User talk:Chairman Meow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave a message

[edit] Minor Edits

Greetings, Chairman Meow (and kudos for one of the cleverest nicknames I've ever seen!)

I ran across your name on the activistcash.com article and checked out your other edits out of curiosity (I do that sometimes; I'm a curious monkey). I don't want to seem unduly critical — I'm still fairly new here myself — but you might want to check out Minor Edit for the guidelines as to when to use the "Minor Edit" option. You've used it when adding some fairly significant blocks of text to discussions. Some people set their Watchlists to ignore minor edits, which means they could miss your contributions to a discussion.
Septegram 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't refer to other editors as "ignorant", however accurate you may feel the application of that term to be. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From your comment on my user page and your new attack on the anon editor, it appears to me that you are not interested in the spirit of the rule, which demands treating other users with respect. I have little patience for that kind of rules lawyering, especially when it is coupled with fresh attacks, and I am running out of patience with the dispute on this page. Instead of redacting your comments I'm simply going to remove all of them. If either one of you continues to post attacks like this, I'll simply remove all your comments, and if you keep it up, I'll block you. It's quite simple: don't attack other people on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment (removed by Gamaliel) on Talk:100 People Who Are Screwing Up America [1]. I also see that you've been warned before about making personal attacks on other editors.[2][3] Please heed these warnings. Civility is a requirement, not an option. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't read WP:CIVIL this would be a good time to do so. If I see further uncivil remarks from this account directed at other editors I will initiate an RfC to gain community input. Insulting editors is disruptive and does not help further this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

I noticed your exchange with Gamaliel. I know what you mean. He and I have had some nasty exchanges. We are managing to keep it civil at the moment. But he has this attitude that he is always right, and starts knee-jerk reverting anything that goes against his far left agenda. He can be NPOV, but he also fails to see his own POV at times. Sdth 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It didn't take me but 2 seconds to realize Gamaliel is a lefist who is pushing his agenda here. He isn't alone, of course. The lefties will bully anyone who opposes them straight off wikipedia.

"Lefties" didn't make you indulge in name calling. Take some responsibility for your own behavior. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a rather obtuse and immature method to win an argument, perhaps some would even call it a little low brow...Chairman Meow 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsoirced material for which there is no consensus. You appear to be acting disruptively to promote a viewpoint. If you can convince your fellow editors, or find a source, then you will be on different footing. But repeatedly restoring unjustifeid material to promote a POV is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Chairman Meow, you're right. Some admins on Wikipedia are obviously liberally biased, but see their bias as an NPOV, which is what liberals believe. Liberals don't say there's a liberal bias in the media because they don't want to admit it or they don't see it because they like it at the current time.PokeHomsar (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't crazy, thanks.Chairman Meow (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Loonymonkey (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: on 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not going to contest the block because there is no point. All I'll say is that it is not a block, but censorship. Gamiel, will beback, and loonymonkey do not want to convince others of their viewpoint, they just want people to goosestep in line. Those who don't "heil" them, they use their admin privileges to block them. It's disgusting. I wear my block proudly as a symbol of resistance to their tyranny...infact, I'm moving it to my front page.

[edit] WP:NPA

Whatever you feel your grievances are, you don't get to use your user page as a forum for personal attacks or to post an enemies list. I've protected your user page for 24 hours to prevent you from editing it. Please take the time to cool off and think about what you are doing. Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're completely correct, I guess I was just frustrated with what I perceived as a complete lack of explanation on why an interviewer's bias isn't relevant to the question he asks an interviewee. I still haven't been given an acceptable answer, but I've come to believe I will never get one. That doesn't mean I need to disrupt wikipedia in a fit of frustrationChairman Meow (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)