User:BigDaddy777: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:39, 2 October 2005 editBigDaddy777 (talk \| contribs)1,362 edits →[]← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:45, 27 April 2019 edit undoJJMC89 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators344,644 editsm Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Template:Blocked user
(320 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{sockpuppeteer\|blocked}}
	{{welcome}} ] 20:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


	==Rules of the Turf==

	<b><font size = +3>NOTICE: I reserve the right to remove comments from this page. Please keep that in mind when posting. Thanks! <i>Big Daddy</i>

	==Hippocrite==

	Man, you know there is a SYSTEMIC problem at Wik when they have someone like ---the rest of this comment has been removed consistent with Big Daddy's new found spirit of WiKomradery, good will and civility.--- ] 14:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	==Hi there==
	I was looking at your contribs and I noticed that you maybe got off on the wrong foot with some people. I hope that your impression of Misplaced Pages was not based on the misbehavior of a few who may not have realized you are new around here. (see ]) I hope that you stick around long enough to realize wikipedia is not the liberal bastion that you initially thought it was. It's just a bunch of flawed people trying to write a good encyclopedia ] 19:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

	== Hey, pal ==

	BD, I really appreciate your work on the Coulter page -- especially your persistence and willingness to defend yourself. But I encourage you, in the spirit of friendship, to please calm down and self-edit your frustration and tone out of the discussion. It will only be used against you by others. Many people game the system by making unreasonable edits to bait others to frustration. Do not fall into their trap. Quietly, calmly, make your point, and discuss things on their merits. If others are acting in bad faith, it will be evident -- you don't have to point it out.

	Also, stop right now and do a very thorough check -- '''twice''' -- to count all the reverts you have made the Coulter article in the last day. If you step over the line and make more than three, it will be used against you and you can be blocked. A revert can be construed as any time you changed back someone's remarks, and not just 3 for the same remark, just three in total. I'm afraid you might be getting close to the line, and I'm trying to protect you. Let me know if you have questions about the policy. Kind regards, ] 00:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

	== A different page. ==

	Are you interested in anything but politics? One of the best ways you can help with the encyclopedia is providing knowledge in the less contravercial sections of our encyclopedia. Give it a try. ] - ] 08:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

	==Cindy Sheehan==
	I find it terribly amusing that you insist on pigeon-holing everyone into your "conservative" and "liberal" categories. Unfortunately, that is just overly simplistic. With regards to the Sheehan case, how can you seriously make any claim that she is a liberal stooge, puppet, etc? She has availed herself of various media resources as they were offered, but that doesn't make her a puppet--that makes her media savvy. As for your constant presumptions of neo-liberalism (I assume that you know the difference between classical {free market} liberals like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, et al., and neo- {socialist}liberals, like FDR, Hillary, et al.), you should do some more research. Cindy Sheehan was writing for lewrockwell.com long before any of the so-called liberal media got involved in covering her activism. If you want to make the laughable claim that LRC, an anti-war, anti-state, pro-free market site, is a mouthpiece for the socialist left, go ahead, but I think you know better. ] 16:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

	:(Copied from DickClarkMises' talk page for clarity)I just re-read your laughable defense of the 'conservative' Cindy Sheehan lol! Man, she sure jumped the shark in a hurry, huh? Sorry things didn't work out for her like I'm sure you and her liberal friends would have wanted. Now she's gone and started eating her own. Today she was trashing one of the two left wing senators in California. I think the Jewish one. Interesting...she hates Israel and hates Diane Feinstein. Is that the real reason why Lew Rockwell is so sympathetic? Just curious... Big Daddy 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

	::Lew Rockwell considers Cindy Sheehan heroic because he believes that statist (Democrat or Republican) wars are evil. She is an anti-war activist. It's not terribly hard to make the connection. You are simply toeing the party line and reading off your talking points. Just so we can actually have a meaningful discussion here, would you care to define the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as you are using them. It is difficult to tell exactly what you mean by either. I mean, are you a Goldwater conservative, a Burkean conservative, a Reaganite/Neoconservative, or what? And do you think that Cindy Sheehan is a classical liberal, neo(socialist)-liberal, or some other variety? I would love to hear your honest, reasoned answer, but, unfortunately, your previous comments have been so ambiguous as to be pretty meaningless. ] 16:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	" You are simply toeing the party line and reading off your talking points."Wow! I guess you're not very well developed in 'assuming good faith', huh? lol! (Not to mention that your charges are laughably bogus.)

