User talk:Grazon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] most of my older work can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=132.241.245.49

[edit] Awesome!

Welcome!

Hello, Grazon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --HappyCamper 23:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, thought you'd like a welcome message. Thanks for creating a user name! If you ever need anything, I'll be sure to help you out. ;-) --HappyCamper 23:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's good to see you've now "joined the ranks" and have a user name. Welcome!(as Grazon) - even though you've been a contributor for quite a while already.  :) -- LiniShu 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. -- Spinboy 06:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hammer-fest

Hi. I've deleted your article because it's a copyright violation. We cannot repost newspaper articles, it would be illegal. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. -Willmcw 09:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Entries in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people need to have the orientation of their subjects discussed in the biographies. Please add the info there first, then we can add them to the list. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the main reasons for the criteria above is that it puts the burden of evaluating such a claim onto the editors of the biography, who know the subject best, rather than onto the editors of the list, who may know nothing about the subject. The editors of Rove's and Mehlman's biographies can evaluate the additions, investigate the sources, and discuss the matter with other interested editors. Thanks for working within the established consensus on this matter. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Rove

Get a source before adding something like that to controversial article. All the best. - RoyBoy 800 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Grazon,

Not so very long ago we met on the Erik Satie talk page - just popped in to see how you're doing. Maybe also because feeling a bit guilty of giving you a rather lighthearted advise on edits to LGBT topics. Can be a bit cumbersome, although fundamentally I believe it shouldn't be. But here's a tip that might help you: there's this WikiProject: Wikipedia:LGBT notice board, with over 40 members (several of which I know as very fine editors) - that page can surely provide some inspiration if you're looking for how to approach things. --Francis Schonken 07:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re Camel toad

Greetings. The article seemed to be a simple link to a photo somewhere, so I deleted it. Then I saw it was created by a registered user. If it was in the process of being expanded, please accept my apology and carry on. --Fire Star 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. presidential election, 1980

Hi there:

Could you please provide a cite for the grafs you added to the general election campaign section in U.S. presidential election, 1980?

Thanks,

— DLJessup (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan

Your edit to this site consisted of nothing more than an external link to a site advertising an upcoming showing of a klan film. As there is no context for your link within the encyclopedia article, I have reverted it. See: http://www.wnem.com/Global/story.asp?S=3980511

[edit] Talk:Anti-Freemasonry

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. -- Spinboy 19:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

If you vandalize another page I'll block you from editing Wikipedia myself. This edit [1] is unacceptable. Rhobite 00:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk (magazine)

The problem I have with the quote is it is from a magazine article Carlson had the excerpts from the Karla Faye Tucker execution issue in. The magazine is defunct, (if you click on the header link, you'll see) and we cannot provide an adequate link to the original quote. Carlson has never reproduced it in another magazine or for another publishment to my knowledge. If you can find the original source and adequately reference it or link it over the web, then fine, but in the past, no one has been able to do that...thanks for asking.--MONGO 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours owing to your 3 revert-rule violation on George W. Bush. When you return to editing, please stop revert-warring. -Splashtalk 04:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your vandalism of Laura Bush --Carnildo 06:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Jones Jr

