from where I sit it is inconsiderate. And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. | |||
| Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. ] (]) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| While Misplaced Pages is theoretically worried about their losses, Wikipedians aren't worried about how they are actively driving out contributors. They are reveling in it. If the WMF is genuinely interested in solving the problem, they need to look at their current users/their political leanings as the source of the problems. When approached by ], a journalist and donor to Misplaced Pages, they just stopped responding. | |||
| :Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of ] into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. ] is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power...the process should be labeled "FARCE". | |||
| Then why did you oppose instead of comment? If you have no intention of revisiting the article each and every time someone makes a change to it how will you handle edit warring, or articles that have disputed content tags, or original research, or other mediation related templates? Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list: | |||
| *"...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms | |||
| **It isn't there anymore | |||
| *Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#" | |||
| **It has been fixed | |||
| *Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy. | |||
| **These were merged. | |||
| *Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. | |||
| **It should be out of the article now. | |||
| Now I am not an admin, but I am a coordinator, and though the tools are different the work is essentially the same, although in an admins case it is not limited to a project. You can tell a lot about someone from the simplest of things, and from where I sit your inability to follow even the basic suggested and unenforced requests casts a very dark shadow not only for this FAC but for your adminship as well. If I can't count on you to step up and take a more active part for a trivial FAC how can we expect you to step up as an admin? You had damn well better put some thought into your answer, sir, because your response to it will likely be the deciding factor in my decision to support or oppose your rfa. ] (]) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Tom I recommend you reconsider your above comments because they read like a ] please remember to comment on the content not the person. ]] 13:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Way to go. You just lost a Top 5000 contributor with over 25,000 edits and five featured articles...three were the article of the day; ''everything'' I did was a manual edit...think about it. | |||
| == Your RFA was withdrawn == | |||
| <!--Any responses/"corrections" to this will be summarily deleted. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on A&M-related pages.--> | |||
| Hi BQZip01. I have withdrawn your RFA as it did not currently have a chance of succeeding. Please consider the comments that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --] <small>]</small> 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages.}} | |||
| :Hello BQ, I am sorry to see your nomination did not succeed. I was on my way to support and I saw what happened. RfA's often have this problem where people find one or two things to seize upon and just focus on those things vs. looking at the big picture. There are some that say that adminship is "no big deal" but there are others that point out that it is almost impossible to loose the admin bit once it is granted, and that we have to be extremely vigilant to never promote a questionable candidate. Don't worry about it too much. You will certainly succeed if you let some time pass and try again. Best, ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I apologize for not helping you out for the A&M page. I too feel burnt out. I appreciate your hard work on Misplaced Pages and I admire how much dedication you have put into this community. Happy New Year. ] (]) 05:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry to see this happen, I know from personal experience how tough RfAs are to go through. I think you probably learned from it, especially about friendly notifications..;) If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest getting an ], they can be enormously helpful in learning about the various aspects of being an admin. ] <small>]</small> 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Oldag07}} IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of ] into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power. ] (]) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::: i am sure you will do well next time. gig em! BTW, i am going to teach my co workers in Ohio how to do a fightin texas aggie yell practice on friday. it is going to be great ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I scratch my wiki editing itch on Fandom. I actually am an Administrator on the Civilization video game series wiki. https://civilization.fandom.com/Civilization_Games_Wiki I must admit, some fandom sites can be even more dictatorial and unwelcoming. I found one which definitely welcomes changes and doesn't chase people off. Sometimes it feels like the old days. and if you can't find a wiki of your liking, make a new one. ] (]) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Good gracious no! Leave the poor Ohio people alone - they've suffered enough! :-) ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is an unsolicited response, so feel free to revert. But I've been watching the A&M FAR and FAC -- though not commenting because it's not one of my areas of interest -- and absolutely agree with your complaints about how opaque FAC is. And I'm increasingly worried that if this is not all by design, then there's been a massive capitulation of coordinators' duties. Where else on Misplaced Pages is there such an existential aversion to working on the encyclopedia? GANs routinely have reviewers make grammar corrections and fix up sources -- that happened at my ], but it happens all the time. DYK reviews have people fix sourcing and review images ... and if those images are incorrectly licensed, people ''just fix them''. But FAC is just a series of unactionable complaints and unwritten norms, which requires one to speak in a secret language to decode, and make massive concessions with no basis in policy or encyclopedic writing. What other process makes it all but required to have shepherds guide newbies? | |||