	Actually, I spend a lot of time thinking about definitions because I think most people are far too sloppy in their nomenclature. I have a good working definition of both liberal and conservative. I can break it down for you in two or three concise sentences and am happy to do so, only...you first. ] 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	Wow, you're smart.] 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	:I'd agree, if BD didn't deflect the question. --] 18:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	== In keeping with... ==

	...the above comment. You should match intelligence with brevity. I just looked thru Pat Robertson and thought "useful contributor who's so all over the place I don't f***king get it." Short and sweet works better than a rant and you're ranting too much. Seriously, leave the liberal/conservative bullshit for blogs. And don't take this comment badly at all. You strike me as someone who could and should provide worthwhile stuff. Write back as you please. ] 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)



	== repeated vandalism ==


	# ]
	This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you vandalize a page you ''will'' be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

	You continue to ignore the notice about discussing changes before making them to the Ann Coulter article. --] 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Formatting issues ==

	Please sign your posts by using four tildes in a row <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Otherwise it gets confusing as to who is saying what on talk pages. Also, please try not to use so many line breaks. Consolidate your sentences -- there's no need to have one sentence per line break; it makes pages scroll too much and discourages editors from reading your comments. Thanks. · ]<sup>]</sup> 16:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
	:I see you're using the tildes; thanks so much. But can you please, please start consolidating your sentences? You're still using one sentence per line break. Now I'm having to come in behind you and strip them out, and I'd prefer not to be doing it. Thanks. · ]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

	== Pat ==

	I made an edit today and suggested a couple of more to address some of your concerns. I do hope you realize that others do bear in mind perceived problems and that you can usefully contribute if you mention things without the initial confrontational attitude. ] 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

	== RFC ==

	Please be aware that an RFC has been filed regarding your conduct on various talk pages. You can read it and respond at ]. As a personal note, I contine to hope that you will become a positive contributor here, and I did not file this RFC with the intent of moving it further down the chain, or driving you away, merely as an attempt to get you to tone down on various Talk pages. ] - ] 00:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

	Echo Hipocrite. --] 00:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

	You're doing the right thing by not responding to the RFC (if I was our attorney that's exactly what I would tell you too :), it would only dignify it and it can go nowhere. There seem to be a healthy number of people fighting it.] 12:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

	:You do realize how the dispute resolution chain works, right Gator? The requirements for an arbitration case (much more serious) is to point out that an RfC was already tried before and failed. Both Hip and I have stated just above this that we are not seeking punishment against BigDaddy but to try to convince him to change his behavior. If BigDaddy takes your advice, then it could get much more serious. --] 17:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

	Now the threats...what a surprise. All of this from an RFC that they said wasn't meant to punish you....now if you don't respond to them or bend to their will and tell them what they want to hear then it "could get much more serious." This IS a joke and will go nowhere as its unfounded and completely unwarranted. Next thing you know, they're going to start threatening me (assuming that "condoning" language wasn't already a threat") Some people just make me sad...] 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
	::''This RFC is an attempt to get the community to help convince BD777 that his behavior is in no way helping to improve this project, or even push his POV into article space. I would hope that he takes the advice contained herein to heart''
	:That's really not a lot to ask. --] 17:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

	Hey check out the respnse I got on my talk apge for this:

	== Seriously, WTF? ==
	-
	- Have you ever participated in an RFC process before? All I want is for him to stop being such a jerk to his fellow editors. If he came to the RFC and his responce was "I see your concerns, and will address them," then that would be all. By advising him to ignore our incredibly reasonable suggestions you're explicitly condoning his behavior. An RFC is not severe in the least. ] - ] 13:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

	I blanked it and didn't respond, but I might get an RFC too since I am "condoning" your actions....yeah righ.....Anyway, enjoy the ride, this entire episode is beginning to make me giggle.] 13:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

	Hip = stalker. Striaght up.
	] 13:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

	Now he's gone and told on me!! LOL. Man, now this is making me laugh out loud! This is embarassing.... I hope he just moves on soon, what a huge waste of time and wiki-resources.] 14:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

	Despite a reasonable motion to suspend the RFC, Hipo still wants his pound of flesh and Kizzle, depsite making the motion, quickly reverses himself when he sees Hipo's very rationale response ("no"). It's clear what the whole thing is about. I have removed the RFC page from my watchlist as it is a complete waste of my time and energy. You might want to consider doing the same (if you haven't already).] 02:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Just to clarify Gator's "reasoning", I am still offering to suspend the RfC BigDaddy, as I do truly believe most of your recent discussions have been focused upon content rather than editors, and that if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be very motivated to continue such good behavior with an open RfC against me. I would just like if you could comment on the page acknowledging that you are trying to change, that's all (and that would also get Hip off your back too). --] 02:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi, I realize you're new here, but it seems like a lot of sparks have been flying as a result of some of your edits. It may help you to read ]. Some of the key "nots" include: Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a soapbox. Talk pages are for discussing articles, not politics. Even on political articles, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article.

	You'll get much better results if you take a less combative stance (this means refraining from insulting other editors), and briefly explain on talk pages what changes you think the article needs, and why. The long polemics simply turn people off and make them less likely to read your entire post or take you seriously. The use of CAPITOL LETTERS may also tend to turn people off.