I removed the KKK accusation from the Bob Jones Jr article because, while it may be true, the paragraph lacked context and did not present a neutral point of view. Please reread the NPOV policy - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for untempered criticism (or praise), and it is inappropriate to add provocative content such as that when it will form a large part of the article, unless it is an extremely significant event. You have a long history of apparently biased edits, which are generally removed by others; this seems like a big waste of time for you and them. It might be a good idea to avoid posting about political subjects and turn to helping with some other section of the encyclopedia . -DDerby-(talk) 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be hard to fit the info into a neutral point of view until there is a substantial article on Bob Jones Jr. Allowing the KKK to post flyers was done quite a bit before the civil rights era - in fact, you may know that a current US Senator was many times more involved with the KKK than BJ Jr.
The article section on Byrd's KKK involvement is a good example of writing from a neutral point of view. The information is incorporated with the rest of his biography, his repudiation of his involvement is noted, mitigating factors were cited, and the reader has enough information to make up his own mind. In your case, you told the reader that BJ Jr helped the KKK, without either mitigating information or reasons why there would be no mitigating information. Helpful information would be: how certain people have criticized him for allowing the KKK to flyer, how he or his defenders have responded, further actions that could be seen as racist or as conciliatory toward African-Americans. Context is important, particularly because his offense could be seen as an ordinary action for a pre-1970s southerner. Not that that makes it excusable, but you need to find people who claim it's inexcusable, or else the event isn't noteworthy.
Some things I've found helpful in maintaining an NPOV are (from the WP:NPOV policy page):
  • Always be factual. In this case, you were strictly factual; some editors opine on how evil a person is due to such-and-such a fact. However, being factual isn't enough - the material needs to be relevant to the article. This is the problem your edit had - it really wasn't relevant to the article without context. As I noted, it might not be relevant even with some context, but you're the researcher here, you might have information that indicates otherwise.
  • Write for the enemy - when writing anything controversial, try to see it from the perspective of those who would disagree with you.
  • Don't make disputes - describe them. While I don't know your intentions, your addition of the BJ Jr information could be seen as arguing that he is racist, rather than noting an argument.
--DDerby-(talk) 04:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike DeWine

It's great that you're interested in politics but please don't add obviously POV statements to articles. Soltak | Talk 13:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther King Jr.

Hello: I don't understand your changing the category from "Socialist" to a non-existent category "Democratic Socialist." Can you explain?—Gaff ταλκ 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Interesting...thanks.—Gaff ταλκ 01:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commodore Perry Owens

Please don't remove speedy deletion notices unless an article very clearly doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. The article Commodore Perry Owens, because it has no information other than a URL, meets the criteria and will likely be deleted. However, you can avoid impending deletion or recreate the article in a way that it will be retained by adding to it; see How to write a great article. -DDerby-(talk) 19:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Stevens quotes

I didn't mean to give the impression that all you added to Ted Stevens was a bunch of quotes. But a transcript is no better than quotes. Wikipedia isn't meant to contain the important things a person says (otherwise the article would be way too long) - it's meant to summarize their positions and people's response to them. I won't revert it again today because I follow the 1 revert rule, but I don't think it's a good addition to the article. --DDerby-(talk) 21:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Scott Dyleski

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Talk:Scott Dyleski, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Nlu 05:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon Eagle Scouts

Hi Grazon - Could you slip over to Talk:List of Eagle Scouts and say something about why Mormon scouts should be identified as Mormon in a list of scouts, please? It sounds like there's apparently something about being a Mormon Eagle Scout that's a lot different from being a scout of other beliefs or something. Your explanation may help to cut down on the ongoing revert war. Thanks! --Amoore 16:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Allen

I don't think Wesley's position on slavery should be included in the article Richard Allen (reverend) (see my argument in the talk page).--DDerby-(talk) 08:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Various things

  • Please use edit summaries detailing the nature of your article edits.
  • What does this [2] have to do with the article? The article is about the song, not about funny German names.
  • Thanks for re-adding and citing the Sally Hemings information.
  • Please provide a reason for reverting reverts - preferably in the talk page. I've been lazy recently and have been arguing in edit summaries instead of the talk page; I'll try to be more concientious in the future.

You're apparently a good researcher, and can be a good editor when you're careful to be relevant. But please try to make sure it is clear how the information you add information is relevant, include the info in the appropriate part of the article, and write carefully. --DDerby-(talk) 09:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

me too :)--DDerby-(talk) 09:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a good example of an addition out of context: you don't say who is saying it is purely religious, nor what is meant by the term "purely religious". In fact, the assertion wasn't that it was purely religious, but that it was religious.
Adding material from your own point of view, instead of a neutral point of view, is still a big problem and resulting in bad edits. You are adding material to attack various conservative figures, which seesm to be to be calculated to make them look bad. I could mention American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America, but here's a more minor, subtle example. This doesn't explain what the Slate writer meant by "toxic". It needs an explanation and without it looks a lot like an attack. The mention of the $9mil request is certainly worthy of inclusion, but you should give more details such as the name of President Bongo. Please, please be very careful about editing from your point of view; I would even suggest again that you refrain from making edits about politics as you tend to make a lot of POV edits there. --DDerby-(talk) 07:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest a reading list to reduce actual or perceived POV additions?