| :I remember nominating an article recently, and I was told that it reads poorly. I asked how. And I was told that FACs aren't supposed to substantially improve or change the article, despite ]. It's a black hole of effort for those who don't accede to random demands or speak their language. ] (]) 05:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Urve}} Glad I'm not alone. I think my biggest concern is what I expressed above: fiefdom-building. In that manner, WP is slowly walling itself off and elitists, while stating they want to improve WP, are actually hindering expansion efforts and improvements in the interests of attempting to achieve perfection and without risk (which is, in reality, unachievable). I've seen this build slowly for 10+ years. For example, people nominate files (images mostly) for deletion because they don't meet some criteria. The nominators and admins who delete it fail to consider and often refuse to take the time to understand copyright law, often erring so far on the side of safety as to be completely unreasonable (I once demonstrated a file was in the public domain as the image was clearly within the defined guidelines. The response was "By just over a year...barely" and a vote to delete it because it was "just too close"...the file and its talk page were ultimately deleted). | |||
| ::It's ''massively'' easier to criticized the work of others than make substantive improvements. | |||
| ::Given your interests, I think we're probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum (and I'm ''glad'' we have a forum like this to talk ''with'' each other!). The fact that we both see this, despite our differences in opinion, does not bode well for WP. ] (]) 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, we probably are. But I'm with you about fiefdom-building, and speaking in terms of content fiefdoms, that's especially true in my areas of interest. Take a look at articles like ] and ] to see versions of our own ]. ] for boring edit warring in its history. There are more egregious examples. | |||
| :::I've given up on ArbCom or the admin corps doing anything about having little autonomous communities trying to wall themselves out; why take action against those who are "right"? And it's hard to not understand why. If anyone were in charge of an entire encyclopedia, they'd probably want their own versions of truth stated as fact. I can't blame you if this is the end of editing for you - despite our disagreements on many things, the openness of editing is what makes this place valuable. This isn't some plea for absolute liberal inclusionism -- ] is probably good guidance, man-woman marriage userboxes are probably needlessly divisive, people who can't accept when reliable sources disagree with them aren't here with our core values in mind -- but you're not someone I'd exclude. We should have internal disagreements on the project; when we all work together to create a work product, there will be contradictions, based on who we are as people and what we value, but there's always, always value in contradiction. ] (]) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Nomination == | ||
| ] for feedback. ] (]) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Buffs, | |||
| ==Apology== | |||
| I owe you an apology for my behavior and my attitude over the last few days. I have been off my meds for three days now, and as a result have been sleep deprived, underfed, and dealing with a with a never ending case of heart burn for which I have managed to drain two entire unopened bottles of pepto bismal in a vain and fruitless attempt to settle my stomache. All of this translates into an increase instances of stress, and since I can not work my stress of by exercising (that, too, makes my violently sick to my stomache) I have resorted to yelling at anyone I can find to make myself feel better. All of this aside I have been way out of line insofar as interacting with you for the past few days, and I feel badly about it, so if you can find it in your heart to except my apology I hope we can put this whole incident behind us. ] (]) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Glad to here it. I will look into adressing the specific objections you brought up at the FAC page a little later (tommorow maybe), but right now I need to step back from everything for a little while and catch my breath. Clearing my head would be the best thing for me right now, before my momentarily substandard judgement gets me into even more trouble. ] (]) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I saw the FAC for A&M three days ago, and I just want to tell you that it isn't all bad. Sure, the reviewers appeared less than constructive when it came to the nom, but consensus is consensus and there's no viable way to get around that. It sucks, I know, but don't let it go to your head. The article deserves to be a FA but there is no point dissenting with the coordinators. If I were you, I'd try to get it approved for GA class or A class at least to show off your achievements. I am 100% sure that the article will pass through those noms with flying colors. ] (]) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Waterboarding RFArb == | |||
| :{{ping|CollectiveSolidarity}} I'm not interested in dissenting with the coordinator. All I want is a clear explanation so I can address any shortcomings and an explanation how he determined consensus as it is perplexingly opaque to me. | |||
| :Lastly, your support would have been appreciated for FA. I have no intention of going through an additional A/GA process. This article already had GA a LONG time ago. ] (]) 17:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not know that I could support it, because I thought only coordinators could. However, I will support it next time it appears. ] (]) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|CollectiveSolidarity}} Would you like me to inform you next time I put it up? (just for clarity so I'm not accused of canvassing) ] (]) 20:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I check the ] noticeboards every now and then, so when it reappears again, I'll take a look at the discussion. But although I support the article as it stands, there may still be some overlooked concerns that other editors will notice. If that is the case, I will hold off my decision until you (or I) fix the issues. Cheers! ] (]) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|CollectiveSolidarity}} I'll take any feedback you have now. What changes have been asked for are currently unclear and I've asked for clarification. It feels very much like "do it my way or it isn't approved" overrides consensus. ] (]) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Here I came to tell you how pleased I am to see ] on the Main page, and now this. Best wishes for what you do, but I for sure would prefer being with us. -- ] (]) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| You wrote: | |||