	Another key point to understand is, Misplaced Pages articles are NOT meant to contain "The Truth", either yours or someone else's version. Deciding what is The Truth would lead to endless disagreements, so on Misplaced Pages we go by what is verifiable instead. Hope this helps. ] ] 15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
	:Thanks for your response via email, but I'm afraid it just shows that you're not understanding the problem here. ] is an official policy, and your assertions that other articles aren't following it properly don't really relate to anything. These issues should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Also, note that verifiability may not mean what you think it means. If someone wanted to add a bit to an article, saying, for example, "Larry King reported on 9.5.2005 that George W. Bush is a lizard-headed alien disguised as a human", we do not have to try to "prove" the truth of this claim. It's verifiable as long as we can cite a source that Larry King said it. This example is a bit silly of course, but hopefully it will illustrate what is meant by verifiability. ] ] 16:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

	== You may be wrong... ==

	BigDaddy... I think you may be wrong on your assumption that Misplaced Pages is controlled by left-wing/liberal/democrats/whatever. One easy way to tell that there is at least some bastion of conservatism is the fact that many of our liberal editors claim a conservative bias. Only a few times have I run across an article that was very, very POV. There are conservatives like yourself here, and a good example is the George W. Bush article. Liberals have been complaining about that for quite some time now, and so have conservatives. That's generally a good indicator that an article is NPOV. Try "writing for your enemy." No one wants to see editors leave WP, and to lose you would be a shame. In order to stick around, however, you may need to change your attitude somewhat. When it comes to politics, religion, or other really touchy subject matter, everyone needs to use some restraint. I hope you take my words to heart and stop your personal attacks and incivility. Discuss matter in a calm, rational tone and I assure you, you will achieve much more than with yelling. Cheers. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 19:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Here to help ==

	BD, remember my comments above, asking you to calm down? Well, it looks like I should have stayed around and helped you a bit more. It appears you're now under some scrutiny. I'm sorry I didn't give you more help.

	I totally understand where you're coming from. But you're going to have to trust me and follow my instructions. I think that if you do, you can grow a bit and begin to gain real respect from others.

	The first thing you have to do is follow the rules about working '''in the community'''. If you cannot understand WP as a community, instead of as an encyclopedia, it will work against you.

	I truly trust that your intentions are good. But I think you are going about things the wrong way. If you're willing to work, let me know. If you'd rather do it by chat or phone, I am okay with that. If not, I understand, and good luck with the RfC.

	Kind regards,

	] 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

	:BD, I did a bit of history checking on you. Setting aside your "ranting" for the moment (and I do understand you better than you know, believe me), I have noticed you have chosen to simultaneously edit many of the most controversial and disputed topics on Misplaced Pages, at least from a politically conservative point of view.

	:There are several problems with this choice: 1] They require an advanced level of engagement with others which you have not yet achieved (in other words, they're over your head socially); 2] They represent topics which are too close to you to allow objectivity; 3] The sheer number of them is exhaustive -- they are simply too many for once person. How can you possibly contribute to these articles (and I don't contribute on their talk pages, but contribute substantive research, material, and editing)? The answer: You cannot.

	:My suggestion on this aspect of your activity here:
	##Pick only one of these topics, and '''completely abandon''' the rest. You are never going to really contribute any other way. A one-man campaign to turn WP upside down will kill you. Then, while you are focusing on this one page, make a point to be extra civil with all editors there, and do heavy research to become an expert on the subject -- perhaps even one aspect of the subject. E.g., don't try to be the expert on Ann Coulter; just be the expert on her scholarship, or her TV career, or her quotes. Be selective.
	##Last, work on other '''non-political''' topics, like wood carving, or marionettes, or the Bohemian Skunk Lily, '''that you know something about and love''' and that won't be likely to attract an edit war. Also, originate '''one new article''' -- again, one that is non-political -- which no one has touched or is likely to touch, that you can thoroughly research and edit with no interference from anyone. ] 04:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


	Wow! In a place so DESPERATELY in need of conservative editors to balance the overwhelming number of liberals editing the political articles, I've now had two...count 'em 2...'friendly suggestions' that I edit something OTHER than politics!

	Kinda like Democratic Governor Blanco telling those private charities she didn't want any more provisions of diapers, food and water sent to the Superdome, cause it'll just 'draw in more people' huh? LOL!!

	] 14:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	== 3RR ==

	Please be aware of ]. If you've violated this rule, you could be blocked. Undoing your revert is a good way to avoid a block. ] ] 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Be careful... ==

	...you are coming perilously close to being blocked. Please read my comments at ]. Best · ]<sup>]</sup> 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Policies ==

	I can see that you're new; it can be difficult to get your sea legs. But I would encourage you to take responsibility for your words and actions. What is clear to me is that you have been unusually belligerent. You don't need to be intimately familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies to know that everyone ought to treat each other with basic civility. (RyanFreisling wasn't exactly a saint either of course.) You don't have to agree with everyone, but you '''must''' be civil. This is not UseNet. Flame wars are not tolerated here. ]. The aim here is for a collegial atmosphere. Failing to be civil, if it rises to the level of disruption, is a blockable offense. Familiarize yourself with ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] and you'll be well on your way to being a productive Wikipedian. Thanks. · ]<sup>]</sup> 05:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Request ==

	I am asking past editors of the ] page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: ], read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. ] 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