Try to avoid these words:

Thanks --DDerby-(talk) 07:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing...no link spamming, please. You can't promote most websites here. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 01:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it: Adding your POV to existing articles in the form of misleading information will get you blocked, possibly banned. - Lucky 6.9 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please. Avoid the POV angles and keep the edit summaries civil. That's the reason I've reverted some your edits. I'm so conservative I make Ronald Reagan look like Che Guevara, but I would never dream of pushing my political viewpoint on liberal-biased articles. That's part of what makes the site work. OK? You're entitled to your opinion and I'll defend it to the death, but that's in the real world, not here. Thanks again. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! My best friend is an arch-liberal. We have never had a fight in nearly thirty years. We have, however, cracked each other up with our viewpoints. He gave me eight years of grief under Clinton after I gave him eight years of grief under Reagan.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Good question regarding Bush I. Things were kind of quiet under him. Lots of stuff happening under both Clinton and Reagan. Funny thing, we don't really talk about the current administration much. Might have to go and push a few of his buttons and see wwhat develops. - Lucky 6.9 19:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your RFC

I've opened up a Request for comment on you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grazon in order to get outside opinions on your edits.

You may respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grazon (discussion goes at the talk page). For details on the RFC process, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. --DDerby-(talk) 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your comments to Kwh and would like to heartily endorse his reply. The Request for Comment process is meant to make you a better editor. I don't believe all of your edits are bad - you can be a good editor when you're careful and when you minimize your POV. So if you have a problem with the evidence on the RFC, could you respond on the discussion page?
Note that the RFC process can't make you do anything. However, not responding to it, or ignoring its advice, may be grounds for an arbitration committee review, which could result in binding action such bans from editing certain articles. If you'd like to resolve other editors' problems with your edits, but don't like the RFC process, you might see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for alternatives such as mediation. --DDerby-(talk) 20:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly chaos

Just a note about your recent contributions to the Bill O'Reilly article - we're having a problem over there where everything boneheaded the guy says is getting added to the article, making it unreasonably long and filled with non-encyclopedic information.

You're welcome to join us on the article's talk page, where remedies are being debated, but in the meantime just try and make sure whatever you're adding to the article would really be relevent to a succint overview of the man's career. Plastic Editor

[edit] California Militia

did you intend California Militia to be a redirect? if so, the correct way to make it is #redirect[[United States National Guard]]--DDerby-(talk) 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kintetsubuffalo/Chris

Please read and follow the policy against personal attacks. --DDerby-(talk) 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] link and quote additions

Links and quotes, by themselves, don't make good article sections.--DDerby-(talk) 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rudely placed Gigli link on my talk page

Put the link into the article to cite your claim, don't put it on my talk page. Dannybu2001 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked?

I don't see any sign that you were blocked by anyone. special:List of blocked IP addresses and usernames and special:Block log. Can you log in and edit your own talk page? Conventional blocks should allow you to do both. Perhaps there's a problem with your cookies? -Willmcw 06:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian cavalry

Hi Grazon. No problem about the sig. Regarding the links in the Indian cavalry article, the link to lewrockwell.com was already there, but it was a bare http://... type of link. All I did was convert it to a [http://... Title] link, and I just used the actual title of the page on that site to give people a better idea of what they'd get if they followed the link. But it's a good point that the title itself may not be NPOV, and I'll go back and take another look and think about what to call it. --DavidConrad 04:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly

Do you really think Wikipedia needs a mention of everything O'Reilly has said that wasn't true? --DDerby-(talk) 07:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

that would be fine if this were a discussion forum, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please stop trying to use it like one. --DDerby-(talk) 07:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merging and deletion

In a discussion on articles for deletion, a result of "no consensus" doesn't mean the article should stay as it is, only that it shouldn't be deleted. Articles can be made into redirects without a vote. Of course, if there's obviously opposition to the move, it should be discussed, but the discussion in this case supported a merge. In fact, I'm suprised that that the editor didn't call it a "merge" result here.