| ''I was involved in this discussion, but was never informed of ArbCom. Given the sheer volume of the discussion, I really don't mind so much, but I wish I had been notified and no malice is assumed unless proven otherwise (I don't expect that to even be possible).'' | |||
| :I don't see it on the main page...*scratches his head* As for leaving, I'm going to confine my activities to a smaller set. But given the bias being shown here, I doubt it will ever change. Would you like to be notified next time I nom for FA? ] (]) 04:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| : Given the sheer number of involved editors, I undoubtedly missed some that should have been included. If you wish to add yourself as a party to the case, you can do so yourself (As Remember did) - after all, this is a wiki *grin*. I did post a note about the ArbCom request on the talk page, to notify editors I may have left out. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Final Words == | ||
| :I have been saying as you. I hope you keep editing, and do not let them silence you. | |||
| I have nominated this page for ]. Since you're disputing the prod, you may want to give an opinion ]. Thanks! --] (]) 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Without more conservative voices, leftist politics will prevail masquerading as ]. As John Stossel pointed out, any altruism or sense of equality is simply gone. ] (]) 22:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| == Best of luck for you == | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I hope you continue editing. Not all hope is lost! ] (]) 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ==I feel like I should clarify something here== | |||
| :As mentioned with Lightburst, at this point, we have pushed to the point where leftism is dominant on WP and it's practically just a numbers game. ] has not changed, but those controlling the levers have decided to label anything conservative as "unreliable" and anything leftist "reliable". It's a similar game across all of media. Fox News is no more right than the New York Times is left, but one is considered the gold standard and the other derided. This will not change until people realize the echo chamber they are creating. ] (]) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Because of our recent disputes at ] and ] I feel that my intent for the original edits at Kyle Field has been misinterpreted as being malicious. It has never been my intention to undermine your efforts to bring A&M related articles to FA status. I acknowledge that you have done this several times before at Aggie Bonfire and Texas A&M University, both of which I have read completely and enjoyed. My edits to Kyle Field were not meant to be a jab at the stadium's de facto status of being an intimidating venue, but were meant solely to bring the title and that section in line with Misplaced Pages protocol. Furthermore, I do not wish to eliminate or crop information from the article that promotes Texas A&M University, its athletic program or its facilities (as long as NPOV is maintained). In fact, I think the information at Kyle Field should be expanded and I hope that one day it becomes a Featured Article. | |||
| ::Buffs, it sucks that this is happening on Misplaced Pages. I believe that it would be fine to add all sources in most circumstances; we must maintain ]. But if there are any information that is contradicting, make a note about it in the article, i.e "New York Times claims that ....." and then "Fox News claims that .....", and vice versa. Seems a lot more neutral, right? Also, we can always use ] or ] when in doubt. Would that help? Also, welcome back to being unblocked! ] (]) 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::I certainly don't advocate for violating NPOV, but when you define the conversation as left = neutral, you aren't achieving NPOV. I've had zero success with RfCs or DRN. ] (]) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, let me know in my talk page when anything in that nature occurs. I will try my best to help you. Best of luck, ] (]) 22:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::noted; thanks ] (]) 20:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| My edits were solely technical in nature and were not necessarily content disputes. If you wrote that "so and so called A&M the most intimidating venue ever" (with a source) that would be fine, wouldn't be OR and would agree with NPOV. Since it doesn't cover anything that isn't in the citation, it is perfectly acceptable. I probably have a more stringent view of OR than most, but I believe that holding editors accountable for what they write makes the information in the article more reliable. I recognize that your attendance at A&M makes you more familiar with those topics, but I would ask that you please ''please'' cite your sources so that when it comes time to promote these articles, other editors won't have these same disputes. | |||