	== A request ==

	Please do not discuss article content disputes on my personal talk page. I will only respond to questions regarding content disputes over an article on the article's talk page itself. · ]<sup>]</sup> 19:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
	:You said: ''That's how they try to silence conservatives in here. That and falsely accuse us of vandalism. But don't worry Katefan...I can see based on you blaming last night on me and dredging up this bogus RFC that you're not being fair either.''
	::I've never silenced you or accused you of vandalism. I also didn't "blame last night on you," though you certainly played a role. I admonished both you AND Ryan. · ]<sup>]</sup> 19:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
	:::fyi, ] is a she, not a he. ] 21:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
	::::Do yourself a favor, Bigdaddy777. Do not attack the admins. Us versus them does not work here. You will get yourself banned for life quicker than you can say it if you don't stop attacking everyone that challenges you. Being aggressive does you no good here. So calm down...try to compromise a bit and maybe you will start to slowly get what you are looking for. But the "us versus them" approach does not win you any friends. No friends on here means no one supporting you, which means people will be less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. --] 17:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

	==Katefan0==
	She is, bar none, the most impartial person I've run into on Misplaced Pages. She says on her page she's a journalist. She's a journalist for an impartial publication. I've been reading her work on here for several months and I have no clue what her political affiliation is. None. If you are fair with her, she will be fair with you no matter what her personal beliefs are. So again, do yourself a favor and try to cooperate on the Rove article. Fighting this is just going to prolong this. It's not going to gain you a thing. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way, whether you like it or not. And I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you. As I said, if you have that attitude, you will get nothing you want here. --] 17:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

	:I was not insulting you. I was illustrating what you've been doing the last 2 1/2 weeks and gently telling you that if you continue on that tact, you will get nothing done here. You've had the "anyone who contradicts me is just a liberal" attitude ever since you got her. You even did it to Katefan and she has shown no indication as to her political beliefs. I'm not being disrespectful. I'm going on what you've told virtually everyone else who has contradicted you on here. You are not the first person to come onto here with guns blazing just assuming that everyone here is out to get you. I've been emailing Kate and working with her on here for several months and yet I have no clue what her political beliefs are...not even a hint.

	Katefan and I and Simesa have just spent the last 2 months dealing with someone named Ben with the exact opposite attitude of yours. He thinks that Misplaced Pages is a big business, pro-government pushing rag that will not let other viewpoints in. And he has the same tactics as you. He attacks everyone who contradicts him and he's had a "us versus them" mentality ever since he came on. I'll be honest. I'm a liberal. But you know what? So was Ben and yet I was part of the effort to curb his comments on the ] page. I actually believed in most of the things he said, but I worked hard to get the article to some sort of neutral viewpoint. I actually wrote things against my personal beliefs. Why? Because Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral. I don't object to your views one bit. But Misplaced Pages is outside of all of that. We're supposed to be neutral and unbiased. Coming on here with guns blazing and announcing to everyone that you are conservative, Misplaced Pages is run by a bunch of liberals and you are out to change Misplaced Pages into a conservative bastion or at least make it more conservative(and I'm not being disrespectful. It's right on your user page) is disrespectful to Misplaced Pages and everything Misplaced Pages stands for. It also doesn't help you in getting along with everyone else. Just like everywhere else, getting along with people will help you get what you want.

	In the end, if you believe that Misplaced Pages is left leaning, that's fine. That's your opinion. So work within the system to get it changed. Don't come on here with guns blazing and assume that everyone here is out to get you or to stop you. It's the same mistake Ben made. In the end, he didn't get all he wanted because of his attitude, not his views. I believed in his views, but the way he went about trying to get them on here was disrespectful to the neutral point of view policy that we have on here. And at least so far, you are going down the same path. I'm trying to help you here. Really. Just try to get along with people and tone down the "you are all a bunch of liberals" stuff and you will do just fine. But continue along your current path and you won't be here long. We don't tolerate biased people on here no matter which side of the spectrum they come from. --] 08:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

	I wonder if Ben has an RFC filed against him....wait, no I don't.] 12:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Look man, I'm just trying to help you here. But if you choose to completely ignore what I was trying to tell you about just to pick a fight, that's your choice. --] 00:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

	== motion to suspend RfC ==

	I don't know if you even have the RfC filed against you on your watchlist, but you should take a look as well as heed my previous messages to you on this screen. If you do not reply to the RfC by the end of Tuesday, I will withdraw my motion to suspend the RfC. I believe I am the only one left besides paul who is trying to help your cause, and if you can't even reply to your own RfC, then I'm afraid I can't stop those who want you to be punished (of whom I am not a member of). --] 20:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

	== E-mail from me ==

	I just sent you some coaching/mentoring material. Please read it <font color=red>'''before'''</font> making any edits of any kind to WP. Thanks.

	:''Sandman, outraged, wants justice. He sputters about his vengeance to his friends at the Hoofers' Club, plotting how to kill the supervisor. The central moment of the sequence comes when Bumpy Rhodes, a black racketeer, faces him down: "I'm a pimp and a gambler and a thief. I don't have your talent to dance myself where I want to go. . . . There's only two things I gotta do in this life: I gotta stay black and I gotta die. The white man ain't left me nothing out here but the underworld, and that is where I dance. '''Let me ask you something, Sandman: where do you dance?"''' After a long pause, while they stare at each other, Sandman says decisively, "I'm gonna kill him with my tap shoes." '''This breaks the tension of the sequence''', and the camera tracks back to include the other hoofers, who raise their beer mugs in a toast. As in the dance scene that repairs the rift between Sandman and Clay, a dance - here used both figuratively and literally - '''restores community.''' Sandman and Bumpy are no longer framed alone, but within a larger group devoted to artistic (read nonviolent) achievement. The prodigiously talented Sandman will find '''a creative way to exercise his power.'''