I personally think it's efficient to combine small articles, such as those on the animals of Skull Island, into one article. No information is lost, it's just put somewhere where it is in context, and with redirects, searchers can find the it easily. --DDerby-(talk) 09:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Cavuto

Like the poster mentioned about your edits to the O'Reilly article, you don't need to mention everything Cavuto has said especially if it is without context in the article. The goal is to create a biographical article on him, not a database of his occasional punditry. --Zookman12 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hume and Abramoff

Hello. Please see my comments regarding your edits of Brit Hume at Talk:Brit Hume. Thank you. Collingsworth 19:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NESA

NESA administers the DESA and no, I do not think it's a politically motivated award. The criteria calls for exceptional achievement in one's career AND community involvement and the DESA recipients meet that (these guys are politicians, astronauts, business executives, military heros, scientists, etc for the most part). Over the past weekend I did make a List of Distinguished Eagle Scouts and a category for them. However, I also feel it is quite convenient for the DESA tag to be on the List of Eagle Scouts page so that people don't have to switch to the other page (it only takes four letters to put it there). Whether or not you agree with a certain person being a DESA recipient is not in my control. If you would like to nominate someone, it's not that hard to do--I did that once and the nomination was approved for the person; not all nominations are approved. See the NESA website at [3] at look in the DESA section. If you still want the DESA tag removed from the Eagle list, I'd suggest you start a thread on the article's page to get a consensus so another edit war isn't started--there's already been too much of that over who is or isn't on the list, but I think that may be settled by the recent comments on the talk page. Rlevse 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You've violated the WP:3RR on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/F-J. Please do not keep reverting. The list has a clear criteria. Please add a specific description of Paris Hilton as a bisexual to that biography before adding her name to the list. -Will Beback 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this falls under WP:3RR but it IS edit warring which is very much a bad thing. This can lead to blocks and article protection, all of which are very bad. Furthermore remember you need to WP:CITE as we do not accepte original research, this is a strict policy in article writing.--Tznkai

[edit] nixon footage

http://www.roadode.com/

[edit] Nixon era

the 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, they conclude that there is no relationship between exposure to erotic material and subsequent behavior.

[edit] better

http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/porn.shtml

[edit] Your POV

Please stop your constant POV attacks on the List of famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual people. You have consistently been warned of this. If you procede, I'll see to it that you are temporarily barred from posting there. If you are unable to post without inflicting your own agenda, then please stop posting altogether. ExRat 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veterans for a Secure America

Are there news links to their State of the Union address response? I am curious, since the article needs expansion. --Habap 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated template substitution

[edit]  ?

You sent me a message.

I don't understand it.

grazon 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was using WP:AWB to substitute templates, and that message was generated to let you know that I substituted templates on your page. --Rory096 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:My block

If an editor makes a legal threat against another, or posts nothing but useless insults such as the one you mentioned, then I have no problem blocking them permanently. Thanks for the approval.--MONGO 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor edit

The Medal of Honor is the highest award by the U.S. Military to a living or posthumous recipient. I have never heard of this "Gold Star" that you speak of, nor can I find a reference to it on wikipedia. I have reverted your edit. --rogerd 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baden-Powell: Founder of the Boy Scouts (book)

I have reverted the changes you made to this page, as they deleted the material and this material was put here after a lot of debate on the talk page of the B-P page and, if I recall correctly, on the WikiProject Scouting pages. If you want this to to be deleted and be replaced by a redirect, I really do think that you you need to convince people who reached a different consensus. It is not intending to replace "Amazon.com" but to deal with some controversal views about B-P in a NPOV away outside the main article on his life. Regards, --Bduke 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satar Jabar

I placed a disputed tag on Satar Jabar, because I'm not sure that the prisoner in the photo is actually Satar Jabar. You can check out the talk page for my reasoning. --Descendall 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Iraq war Veterans

A question has been raised at Category talk:Anti-Iraq war Veterans about this partof the category criteria.