| <blockquote>'''Unused, redundant to ].'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| As for the nominations for Michael Schmidt, my reasons for removing those articles are based on violations of ] where I believe that Schmidt authored that article to promote himself. He has already said several times that he paid somebody to promote him (though I dispute this and believe he performed the edits himself) through Misplaced Pages. Again, I believe that that transaction, regardless of any and all ] concerns, makes the writing unsalvageably unencyclopedic and thus should be deleted. Because of the many and numerous attempts by sock puppet accounts to override the removal of this material, I reacted harshly to your removal of this template. Had I read the talk page for the ip account, I would have quickly realized it was not a sock and therefore not vandalism. I apologize for this accusation. Since you are a unique user, your removal of the prod was fair within ], though I wish you had provided better context for doing so. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| If you agree with me that some of the material on Kyle Field can be rewritten to improve the form and thus satisfy the POV concerns, I will remove the RfC immediately. I do not wish to engage in any content disputes with anybody on the project, so it would be great if we could resolve this amicably. If you do leave a reply to this, please do so on my talk page so I can respond faster. Thank you. ] (]) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 12:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''You are again a liar and still a fool to think that by now pretending to be the calm voice of wisdom you can disuade others from disagreeing with you. You continue to use Wiki guidelines to say whatever you want them to say. You bend them to voice your opinion whenever it suits you and then ignore these same guidelines and claim a personal attack when someone else points out your actions as being contrary to guideline. Long before I ever knew Wiki existed, you were tagging articles as non-notable, de-constructing them to make them non-notable, and then moving on to tear down something else. You have left a bloody trail of malice all across Wiki and anyone with the patience to follow your steps can count the blood drops.''' | |||
| *'''I AGAIN DEMAND YOU LEAVE ME ALONE. DO NOT MENTION MY NAME, MY PAST, MY WORK, MY FAMILY. YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ME OR MY CAREER AND WOULD NOT KNOW TRUTH OR FACT IF THEY BIT YOU ON THE BUM. IN THE YEARS BEFORE WIKI EVER HEARD OF ME OR VICE VERSUS, YOU HAD ALREADY SHOWN A SAD PATTERN OF TOTAL DISREGARD FOR WIKI-TRUTH AND WIKI-ACCURACY. YOUR ACTIONS ARE INDEFENSIBLE. YOU HAVE WON. IT IS OVER. SO FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET IT REST!!!!'''] (]) 09:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the interests of responding to both users in an appropriate forum/context, I have placed my responses here | |||
| ::], I believe your interpretation of ] is too strict, '''but''' your response here shows simply overzealousness (zeal, like many things, are excellent in moderation). In the spirit of ], I accept your proposal in general and I believe the RfC to be unnecessary, but made in good faith, even if I think it was misguided. That said, we have the opportunity to hear from Misplaced Pages at large. Let's hear their opinions and work from there. That said, I think that in the future, you should attempt ''this'' form of communication first and ''then'' seek an RfC if some sort of agreement could not be established. Live and learn; no grudge is held against you. | |||
| ::], it would be far more appropriate for you to address these comments on ''his'' user talk page and not mine. Your cumulative posts violate ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. and are among the most blatant I've seen, at least in scope. I attribute this to your relative newness to Misplaced Pages and its guidelines. I recommend reading these policies/guidelines and formulating responses accordingly. I also implore you to calm down in your posts and have a ] on me (I also extend such an invitation to you in real life, should we ever meet). Furthermore, as a public figure, we have every right to mention your name, your past, and your work. My personal knowledge of your work is limited to what is available online. Truth/fact is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to what's online. This is why we have ] and its cousin ]. I highly recommend you read these as well. As for your family, near as I can tell, no one has brought them up. I recommend simply leaving them out of the discussion altogether. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I appreciate your insights and courtesies. Your professional demeanor has done much to molify. I did not mean to burden your talk page, but I am new here and thought I had to respond at those places where I felt I was being abused. And I was so many levels beyong angry, that I cannot describe it. I have gone to CC's page and posted an apolgy. I ask that you visit my talk page and make comment or invite me back here to do so. ] (]) 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am glad we can come to some reasonable understanding. There is no problem with "burdening" my talk page. I simply feel the direct and calm approach generally works the best...in all situations...and that you should have talked to CC instead. Technically, a user and talk page belongs to everyone one Misplaced Pages and you ''can'' edit anyone's you want within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages. '''However''' guidelines on ] show exactly what you ''should'' do (if someone asks you not to post on their page, you shouldn't without good cause...you are welcome to talk on my page...only one user is not at this time allowed on my page and you aren't it). I also make it a pseudo policy not to delete anything on my talk page. It shows transparency and people can understand my perspective easier than if I cut things that I didn't like. This includes my block (see below for more). | |||
| ::::I understand your hostile feelings and feel that you certainly have some reasons to be upset. Your actions (in general) were fine, it's your response that wasn't. Online, we all can get more hostile than we would in real life (then again, ]...] how ] ]. Heck I work in a place where our job is to find people and kill them...no seriously, read my user page). There is a bit of anonymity to the online realm that doesn't exist anywhere else. It can allow us to be more pensive and cautious, or we can quickly type something and click ''send'', only later regretting that action, but with no way to take it back. Please understand, Misplaced Pages is not a simple forum and we save just about everything. There is no way to take back what you said. This allows a modicum of finality and makes people generally more cautious. We also have standards of behavior and rules that must be followed or administrators can block their access. If you follow those rules, taking issues higher in authority become easier. | |||