	:''Sandman's rejection of violence bears its final fruit in the film's penultimate scene, in which he tap dances alone, without orchestral accompaniment, at the Cotton Club: '''He has got so much rhythm that he does not need music.''' His dance is intercut with the climactic assassination of Dutch Schultz (James Remar) '''by rival white gangsters''' at a restaurant hangout.''

	*Let me ask you something, BigDaddy: Where do ''you'' dance?
	*Put on your tap shoes.
	*Work on your rhythm.

	] 08:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

	BD, I just tried sending you an e-mail, but don't know if it will work. If you don't get anything, please e-mail me and I'll send you what I sent before. Thanks!] 13:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Comment ==

	"Why would you say such a thing? Seriously." You have come up with a lot of bull! "My friend, it's clear you HAVE NO IDEA what it means to be a born again Christian. A liberal describing Christianity is like listening to a gay friend of mine describing woman's breasts. He'll tell you their number, color shape and size, but he...just...doesn't...get it! lol!" Is this bull? Sure it is. However, I meant it totally harmlessly; I have good friends who are good friends largely like because we like to talk bull.

	All of this said, two wrongs do not make a right and in this sense I should not have posted the comment on a talk page; I can see it would be off-putting if you are now trying to avoid the inflammatory remarks of the past. I will retract and apologize there. ] 08:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

	Duly noted. I thank you.]

	== Hey there ==

	Just hangin' out -- how's things? ] ]

	:Got your message. I'll leave that for the Coulter talk page; you just keep making contributions and let your work speak for itself. Also, not too crazy about the phrase "getting ganged up on by liberals," or however you worded it. ] ] 09:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

	::Just keep making a '''large''' volume of '''small''' improvements -- real imrovements, ones that no one can make ''reasonable'' objections to. Let some of them get reverted, and let some of them stay. When your work is good, and then removed, other people will put it back for you. Make good enough edits and a large group of friends and collaborators who respect you that people will be willing to do the reverting '''for you.''' ] ] 09:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

	:::Saw the image you just uploaded. Do you also have a profile shot? ] ] 10:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

	::::Suggestion: either say, "slanted leftward" or "leftward in its tilt" (with no apostrophe), not "slanted leftward in it's tilt." ] ]

	Hey BD, I only put that on paul's page toillustrate that I was being objective on my support for you and that too may have had reason to attack you in the RFC like all the rest. I also found it interesting, because we didn't know each other then and I had forgotten all about it. :) See yah.] 13:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Photo ==

	Just sent you an e-mail on the Coulter photo. ] ] 10:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Some unsolicited but helpful advice ==

	BD, I have reviewed your edit history going back to September 1. It appears that only three times in your entire history have you used the "edit summary" to make a comment on your edit that might help a fellow editor learn what you were doing.

	What ''does'' appear in your summaries are the section headings in which you made your edits. Click on the "my contributions" link and look: The section headings are in gray type, and your own text is in black.

	'''What you should do''' is leave the section there (it is useful for other editors), but type your reason to the right of it. Look to see how others use it and model after them. Use a shorthand and include '''what you did and why.'''

	In talk pages, you can use it to alert '''who''' you are responding to, so others don't have to check.

	When I started editing, I found this box a bit annoying -- I don't always use it myself. But I have found that when my reason explains my edit, my edit is better received by others.

	Many times people have incorrectly accused you of not explaining your edits. You do, but you do it on the talk page. You give thoughtful, well-argued explanations. However, every time a page shows up on someone's watchlist, they can see not only who made the edit, and in what section, but what they did and why. Not putting a comment there forces them to check every single edit for themselves to see what just took place. This annoys people.

	That's valid. I'm surprised to read that I used it 3 times, as I don't remember EVER using it. But this was, once again, behavior that stemmed more out of being a newbie than anything else which makes my accusers all the more meritless in their attacks. But, well informed that I am now thanks to you, I will avail myself of this feature more frequently in the future. ] 13:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

	I found a great quote from the ] page which says it all:

	:''In a 1995 interview by Virginia Shea, Miss Manners said, "You can deny all you want that there is etiquette, and a lot of people do in everyday life. But if you behave in a way that offends the people you're trying to deal with, they will stop dealing with you...''