  • This list may also include immediate family members of individuals who died while in the armed forces, or who were killed by terrorists on 9/11.

I agree with another editor that it is an inappropriate extension of a clear category. If I don't hear an objection I'll go ahead and remove it. -Will Beback 02:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like your opinion + is it worth writing about on wikipedia?

I'm not sure what to think about this. What do you think?

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=148145&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

grazon 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely a worthwhile step. I don't know that it's worth writing about in the article, though. Maybe if it becomes a trend, but banning five members from the forum isn't all that big of an event. Rogue 9 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melungeon

User:S9arthur has been controlling the Melungeon article forever now; perhaps you should see that editor's talk page. S/he believes that s/he is endowed with all the knowledge in the world and others have none. Know-it-alls spoil the community purpose of Wikipedia, where we are all supposed to contribute and not own. IP Address 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

I'm not sure if you were ever gone, but it's nice to see this username appearing again. As before, please do not get stressed out over edits, or push a POV. We're all just here to verifiably summarize reliable source using the neutral point of view. As long as we try to stick to that we're doing good. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible.Xemoi 21:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Virgins

You reinstated highly controversial and UNCITED disputed info from List of Virgins and gave only "work in progress" as your edit summary. What exactly does this mean? How long are other editors to wait for you to provide cited sources for these entries you have insisted be returned to the article NOW? Why can't you wait until you have your facts straight and sources at hand before you reinstate them? wikipediatrix 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Viguerie

I formatted article in accordance with generally accepted biography wiki pages, compleate with date of birth, table of contents, and requiring references for quotes and statements. Please feel free to update information in this format. If you feel page should be reverted to older version, please say why on talk page of that article Hackajar 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Anti-Iraq war Veterans

Do you have some reason for preferring "Veterans against the Iraq War" to "Anti-Iraq War veterans"? I don't have a preference, I just want to get some change through, because the capitalization in the present name is gratingly incorrect. If you could either restore the speedy-renaming request template, or replace it with one for "Veterans against..." while also modifying the entry at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy, that would be good. Kalkin 22:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of AfD nomination pages

When creating the discussion page for an article's AfD, please use the {{afd2}} template to write the nomination. Don't write it in any other format, as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzanita Village. Possibly because of the lack of a section edit link, it attracted only 2 comments, and forces me to relist it.

As a reminder, the afd2 template code is written as follows:

{{ subst:afd2 | pg = Page name | text = Deletion nomination text. --~~~~ }}

(Replace the italic text as appropriate.) This is the only thing you need to write on the nomination page. Regards, Kimchi.sg 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD which might interest you

Grazon,
Please note that Patrick Murphy (politician) has been nominated for an AfD. I noticed that you started the article, so please add your voice to the discussion. --Asbl 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America

Portal:Current events/United States? – Chacor 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Platte Canyon High School siege

Hi, Grazon, you stated in your edit summary of your latest edit that "[the section]'s going to grow so we should give it room." I think that the section should not be included unless there is much more information about the person who took the hostages. There is already sufficient information regarding the man at the introduction of the article and in the sections following. May I ask what your motives are for including this section even though there is no particular reason for it? Thanks! ;) — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predatorgate

What the fuck? Could you get any more POV than that? Derex 01:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We had extensive discussions on the appropriate name. For you to roll in there without such much as a mention and move it is absurd. You also dislinked the talk page. If you think that's going to stand, you're out of your freaking mind. Derex 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)=whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he's calling foley a pred!
I have reported your action as a BLP violation. By the way, I'm hardly a conservative apologist. Derex 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow you're a conservative apologist and you've reported me to the teacher how cool of you.

Please stop. You need a consensus on the page before you move it. Furthermore, you messed up the move and thus didn't preserve the history with your move. If you continue you may be blocked. JoshuaZ 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. also, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ . Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prey for mishap

I checked and only found four news items with that term. Too soon, maybe it will still catch on. My favorite is "2006 congressional pederasty coverup". Haiduc 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'd just as see this whole thing take down every Republican in Congress. But, an article that has even a hint of spin is an article that will be completely ignored by everyone but those already convinced. Let the facts speak for themselves. Grazon, you're an idiot. I mean that with all my heart. Derex 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

sticks and stones Repug now why don't you be a dear and go back to playing with you Ann Coulter dolls? grazon 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's making my (future) user page highlights. I'll be thrilled to point at it next time someone accuses me of liberal bias. Derex 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"thrilled"? lol grazon 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Check it out. Derex 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I did and was amazed. But we can't write an article based on people's blogs. Haiduc 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Mark Foley scandal on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

Can you please fix your signature so that it points to your user page rather than nothing at all? Thanks Glen 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[4] made on October 6, 2006 to Foley

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your recent edits to Darrell Anderson

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Darrell Anderson. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

The article itself says he is an anti-war activist and this information is well cited from large respected media sources. Please do not remove information such as a category again when it is factually and verifiably correct. You are mistaken, but if you have any information available regarding him not being an anti-war activist please bring it to the attention on the discussion page of the article. There is a discussion topic about your edits on the article aswell.Qrc2006 03:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he is a consciencious objector or not. The issue at hand is whether nor not he is an Anti-Iraq War Activist the category is regarding Anti Iraq-War Activists and the criteria for inclusion is whether or not they are verifiably anti-Iraq war activists. Anderson is an Anti-Iraq War activist, it says so in the article and it says so in the media, he has said so himself, this is very well referanced in the article, and what you personally consider to be "lumped together" is irrelevant here. It matters whats being reported in newspapers, journals, and his (Anderon's) statements, not your truthy assumptions.

Furthermore i have noticed you have a history of violating the three revert rule, and being blocked for not cooperating, being disruptive and dismissive of precedant and consensus; please try and cooperate. If you have legitimate concerns and can find a credible souce that says he is not an anti-Iraq war activist please bring it to the attention of the Darell Anderson article discussion page. Thank you.

Qrc2006 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "pissing on an electric fence"

Your recent edit summary to Darrell Anderson states: "if the media said pissing on an electric fence felt good it doesn't mean it's true". However, frustrating as it sometimes seem, WP:V and WP:RS clearly state "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". wikipediatrix 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Darrell Anderson, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Your edits are unnacceptable, as is your language. "if the media said pissing on an electric fence felt good it doesn't mean it's true" [5]

If you continue to remove content you will be blocked, again.Qrc2006 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Roddenberry

Hi. I reverted back your deletion of the American Atheist category for the Gene Roddenberry article. Someone disagreed with the deletion, so I did a Google search and got over 15,000 hits with "+Roddenberry +atheist". He's on alot of atheist lists and he is even described as an atheist by the British Humanist Association. Some view him as having been an atheist, others as a humanist, and many as both. So, to be comprehensive, both the Humanist and Atheist categories should remain. Gaheris 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Glover

* A) Believe that the Iraq War was illegal and/or immoral from the beginning; or

  • B) Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it.[6]

i will block you if you violate the 3rr rule dude. he clearly fits the criteria for teh category. if hes against all wars, well then hes against this one two, quite vocally actually, and he fits the criteria for inclusion into that category, which is what matters here. please try and understand, and be helpful and constructive, or i will block you like you have been blocked in the past. your are removing content. your behavior looks to me as if its leading to a permanent block. Qrc2006 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to David Koresh

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to David Koresh, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Izaakb 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hilter's sexuality

You *are* aware that the ENTIRE text of what you reverted back from the redirect IS already listed VERBATIM in Adolf Hitler's medical health , yes?