| ::::Personally, I have had a single incident (okay it lasted 2 months) with an unnamed user and managed to get myself blocked for 11 hours for what I thought was a narrow interpretation of the rules. I then learned more of the rules and got my "nemesis" blocked on 4 other occassions...he eventually left as a contributor, but still lurks around on his talk page. My point is that people here will wear you down to civility or get you so frustrated that you simply blow up and get yourself banned. | |||
| ::::I think CCs actions are simply overzealousness...a zeal that many people need here on wikipedia...but an intensity that is simply off focus. We simply disagree as to the best way to do things. As long as we can both accept the final product there is no reason to get upset. I would like for you to be able to join that group of people who can have a reasoned discussion even under the most heated of situations and it can certainly start right now (officially, Misplaced Pages doesn't hold grudges if people change their behavior when told it is out of line). | |||
| ::::In short, even under the most trying of circumstances, as a Wikipedian you should ] and remain ] even under the most trying of times. As a matter of fact, that is the ''best'' time to show restraint, in my humble opinion, even in real life. If you can say "That is an interesting point of view. Why do you believe XYZ?" when the other guy is screaming "FUCK YOU YOU MISERABLE BASTARD!!! I HOPE YOU FUCKING CHOKE ON A...", then you appear to be the calm one and people are liable to come to your aid and not the screaming psycho, even if you are wrong, because they realize the other guy is so far off his rocker that a reasonable solution isn't possible with him. They will want to get rid of him and keep you because you are not a threat; he is. This is doubly true on Misplaced Pages. Users who can restrain themselves emotionally will get much more accomplished and if a heated debate comes up, they might be wrong, but their actions aren't going to put themselves in a situation where they will get blocked/banned from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::In conclusion for the rambling diatribe, just be honest, sincere, and calm. Your defense doesn't need to be immediate. Think about it for a minute/hour/day before posting. We'll be here and we'll fix it. Your Hollywood perspective may also lend itself to some related discussions. I request that you reconsider leaving and stick around. You certainly don't have to do a lot, but we could use someone with your perspective. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--split for clarity--> | |||
| :Well, I believe that taking a very strong line against original research and requiring numerous references improves the reliability of the information in most articles. It is not meant to be an insult against the article's subject or its editors. If you have any doubts, look at the history for the article concering ]. You'll see the same pattern of significant tagging and removal of OR so that the information in that article withstands checks for original research and synthesis and perhaps one day be promoted to GA or FA status. | |||
| :Also it bears mentioning that I don't think the win record for A&M at Kyle Field should be eliminated entirely from Misplaced Pages, it just needs a proper context and perhaps a better article to appear in (something more related to A&M football and/or athletics). Anyway, let me know what you think and maybe we can work something out for this article. Thanks, ] (]) 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No insult taken; merely disagreement. I can hardly think of something more related to A&M football (other than the team) than ]. I guess we'll see what happens there. 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I would oppose any unblock for L.L.King since that user has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the rules and policies and has used numerous sockpuppets to circumvent existing blocks. With the COI problem, the user has their role in promoting their clients so any edits made by those accounts to the articles for those actors and organizations clearly demonstrates a significant violation of NPOV. I don't think anyone has any doubt that those accounts would have only been used for the purpose of promoting their clients on Misplaced Pages and it is for this reason that I would vehemently oppose any unblock request. ] (]) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--split for clarity--> | |||
| I would ask that you both visit my talk page. ] has made a gracious proposal and explanation and I have made a counterproposal with explanation. Before moving my thoughts to the AfD page (where as the man with the least NPOV of all I would likely get laughed at (chuckle)), I would like input from you both... you Mr. Clouds because the tag of non-notability was yours (and understandable considering the circumstances)... and you Mister BQZip01 because you an impartial judge with a fresher and clearer perspective on this matter. (love that page split thingie!) ] (]) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Revision to Cessna T-37== | |||
| HI - I made an editorial cleanup to Tweety Bird on 12 January, and I see you cleaned up my cleanup. Your changes are GOOD. Thanks for the help. ] (]) 13:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==USS Illinois BB-65== | |||
| I'm sorry to ask this of you, but would you permit me a few days away from the FAC? I am having a hard time typing at the moment, and would like to adress your concerns when I am at 100%. In the interm both MBK004 and Kirill Lokshin have agree to keep tabs on the article should you ammend your opposition list. ] (]) 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I still don't know enough.... == | |||
| Please refer to the talk page about the article about me. More information is being deleted in ] continued ] effort to ensure my being non-notable.. following up on his promise to keep chopping the article apart. He knows that if I were to attempt any revert, it would be ammunition for him to claim COI. I am learning more each time I log in... but I an still too much of a newbie. Even the picture of me that was there was deleted though it was properly uploaded and cited. Do I have any recourse to being picked apart this way? Thanks. ] (]) 08:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == In Regards to vandal ColourWolf == | |||
| Please read my comments in the SSP entry for ColourWolf. ] (]) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Legal== | |||