	This also applies to annoying people. Hope it helps. ] ] 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


	==Image Tagging ]==
	<!-- If it says "Editing Template:Image source (section)" at the top, then you are modifying the master copy of this template, and not your user talk page. You should probably go back a page and use the "edit this page" tab at the top instead. -->

	Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I notice it currently doesn't have an ], so its ] status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use <nowiki>{{gfdl}}</nowiki> to release it under
	the ]. If you can claim ] use <nowiki>{{fairuse}}</nowiki>.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the ] where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. Thanks so much. ] - ] 13:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

	:BigDaddy, if you got this image from the National Geographic Society, I have a contact there that can help you secure a GFDL license. ] ] 13:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

	Now that it's uploaded, I need an explanation in <I>how</i> to tag it, but I want to tag it with {{GFDL-self}} ] 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

	:I tagged the image for you, but image pages are just like article pages. For future reference, go to the image page, click on edit, then type in <nowiki>{{GFDL-self}}</nowiki>, or whatever other tag you want. Please respond to your RFC. Thank you. ] - ] 20:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

	==Just so you know==
	You are a step away from being put into arbitration. If you don't want to respond to the request for comment, that's fine, but you are just digging your own grave. You are probably going to be banned in 2 weeks once it goes to arby. --] 05:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


	LOL, classic!] 12:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Gator1, you are not being helpful to wikipedia ''or'' to BigDaddy here. You encouraged him several times not to even respond to the RFC. Now, with remarks like that, you are suggesting that arbcom is a joke that won't happen. You are wrong. You've been around less than a month according to your edit history. Based on my experience of well over a year, I am virtually certain that people ''will'' take this to arbitration if the type of the behavior in the RFC persists (and I don't know if it has). And I would place a ''very'' high probability of BD, his IP, and any sockpuppets, being banned from editing political pages for a year if it does go to arbcom. I've seen it happen many times, see for example ], ] or ]. It's not a joke. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen: it's a waste of everybody's time and the loss of a potentially useful editor (if he would lose the attitude). On the other hand, if you are secretly BD's enemy, you are doing a very effective job of it. ] 18:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	You're wrong that I don't think it will go to "arbcom", I'm sure that those bringing the claim will try and will, likely, get to arbcom, but you're rigt that I think this is all a joke. It's a big joke and will not result in anyhting of significance.

	As far as not being helpful to wikipedia.....what a load...that RFC has nothing to do with the welfare of Misplaced Pages, that's nonsense. BD will respond if he wants to, that's up to him. Either way, the RFC will remain a complete joke and waste of everyone's time. Now get back to editing and stop wasting your time here.] 18:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	:It's only a joke if you don't care whether you get banned, that may well be your attitude. I'm just saying don't encourage BD to think that won't happen. Also, I find your last sentence above obnoxious. ] 18:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	Now I am getting banned?! News to me. LOL....more reason to beleive that this entire process is IN FACT a joke. BD can think for himself and doesn't make his decisions based on what other peoples say about or to him. He's his own man. I can say what I please, thank you...even if you do find it obnoxious. That doesn't bother me in the least. Now let's get back to editing real articles (RFCs on't count) and stop wasting even MORE time here.] 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	:What? I didn't say a thing about you getting banned, although I'd shed no tears if you did. I said it may be your attitude that getting banned is of no concern; otherwise, why would you regard arbcom as a joke? Now, quit wasting your time and get back to work; I'm sick of your dawdling. ] 19:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	Now who's being obnoxious? :) I'm sure banning somone is no big deal to you or lese you wouldn't think it could happen to BD or would want it to happen to someone else so easily (I don't want you to be banned). Sorry kiddo, but that just ain't gonna happen to BD with this RFC just because he doesn't respond to an RFc that's a complete joke.....oh and I'm still dawdling.....] 19:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Derex, don't even worry about it bro... this one's not worth fighting. Gator for all intents and purposes is doing all he can to try and get BD kicked off... just let it be :) --] 19:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	There we are! I was wondering when either you or Hipo would show up to put your two cents in. You never fail! Have fun with the RFC arbcom whatever you're trying to pull off now, I'm sure it will be very effective and you will look back and say I'm sure glad I did that, it made SUCH a difference and such a GREAT use of my time!"......LOL] 19:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	Oh and I think YOU'RE the one that's confused. I am not the one trying to get BD kicked off, YOU are, remember? OH, but wait, the RFC wasn't meant to do that, just to get comment and balh balh blah....wait now I'm confused.....] 19:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Thanks Gator! :) --] 19:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Are these your edits? ==

	BigDaddy,

	Are these edits below yours? Someone has added them to your RfC. You haven't signed any of them; if they're yours, you should say so; if not, they need to be removed from the RfC.



	Let me know either way and I'll take care of it.