If you really think that a pathetic note from some hardly verifiable person is enough to make an article over, I don't care, but please do not remove the link to the main article. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Warning

Adding POV material into an article is considered vandalism. You may not have been aware of the POV nature of the text, so I am asking you here to desist adding it in. Doing it from your IP isn't acceptable. ---J.S (t|c) 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Insertformulahere

[edit] Transcription of Remarks Added by Grazon after He Blanked This Page

My apologies for having removed your work but I can't seem to post anywhere else.
I ask that The sheer volume I have contributed by taken into account as well as the amount of wikistalking I have endured.
grazon 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(Transcribed by 12.72.70.78 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC).)

[edit] LAST WARNING!

This is your LAST WARNING! Your userpage is now all that you are allowed to edit. IF YOU BLANK IT, THEN YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FROM EVEN THAT. —12.72.70.78 23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


I note that you were warned against blanking your user talk page when you were editing (and blocked) as Devilmaycares. —12.72.70.78 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheer Volume

“ I ask that The sheer volume I have contributed by taken into account ”

Sheer volume is not a good metric for contribution. At least one editor has claimed that he has yet to find anything or merit in your edits as Devilmaycares, and their sheer volume is substantial. If you want to persuade the admins to restore you on the basis of off-setting contribution then perhaps you ought to assemble a list of links to diffs which have merit, and show that these are the preponderate majority of all your edits, across all of your aliases. Good luck. —12.72.70.78 01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange between J.S and 12.72.70.78

Calm down 12.72.70.78... It's over. ---J.S (t|c) 08:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Stop. You cannot discern my emotional state. I'm calm, and I'm giving him honest advice. It doesn't seem to me that he has much hope of recovery here, but if he has any then it would be exactly by doing as I suggest. —12.72.71.164 09:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I dunno... bold all caps sentences seemed to imply to me you were getting worked up. *shrug* sorry for my mistake. ---J.S (t|c) 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Bold, all-caps, and italics. But
  • in order to make it easier for him to notice the assertion later,
  • in order to make it harder for him to deny having seen it later, and
  • in order to make it stand out should this matter be reviewed by an admin later.
Grazon has, in the past, justified edits, been rebutted, and then weeks later justified them the same way without addressing the rebuttal. One explanatory model would have him reading the rebuttal about the time that it were made, but just malevolently pretending not to have seen it; another would instead have him not ever looking for the rebuttal. And, meantime, as you may infer from things that I've said elsewhere to you, I've had multiple experiences of admins not seeing all the puzzle pieces.
It is hard to believe that Grazon can assemble a list of diffs that will vindicate his restoration; but, unless someone has tried, we cannot know that it is truly impossible. And, if he tries and fails, perhaps he will be more effectively confronted with what he has done. He is pursuing a degree in history; he needs, then, to change his ethos, for the sake of everyone including himself. And perhaps reviewing his diffs will help him to see his ethos for what it has been. —12.72.72.158 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I never said I disagree with you... But when I saw the histroy of this article I saw a flurry of edits and caps-lock text. Often in the context of an online discussion ALL CAPS BOLD is usualy associated with yelling and anger. I guess I was wrong. ---J.S (t|c) 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, as to the flurry of edits, they were:
  • Unblank his user talk page.
  • Transcribe the content he made after he'd blanked his talk page.
  • Warn him against blanking his talk page.
  • Move tag out of his reach.
  • Note (In the warning section) that he had been similarly warned about a previous blanking.
  • Note just how similar the previous blanking had been.
  • Respond to his “sheer volume” plea, showing its inadequacy but pointing him in the direction of an alternative course.
I think that, in hindsight, you'll see that as a fair characterization of the flurry, and (whatever your position on bold capital letters) agree that it was reasonable to do each of these things in some manner. —12.72.72.118 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Foley Scandal

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Reordering at Grazon

Dear sir or madam

According to Wikipedia policies using of a sock puppets is discouraged. (See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.) Also, any user should modify only his user page (except when blocking a user indefinitely.) I recommend that you stop contributing through IPs and choose one account and report the others to be blocked. (See:Wikipedia:User page.). Thank you.

--Meno25 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/User_talk%7EGrazon_c919.html"