| It is a tough one. My general interpretation of the "no legal threats" policy is that person A is not supposed to make legal threats against person B or against the Foundation. The logic goes that if they are threatening to take legal action, then A should stop editing until A's legal action has run its course. If the legal action has run its course (including simply by A saying that a legal remedy is no longer being pursued) then A can edit again. | |||
| What we have here is slightly different. A is urging the foundation to take legal action. A is not saying A will take action so I don't think that qualifies as a threat. | |||
| If we classified this as a threat, then arguably we would have to make the same classification for any person who urges the foundation to pursue a course of action that is even vaguely connected with the law. Examples could include cracking down on people who are stealing our content and not using it under terms consistent with the GFDL. | |||
| Therefore, my read at this time is that I don't view this as a threat. Best, ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank You == | |||
| ] | |||
| Note that this does not mean your suggestions for improvement will not be implemented, nor should this be construed as such; however you were the only member of the opposition who endovoured to meet me half way on the FAC, and for I thank you. This is merely a token of my apreciation. ] (]) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for the Barnstar == | |||
| Well, I would admit, it was a little frustrating at first, but you actually made me present my case, which was much better. Thanks for playing the Devils' Advocate! Also, thanks for the barnstar! ] (]) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)== | |||
| ]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> ] (]) 08:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Aggie Bonfire leadership== | |||
| ] | |||
| A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add <code>{{tl|db-author}}</code> to the top of ]. <!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD nomination of Aggie Bonfire leadership== | |||
| I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.<!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==American Flag Question== | |||
| "''I have a general query to which I couldn't find an answer... Is it permissible to fly a foreign flag on US soil without a supplemental (or dominant) US flag? What about only the state flag without a US flag?''" ] (]) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It is "permissible" under the US Constitution as free speech, unless done by a foreign entity as a symbol of possession (Technically that would be an act if war). This has happened at the Olympics, UN meetings, summits, etc. As for the state flag, the any state can fly just the state flag over government offices if they wish, but most don't. Individuals can fly them without under the US Constitution. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your quick reply! ] (]) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Canvassing== | |||
| I spotted your comment on canvassing in you newest rfa. It isn't much, but its a start. ] (]) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:BQZip01 RfA == | |||
| #You did state that you would continue to help at WP:FAC with your admin tools. | |||
| #There is no ''real'' time policy, but most people prefer that you wait about three months until you re-apply for adminship. See Oppose '''Number 8'''. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">]</font> <font size="2">]</font></span> 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::For your last question, I am stationed in Canada currently, and it was a joke, only a joke, and just a joke, so help me god. In Canada I work at a fighter base, flying the ]s. I am stationed at ]. (See the '''''seventh''''' major point ].) I am also just on loan here to help teach new fighter pilots that have relatively no experience, and I am currently working as a ]. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">]</font> <font size="2">]</font></span> 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Rollback Request == | |||
| Sorry for not getting back to you in a timely manner. Upon reviewing your contributions, I have decided to grant your request under the following condition: Only use rollback to revert vandalism. If it is a revert that requires an explanation in the edit summary, please continue to use Twinkle or the Undo feature, because rollback only provides an automatic edit summary. To help you learn about the tool here are two places you should take a look at before using the tool for the first time. | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| :If at any time you decide you do not want rollback anymore, ask any admin and they can remove it. -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Phoebe-SM == | |||
| Hi. I updated the evidence as per your comments on ]. Would you be able to take a look at it for me? Thanks. ~~ ]]<sup>]]</sup> 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Is it just me, or do all the administrators seem to be tied up doing other things, since I don't think any of the requests on the sockpuppet page have been dealt with. ~~ ]]<sup>]]</sup> 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin coaching == | |||
| Sure, if it's alright with you. I'll take a look at your RfA and such, and we'll see where to go from here. Best, ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion == | |||
| Hi BQZip, I'm not going to post anymore at your , I will offer some friendly advice which you can certainly choose to ignore. | |||
| Perhaps a more productive strategy for you to pursue would be to use the RFA page to announce your intention to withdraw your candidacy <u>with</u> a summary of ''all'' the reasons you think you are being opposed, your plan to address ''all'' the opposition with concrete actions, and an invitation for comments on the RFA's Talk page as to whether you are on the right track. This might be better than continuing to argue the points and would probably gain much more respect from the wider community by showing your ability to learn from your experience. | |||