	] ] 14:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	:BD, Hip showed me where you took credit for those edits. No need to respond to the above message. ] ]
	==Hello again==
	Big Daddy, Regarding your message, I think you '''have''' gotten way better in the last couple weeks as far as civility. I think if you put in a one sentence blurb to this effect in the RFC page I would be happy to write a one sentence blurb concurring with you and that paul klenk person. Two more suggestions: (1) When directing people to check out pages, I like to directly reference them with a hyperlink like this and (2) check out ] like the ]. I think it's instructive to consider that not everyone who "disagrees with you on edits" is "against you." (Not everyone who disagrees with BD777's last edit is a liberal Ann-hater.) Just food for thought. Glad you are sticking it out. You make really legitimate points in many of your talk edits. ] 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	Well said, I concur.] 23:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Taking a break ==

	Good comments on my talk page earlier; note my response. Too bad about the Rove article. I will be on-line only for a while; am taking a break soon. ] ] 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

	:"...the cites you came up with look more like they came from a Nexis search for 'Why Karl Rove is demon-possessed..." Truly a classic. ] ]
	::Only if you "truly" believe that I somehow biasedly cherry-picked the citations, which I did not. I wouldn't expect BD777 to think anything else, since he's already judged me, but I somehow expected more from you, Paul. Is that what you're really saying? I'd like to know. · ]<sup>]</sup> 12:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	:::Kate, I have responded my my page. ] ] 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	::I'd be curious to hear your opinion of Hip's last set of questions on my page... ] ]
	I think you have unfairly taken a lot of abuse merely for tying to bring fairness to Misplaced Pages. You've played by the rules and tried as hard as you could to be courteous. Lessons I am still learning. I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices your many contributions and I'm shocked and saddened to observe that some Wiki veterans, rather than effusing unfettered gratitude for all your good work as they ought, seem to perennially be committed to keeping you on the defensive. ] 09:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Well, everyone's behavior speaks for itself. Read Hip's lengthy conversations with me carefully. He says so much with tone, by what he fails to address, and by what he chooses to go after. Edit histories are unforgiving. (By the way, what is this piercing thing all about?) ] ] 09:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	"What is this piercing thing all about?" Trust me. You <b>don't</b> want to know. lol! Ps I always thought Hip was a she. And Ryan was a he. I was corrected on Ryan awhile ago. I now stand corrected on Hip...Man, I would have sworn Hip was a she...Are you <i>absolutely</i> sure about this?] 09:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Actually, I do. Seriously, the only image I see in Kizzle's history is one of Bush at debate, showing a bulge under his suit coat at the back, indicating some sort of electronic device. Seeing your comment on Gator's page, sort of hanging out there, makes me sort of curious; probably will make others the same. ] ] 09:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	---------------
	BD, ''sincere'' congeniality is not just about courtesy; it's also about winning your arguments. Take JamesMLane as a model; he gets things done because of the way he argues. Tit for tat gets you nowhere but a stalemate. Neither does "this is how it's going to be". Since ''you'' are trying to change the article, a stalemate is not what you want. Plus it's a waste of time. ] 17:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	::I'm glad you took it in the right spirit. I'm actually not trying to defeat you. I think you make some good points about bias. My problem is that you sometimes seem to me to replace it with the opposite bias. But, to the extent that I am trying to defeat ''you'', I'm also telling you how to beat ''me''. You are engaging with a lot of editors who have been around a long time. They are experienced in working on contentious pages. They know ''all'' the tricks of working the system. And you're just not going to get the article changed in a way they view as unfair. On the other hand, I've seen all those people (except Hip) in action. And, they really are all fair-minded and reasonable people. They really are. You ''can'' get a consensus to get fair changes through. Of course, there will be some sincere disagreements about what is fair; that's life. Those disagreements can usually be worked around with some deft compromise language. ] 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Page vandalism ==

	Please stop removing content from Misplaced Pages. It is considered ]. If you want to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you. - ] 00:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
	Nonsense. ] 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	:If you don't want people to reprimand you for borderline vandalism, don't delete valid material. It's not up to you to tell people what they can or cannot do on "your" talk page. Your talk page exists ''precisely'' for this purpose. Start behaving like a member of a community, start having some respect for your fellow volunteers here, and I will quite happily have nothing more to do with you. But do refrain from telling me where I can and cannot post here. That isn't your call. Cheers. ] 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
	Nonesense.] 00:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)




	:Unlike you, I am actually interested in NPOV...but then, luckily, people are judged by their contributions, not by their bluster. I doubt many people seriously believes that you are striving for NPOV. And if you had any interest in Jimbo's vision for Misplaced Pages you'd know how much he values community, and knows how important it is for the project. ] 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	Kettle...Pot....Nonsense.] 01:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	Nonsense Vandalism...from a stalker edited out! ] 00:59, 1 October 2005
	(UTC)

	== ] ==

	Per community consensus, I have requested arbitration against you. Please add your comments to the page. ] 02:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	I'm beginning to feel like <i>I'm</i> Karl Rove! lol!] 02:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	:''I'm'' Karl Rove!

