User talk:NathanDW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello NathanDW, 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! --Sean|Black 07:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Train Salon

Please note that although Willmcw reverted your edit to "previous version by Herschelkrustofsky," that does not mean that I endorse his action. At the time that I put in that redirect, it was done with an agreement from Cberlet, SlimVirgin and Willmcw that the Train Salon material would appear in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, as rebuttal to the endless quoting of Berlet. Cberlet, SlimVirgin and Willmcw subsequently broke that agreement; it is clear to me that they are anxious to suppress the Train material. I am unable to do anything about it, for reasons enumerated on my talk page. --HK 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from Cognition

Excellent work so far! Keep up the great work! Cognition 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the statement on your user page

You might wish to have a look at Gatekeeper (politics). --HK 16:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've been labeled as well as I. If you fit the label, then you have a right to be what you wish to be politically. That is the American Way. If you do not, like myself, then you certainly understand the McCarthy like tactics going on at this place. I commend you for exposing the present use of Wikipedia for smear and the use of one associations and persons material without further backup or authenticity. It seems that said person can only gain recognition by self-publishing his material here to discredit public persons he disagrees with. That said I am expressly concerned with his attacks upon Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Horowitz, Ms. Fulani and others including Mr. LaRouche, which together with having my editing subjected to a "LaRouche idea" and reverted or being called a "LaRouchist" smacks of people in the 1950's Hollywood and Government being labeled by Mr. McCarthy a "Communist" and having "Communist ideas." It is sad. Though (if you are a LaRouche supporter) I may disagree with certain aspects of his philsophy and am more a Perot-Dobbs type (if someone wishes to label me out there), I will stand with you or anyone against those who wish to silence others because they happen to hold views contrary to their own. That is also the American Way. Good Luck, and do not let them intimidate you as the great F.D.R. of my present party said: "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!" --Northmeister 04:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I want to apologize for not responding to these messages. I don't have much time to devote to Wikipedia, and from what I have seen Wikipedia is just the new USENET. No one follows the rules, the administrators quote them a lot but they don't apply them consistently, only when it suits them. It's a sad thing, especially since Wikipedia articles always come up on Google. --NathanDW 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Duggan

There is an AfD on the Jeremiah Duggan article. Could you comment? --IAMwhatsIAM 07:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:HiTimes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HiTimes.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr on Chip Berlet

I have blocked you for violating the three-revert rule. When you come back, please use the talk page and try to reach consensus for your changes. Tom Harrison Talk 01:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Nathan, BLP applies to every page on the website. I'm putting a stop to what's been happening on that talk page. It is for discussing the article only, and it must be done respectfully. Please review WP:BLP very carefully and note that the Foundation takes it seriously, for obvious reasons, and that violations are blockable offenses. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse?

I notice that you wrote about me, "abuses admin powers to push POV". I was a bit surprised because I don't recall anyone saying that I'd abused the admin tools. Can you point out when I've done so? I try to avoid doing anything like that, so I'd like to see when I've done it in the past. Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like you and Slimvirgin ganged up to ban ManEatingDonut. I noticed that you asked him on the talk page of Eurasian Landbridge whether he thought the article was closely related to LaRouche. You could have warned him that he would be banned if he reverted. Instead, you were coy about it, and then SlimVirgin permabanned him. It looks to me like a setup. This is one example, I could probably think of others, but this one makes the point. --NathanDW 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Did I ban ManEatingDonut? How is asking him a question an abuse of admin powers? -Will Beback · † · 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Puh-leeze. Please don't play innocent. You encouraged her to do it on the Arbitration page. You also suggested that she ban me.
Admins who have a strong POV agenda, as you admit you do in your statement, should bend over backwards to avoid using admin powers to get the upper hand in content disputes. If there is a violation of policy, let a neutral admin handle it. --NathanDW 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a strong POV agenda and I never used my admin tools in regard to ManEatingDonut. If you think asking questions and discussing problem is admin abuse then I'd hope every admin is abusive. ;) -Will Beback · † · 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal remarks

I agree that users have become overly personal on the LaRouche talk page. Can you set an example of good behavior by not commenting on editors, just on edits? -Will Beback · † · 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07, that your input would be appreciated on Geo. Talk to me 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NDW - Article talk pages should only be used to discuss articles. Mediation pages are among those where comments about users are appropriate. As for my comment, there is a difference between "may" and "are". If a conflict of interest is asserted on the part of one editor then it is fair to point out that there may be other conflicts of interest as well. It is clear that some editors, you in particular, have not been honest regarding their level of involvement with the topic. -Will Beback · † · 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Your user page statement implies that you had little knowledge or interest in LaRouche beyond receiving a few leaflets on the street, and that you came to Wikipedia simply to learn more about the man's ideas. Yet your contributions to Wikipedia have been exclusively concerned with LaRouche topics, and with promoting the LaRouche viewpoint on those topics. Therefore it's hard to believe that you were honest in your original statement. Instead, it appears that you are a follower of LaRouche, and were one when you first started editing.
As for Dking, he is an expert on the topic. He wrote the only biography of LaRouche, which is now out of print so he does not receive any income from it. I don't see what part of WP:COI he would be violating.
The money that Coors sends me every month is only to cover adding derogatory information to the Miller Beer article, and has nothing to do with the LaRouche articles. -Will Beback · † · 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP warning

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning

Nathan, I've had enough of you turning up at LaRouche articles, and articles the LaRouche movement is interested in, to add or revert to material that violates our content policies. You've been warned often enough, and you've had enough time to read the relevant ArbCom rulings and the core content policies thoroughly (WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP). Other editors shouldn't have to waste time reverting or arguing with you about these issues, given that the policies and ArbCom decisions are clear. If you add or restore material in violation of the policies again that advances the interests of the LaRouche movement, and particularly if it involves contentious biographical material about a living person, you may be blocked indefinitely without further warning. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/User_talk%7ENathanDW_634e.html"