| Lawyering around on the fine points of what's written and what's not is not looking like a good way to proceed. I'm not going to involve myself further and I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm only giving my impressions, not divining your intentions, but on this particular planet, unfortunately, impressions are more more important than intentions. Maybe there is a better way to proceed, if there is I hope you can find it. | |||
| I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm just looking for a better way. Good luck in the future and take care! :) ] (]) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == User space == | |||
| allows you to see all of your user pages. For future reference you might consider deleting some of them prior to an RFA. Specifically, ] might be considered a copyvio since it looks like it might be a book quote. User space has the same copyright rules and fair use items like images are also excluded from use on user pages as well. Thought I'd give you a heads up. --] (]) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Venues for dispute resolution == | |||
| In my role as an admin, and in order to remain as neutral as possible, I try to avoid becoming involved in dispute resolution of the type you outlined on my talk page. You may or may not have a valid complaint or issue; might I recommend that you attempt to seek the uninvolved, third-party opinions you desire at ] which discribes several ways to find uninvolved editors, including ] and ], both of which may be appropriate at this point. You may also want to attempt ] as well, depending on the depth of the problem. If the person you are in conflict with acts against the opinions of these uninolved editors, sanctions can be started, but please try to work this out first as I outlined above. Good luck! --].].] 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There are several outlets mentioned at ]. If RFC is not working, try something else. If he is being incivil explicitly, try ]. Otherwise, and I know this sucks, before more drastic measures need be taken, its just going to have to be waited out. If you have a list of diffs that show explicit attempts to disrupt Misplaced Pages (more diffs is more better) you could file an incident report at ], but not knowing the specifics of the situation, I do not explicitly recommend that, but only mention it as an option if you think admin action may be needed at this time. And I do type very fast. My responses are all well thought out, and not canned, but I'm a 45 RPM guy running in a 33 RPM world... If you catch my drift... --].].] 05:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == To do == | |||
| Hello. I've been looking over your RfA, and have seen several specific areas that you need work in. The canvassing issue can't be helped, it already happened, and you shouldn't do it again. There's not much more we can do there. The second thing I saw was civility issues. You do need to work on being more civil, I completely agree with those who mentioned that as a concern. The third major thing was lack of experience in admin-related areas. The first thing I'd like you to do is to begin regularly participating in AFDs, backing your comments with policy; try not to put "Support per nom". I'll look at your AFD contributions and offer feedback, we'll see where things go from there. Best, ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Good Luck.... == | |||
| I feel your frustration. You are showing far more restraint than I might have (or did) in a similar set of editorial disagreements. Good luck in the RfA, as your temperance and calming demeanor would do much to improve everything Wiki has to offer. If you are ever in SoCal, the beers on on me. ] (]) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| You cannot use the term "Band Queer" on this page, since it is being employed solely as a deregatory term. Please stop readding this text to the article. ] (]) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see the talk page of ]. Your charge is baseless and, IMHO, your edits are quickly becoming harassing and counterproductive to the goals of Misplaced Pages. Reverting something I typed after I post on every page is '''extremely ]'''<!--apparently you don't like something, but this is becoming collectively hostile--> | |||
| ==Sockpuppetry Accusation by John Carter== | |||
| I've logged back in to ask a quick question while I am still on-line.<br /> | |||
| As I have stated, this is a bad time for me so I need to know:<br /> | |||
| ''What is the time limit on my response to the accusation by John Carter?''<br /> | |||
| PS. I think this affair is BRAVOOSCARGOLFUNIFORMSIERRA.<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 17:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==TAMU Glossary== | |||
| The ] is up for deletion. I have put a lot of time in the article, so i am very for keeping it. put please post your opinions on the issue. ] ] (]) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:51, 1 January 2025
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages. Due to persistent harassment from an indef blocked user, my main talk page is semi-protected. If you are unable to post here, you may contact me on a page I've created exclusively for IP users and Newly Registered Users You may also contact me via e-mail, by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link to the left. I used to be known under a different user name, however, I was outed by a colleague. Due to concerns about my personal security I request that any users "in the know" refrain from using my previous name in discussions. Thank you In my time at WP, I have never asked for people to stay off my talk page until yesterday. It was always my intent to allow for free and open communications for 14+ years now, but the number of people actively taunting/harassing me/intentionally causing angst has reached a point that I do not feel I can continue this policy (this literally includes accusations of murder). It has become increasingly clear that some people are incapable of being WP:CIVIL and Admins are unwilling to enforce civility requirements on WP (beyond just unwilling to even issue warnings, actively deleting warnings and defending incivility). While I still believe in allowing general communication, I see no viable alternative to stop this behavior. This is a very disappointing decision for me, but I will control what I can, even if it is limited to just my talk page.Reasons for such choices generally involve WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK.
Seeing as how I'm not allowed to keep a list of those I've asked not to and why, I have no choice but to keep this list offline. If you are asked not to comment on my page and you "forget", please know I tried to keep a list so you'd know and be able to check...I will be asking for blocks if it is violated. This is the only warning I intend to make; WP:ANI will be my next step. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Final Words
I've been a Wikipedian for 10+ years, but the leftist tilt/bias and open hostility to any dissent (with backing of multiple admins who openly profess anti-capitalist/socialist/communist leanings) has me reconsidering my contributions of any kind. The fact that others are probably cheering right now should give you a massive pause and force you to re-look at this situation, but I doubt it will.
Misplaced Pages has become a leftist cesspool categorized by groupthink and punishing any dissent, basically as corrupt as academia or mainstream press (where extreme leftists are highly dominant...in the US, 96% of journalists vote Democrat and 90% of Academia does as well). People have sneakily redefined "reliable sources" in terms that effectively exclude any conservative sources...and that's not just my opinion; check the link! Differences of opinion are viewed as opposition to "reliable sources" and, therefore, evidence of malfeasance/being an unreliable source. Claim NPOV all you want, but it isn't when you declare all media that doesn't toe the leftist party line as "unreliable". No, I'm not talking about InfoWars or any other right wing extremist garbage, I'm talking about anything that's right of left of center.
And the media is TALKING ABOUT IT!: . Note that 2 of the admins who blocked me are featured in this national publication.
It sure is easy to be "correct" when no opposition is allowed. All you are going to get is what agrees with you.
Furthermore, those on the right are actively and aggressively punished while rampant incivility from the left is given a pass. I've been cussed out, insulted, shamed, and a host of uncivil behavior with no warnings whatsoever. I have been blocked by an admin who is an avowed leftist/Marxist/Communist for "following someone" (when, in fact, I was continuing to do what I'd announced I was doing 3 days prior). Not even a warning was given to her. been banned for completely made up reasons with no clarification given despite repeated requests and it had to be taken to ArbCom to get resolved. I was even blocked for undoing clear vandalism, an exception in our policies...but that's no matter if you don't mind ignoring the rules you've said you'll uphold (look at my block log for all the evidence you need).
The remaining part of Misplaced Pages seeks to tear down the work of others by pointing out flaws rather than take time to improve an article. Wikipedians are celebrated for taking pride in tearing down others rather than building anything productive.
While Misplaced Pages is theoretically worried about their losses, Wikipedians aren't worried about how they are actively driving out contributors. They are reveling in it. If the WMF is genuinely interested in solving the problem, they need to look at their current users/their political leanings as the source of the problems. When approached by John Stossel, a journalist and donor to Misplaced Pages, they just stopped responding.
IMNSHO, Misplaced Pages has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of WP:RS into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR/FARC is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power...the process should be labeled "FARCE".
Way to go. You just lost a Top 5000 contributor with over 25,000 edits and five featured articles...three were the article of the day; everything I did was a manual edit...think about it.
| further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
NominationBuffs, I saw the FAC for A&M three days ago, and I just want to tell you that it isn't all bad. Sure, the reviewers appeared less than constructive when it came to the nom, but consensus is consensus and there's no viable way to get around that. It sucks, I know, but don't let it go to your head. The article deserves to be a FA but there is no point dissenting with the coordinators. If I were you, I'd try to get it approved for GA class or A class at least to show off your achievements. I am 100% sure that the article will pass through those noms with flying colors. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Here I came to tell you how pleased I am to see Texas A&M University on the Main page, and now this. Best wishes for what you do, but I for sure would prefer being with us. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Final Words
Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Best of luck for youI hope you continue editing. Not all hope is lost! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
|
Proposed deletion of File:San diego state.gif
The file File:San diego state.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, redundant to File:San Diego State athletics logo, 1997-2001.gif.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Min☠︎rax 12:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