	::Oh, no! What if he's right!? What have I done? ] ] 08:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	:::LOL! You should be so lucky. Anyway, these haters just don't get it.] 02:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	This whole thing called a dispute resolution process might seem to be a joking matter to you, but just in case you didn't have your pending arbcom request on your watchlist, it just got accepted by 2 arbcom members. Just a heads-up. --] 02:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
	)

	::You know, I hear these kind of things backfire when they're filed for transparently obvious political reasons. <i>Just a heads-up. </i>] 03:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	Update: Just checked with an important source. This attempt to silence me from addressing the endemic bias in Misplaced Pages will backfire. <b><font color = red size =+3> I guarantee it. :)</b>

	] 04:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	As promised in my guarantee above. I did in fact address the endemic bias in Misplaced Pages. More on my comments later. Those who attempted to silence me through their long established pattern of distortions and hostilities against not only me but other conservative editors like the one working side by side with me on the Ann Coulter page, we're <b>proven</b> to be unfruitful in their efforts.] 13:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	:Bizarre/Stalking Post deleted from--] 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	Bizarre/Stalking Post2 deleted from--] 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	Thanks for the grammar lesson. ANYWAY. BD, you didn't give them EXACTLY what they wanted and grovle (SP?) at their feet! OH NO!!! You had the AUDACITY to fight it...now it gets interesting...They wanted you to change your behavior...you did and they said they wanted you to respond....you did....and now they'll set the bar higher once again and say you didn't respond with the right words and kiss all their butts ("I'm sorry...I suck...please forgive me.....I'll be good, I promise.....etc").....this is a very familiar pattern. Good luck. I'm glad you finally responded, good for you, keep it up.] 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	And THERE it is. Didn't say what they wanted. Kizz wanted to ban you from politcal pages BEFORE you responded and now that you HAVE responded......he wants to ban you from political pages....I guess my ORIGINAL piece of advice was the correct one.....doesn't look like it made ANY difference even they seemed to be saying that ALL they wanted you to do was to respond and acknowledge the proceedings....guess that's not what they REALLY wanbted. I guess you should have said EXACTLY what they wanted you to say (see above but add "I personally attacked people (not true) I vandalised pages (also not true) I'm the DEVIL! (maybe that's true I dunno)). lol.] 18:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	LOL!!! ] 18:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	Thanks Gator. It's amazing that someone who so grotesquely violated <b>everything</b> that Misplaced Pages stands for by potentially exposing 3rd and 4th grade schoolchildren to an explicit photograph of a pierced male penis simply to punish them for looking up President Bush in Misplaced Pages, is lecturing <i>anybody</i> about <i>anything.</i> least of all grammatical construction. lol! I'll be deleting his laughable attack in a few hours before his actions go beyond just amusing nonsense and back to the pornographic destructive patterns that are so much a part of his troubled posting history. I think Mayor Guiliani calls it the 'broken glass' theory.] 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	Bizarre/Stalking Post3 deleted from-- --] 18:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	My advice to BD is between me and him. If he wants to tell you what I advised him to do, that is up to HIM. Kisses.] 18:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

	==]==
	Please don't insert your own personal viewpoints into articles. ]\|] 08:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	I would have thought that my link to the ] article would be a pointer to what I'm talking about. Referring to people as "far left" and "liberal" is your POV. Don't label people, discuss their works. And the idea that only people you 'invite' to edit your Talk page can post here is not the way Misplaced Pages works. ]\|] 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	I knew nothing about you or your edit history until I ran across your edits to the Coulter article, and I came here to suggest you not include such edits in the article. But now I see from your Talk page that there are a number of people concerned about your edit history and even though you've only been here a month, there's an RfAr on you. Maybe you should rethink your edits and learn how to work within consensus. ]\|] 08:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	LOL! If there's one thing I've learned in my exciting month at Misplaced Pages, it's that it's not possible to work "within consensus" when, on a given article, there's ten foaming at the mouth vicious left wing haters in here for every one reasoned conservative. Just go to the gentle Paul Klenk's page for details. ] There's not a man in Misplaced Pages who's <I>bent over backwards</i> more for the sake of building 'consensus' only to get it slapped back in his face. Interestingly enough some of his best work was cleaning up the Coulter page before it was vandalized tonight. How much more ironic is it then, that the <b>first time</b> I <i>ever</i> hear from you is when you criticize me for trying to <i>restore</i> balance to Paul's excellent work. BTW, it's not just me either.
	Check out what happened when <i>another</i> reasonable user who goes by 64.154.26.251, tried to clean up Coulter's page of obvious bias... ] 08:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	Hi, BigDaddy777. I'm a right-winger, and it is definitely possible to work within consensus here. You need to read up on ]. If you don't want to follow the policies, then you need to just leave. But let me promise you that NPOV is a beautiful treaty that does allow for consensus between left-wing, right-wing, and any other positions, and working in this way is very rewarding. But if you don't want to do that, please don't be a troublemaker. ] 20:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

	==Cliff Notes==

	For those of you wondering how I respond to my critics, and don't want to wade thru the countless attacks and counter-attacks that pile to the ceiling in a typical arb ruling, here's the shorthand -

	<font color =red> I come to an article and uncover their bias.

	<font color =red>They don't like it and call it disruption.

	<font color =red>Back and forth recriminations ensue.

	<i><b>That's it. </i></b>

	Now what's interesting and certainly ill-advised is how much <i>passion </I> those who want to keep Misplaced Pages mired in bias by censoring me pour into the 'Back and forth recriminations' part in their statements section. It's as though they don't think the arbs are intelligent enough to see through that to what's really going on. Or perhaps they think they can <i>distract them.</i>

	Fortunately, I'm able to cut through the clutter and cut to the chase...

	] 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:45, 27 April 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

Category:

Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers