User talk:Liberal Classic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Liberal Classic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Prolog 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Liberal Classic 15:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Liberal Classic, Sorry for damaging your fave white boy page: Bruce Dickinson. But please don't edit my page anymore in retaliation. I promise to stop, bc I don't want to be banned. But I am still pretyy certain that he produced BOC or Steve Buscemi wouldn't have played him so convincingly on MadTV. signed, User_talk:70.231.230.131

It looks like to me you were removing warnings from your talk page. Liberal Classic 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I felt I was removing nasty ill intent from what I feel is a space where people go to find out about me. If someone wrote this on my house I would paint over it, wouldn't you? Meegs said he would ban me if I made a change again that I felt was true. So I won't make that change, bc I don't want to be banned. But to I have carry his scarlet letter? Signed, User_talk:70.231.230.131
The talk page is where people to go find out about you. That's one of the reasons warning messages appear there. From what I understand, user talk pages should be archived not blanked. However, you should consider creating an account instead of editing with an anon IP address. You removed a warning from your talk page with the edit summary saying "Bruce is gay". That's what attracted my attention to it. Liberal Classic 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] HELLO

After reading your bio I thought you would have found more humor in my edit to Michael Chertoff, [1] but I guess your just doing your job. (Unsigned by User:Totallyawesome)

Yep. Liberal Classic 04:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Liberal Classic, per your reasoned comments, I invite you to join this mediation should you be so inclined.Proabivouac 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thank you. Liberal Classic 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope you realize that VirtualEye's comments do not reflect the views of the community. It is clear that he wishes to violate Wikipedia policy; otherwise, why would he ask for a private Email address? I hope you can make your points heard on the mediation page. Thanks for your opposition of censorship on religious grounds, --Hojimachongtalkcon 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure they don't. Most of the commments have been reasonable, and this talk page does not seem as bad as some others I've read. I'm not sure exactly what to add to the mediation page. What I think I may do is cobble together the two or three posts I made from the article's talk page, and posting that under a new heading on the mediation page. Liberal Classic 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion. --Hojimachongtalkcon 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

: Have you done any contribution in Muhammad article. Have you added any reference or created any new section. Why people who have no contribution in Muhammad article feel it fair for them to impose a picture on us? Many of them do not know anything about Muhammad too and they cannot answer even basic questions about him. --- ALM 09:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC) : We will easily have a compromise if we remove people who have no contribution in the article or their only contribution is warring on picture. Will you support this or not (being a fair person I hope)? --- ALM 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Message received. Please consider me withdrawn from mediation. Liberal Classic 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
ALM, this bullying, like so many of your recent actions, is very inappropriate.Proabivouac 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me know how the results of the mediation turn out. If I am going to be accused to pushing my point of view and lacking in good faith, then I don't see why I should continue in the informal mediation process. Where is the mediator? Liberal Classic 05:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. He hasn't been very involved, certainly compared to the first one.
You seem pretty new to Wikipedia. I can assure you the atmosphere in most areas of Wikipedia is not so hostile as it is on Islam-related articles; please don't let it taint your view of the project as a whole. I'm sorry you had to deal with this.Proabivouac 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No apologies are needed. I'm still trying to learn the ins and outs of the culture here. Perhaps you can answer a couple of newbie questions. I looked at the mediation page, and it says "Please sign below if you plan to participate in this mediation." I took this to mean it was an open invitation to participate in informal mediation. That's what the Mediation Cabal is, right? It's an unofficial body, unlike the formal Mediation or Arbitration Committees. Interestingly, I just went to strike my name through from the list of participants, and I noticed ALM's name is already struck. If you look in Archive 6 after the participant list there are some comments. At the end of the comments block he announces that he is quitting the mediation. If he quit the mediation a few weeks ago, why is he still posting comments? If mediation is open and he is free to return at any time, why is he complaining about new people like me joining the discussion? Liberal Classic 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
ALM's proposal as outlined above was thoroughly struck down on the Talk:Muhammad page. You're perfectly welcome to participate in the mediation. --Hojimachongtalk 06:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not inclined to particpate in a mediation that lacks a mediator. Liberal Classic 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. If he does come back, however, your participation would definitely be appreciated. You are obviously at least somewhat knowledgeable (likely more) in regards to the subject, and are quite eloquent with your arguments. --Hojimachongtalk 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Please come back and participate. --- ALM 11:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autosodomy

You deleted an article under the WikiProject Sexuality. Please reinstate with reference to existing articles on unlikely practices including fisting, bestiality, and autofellatio DavidYork71 07:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I added a nonsense tag to your Autosodomy article. I do not do this out of an attempt to censor Wikipedia. Rather, I think the idea is rather nonsensical. Liberal Classic 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. How would a person autosodomize himself? Are you talking about dildos or something? Especially large penises that can curve around? --Strangerer 08:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I nominated a similar article earlier this evening that I believe was speedily deleted. I may need an admin to check the logs to see if this is so. I may be mistaken. In any case, the first version specifically mentioned anal penetration with one's own sexual organs. This would seem to exclude women. I am not a student of anatomy, but this would seem to be a highly unlikely method of sexual gratification. Within the realm of physical possibility, but I do not believe this constitutes a "minority sexual preference" or any such nonsense. Even if, within the great swath of humanity, there are a few people who do this, the practice is hardly notable enough to rate an encyclopedia entry. Furthermore, the author does not cite any sources, establish notability in any way, or offer anything credible. Is this orginal research? 08:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Gravitor

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk • contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look. I stumbled onto Gravitor's talk page from watching the recent changes page, and I was somewhat confused by his hostile behavior. I may not have time to comment for a couple of days, but I will add it to my watch. Also, I have added the Apollo hoax/evidence pages to my watch list. Liberal Classic 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo

I don't mean to sound hostile, but the last few weeks have seen some unprecedented levels of hostility on that page. I don't want to go into it, but I feel that there has been some extremely underhand dealing there. My sense is that, with the page protected because of edit wars, proposing an extremely controversial move right now is more likely to have the effect of pouring fuel on the fire than helping to build consensus. Yours, Gravitor 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi your input is required at Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found. regards. --- ALM 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/b/User_talk%7ELiberal_Classic_5d43.html"