Revision as of 05:22, 26 October 2005 editTitoxd (talk | contribs)43,130 edits WP:VIP← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:25, 26 October 2005 edit undoTitoxd (talk | contribs)43,130 edits →[]: WP:CVUNext edit → | ||
Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
Nice work at ]. I came here to suggest something: for those users who are indefinitely blocked, could you just delist them from the WP:VIP page? That will help to reduce the clutter and make it more effective to use, much like ] works. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC) | Nice work at ]. I came here to suggest something: for those users who are indefinitely blocked, could you just delist them from the WP:VIP page? That will help to reduce the clutter and make it more effective to use, much like ] works. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
: Just so you know, we noticed it on ], so you might want to rattle our talk page to get more opinions. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:25, 26 October 2005
AlertPlease do not spam my talk page looking for help on an issue because of a Misplaced Pages user category of which I am a member. This annoys me greatly, and I will usually not respond.Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
Past discussions on my talk page may be found on the following archive pages. My personal talk page archiving policy may be found at User:Jdavidb/Talk archiving
- /Archive1 (2005-09-28 18:32:28 UTC)
- /Archive2 (14:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC))
- /Archive3 (15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
- /Archive4 (14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
- /Archive5 (15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Cool
I like that. I've never made templates before; I'll have to explore that a bit when I have time. paul klenk
- Believe it or not, I still am a bit new and am learning so much every day. (See my user page regarding my foreign pages.) I did take a look at your templates; I will give your procedure a look as well. paul klenk 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Joyce Carol Oates
You don't really have a clue about who she is, do you? (Really, seriously, you wouldn't be calling her a spammer if you did) Tanya! Ravine 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you...
...very much for that. You are very kind. · Katefan0 04:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- You know, to your evidence posted this evening -- up to an hour ago, I would've agreed with you. I was pleasantly surprised by our discussions on the Ann Coulter page and was hopeful that perhaps a corner had been turned. I had even considered entering the arbitration myself just to place that in evidence as real improved behavior, Paul Klenk's well-meaning list aside. But after this, the well is irretrievably poisoned for me. How does what I see as shameful behavior figure in to your feelings about his improvement? · Katefan0 04:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's a mixed bag. Saying he's improved is not the same as saying he's 100% reformed. I know he's not 100% reformed. I know he's not fully aware of and committed to our policies. (Yet, though I hope such a time can come.) I knew about his later actions on his talk page before I knew about the Ann Coulter conversation that I posted as evidence in his favor.
- The problem with BD is that he is so quick to take offense. He thinks everybody's out to get him (most definitely me). He is easily confused and something as trivial as you trying to help by commenting out that weird comment is easily mistaken, in his mind, for an attack.
And in BD's mind, every offense must be avenged.
You mean like this? "I was done, until you started making baseless attacks. I won't let that stand unanswered!"-- KateFan) Big Daddy 07:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It entitles him, in his mind, to satisfaction extracted either through some non-existent enforcement mechanism in Misplaced Pages's policies or through entitling him to make personal attacks with impunity.
- Doesn't that completely describe why he's in RFAr? Things people have done to him, things that were totally right and benign according to Misplaced Pages rules and standards of common decency, have appeared to him to be attacks and he has responded by fighting back ... with all guns blazing and no holds barred.
- And my statement above, "things that were totally right and benign according to Misplaced Pages rules and standards of common decency," leaves some things out, doesn't it? Because aren't there truly people here who have delighted in provoking him? They provoke him, he responds and digs his hole deeper. Yes, his responses are unjustified. But provoking him isn't justified, either. Where is it written in Misplaced Pages policy that personal attacks are justified in response to a personal attacker?
- It's an endless cycle of anger and fighting that can only be broken if one person stands up and says, "I will not take personal attacks into account. I will not assume that is a personal attack. I will chalk it up to a misunderstanding and let it end with me." I think as of yet BD has a lot of trouble doing that. Jdavidb (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- As much as I respect your thoughtful comments, I think it's past the point where this much understanding is necessary. He's been around long enough to understand the way this place works, and even if he didn't, a person doesn't have to understand Misplaced Pages's policies to know that you ought to treat people with a basic level of civility and respect. The situation to me seems thoroughly untenable, though I admire your continuing attempts at bridging gaps, even as he attacks you too. · Katefan0 05:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's an endless cycle of anger and fighting that can only be broken if one person stands up and says, "I will not take personal attacks into account. I will not assume that is a personal attack. I will chalk it up to a misunderstanding and let it end with me." I think as of yet BD has a lot of trouble doing that. Jdavidb (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Main thing I want to say is, hang in there and don't let it get to you! You tried to do the right thing, and it was misunderstood. And the reaction was bad, and unjustifiable. But the rest of us saw you do the right thing. He doesn't understand, but we do.
- In a few days it won't matter: either he will have reformed, or the RFAr will have kicked him. Jdavidb (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's a nice narrative you guys have going but it's not grounded in anything even approaching reality. The first attack from my perspective came directly from Misplaced Pages in the form of an article I read about Bill O'Reilly that was incivil, full of cheap personal attacks and in general a fun house mirror caricature of what the man is all about. And I did NOT KNOW that wikipedia was the liberal bastion it is accused of being. I found out in short order after checking out both metafilter and free republic but orginally I was just shocked and outraged.
Is it possible you two are just so insular that you can't see the forest for the trees? That's what I think. Remember Katefan was an editor all the while that Bill O'Reilly article (as well as Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and probably countless others) were subjected to this incivil sliming.
So Misplaced Pages, whoever was responsible for overseeing content, which includes Kate, assaulted me first. And not just me but everybody. Fair minded liberal and conservative alike. By pretending to be something it wasn't - nPOV.
So, admittedly I was a little passionate about this assault when I first arrived. I mean my first few posts, including my now infamous post where I claimed to have 100 isps at my disposal (as does every other resident of the city of Ann Arbor btw) was literally made on the Bill O'Reilly page. Not his talk page. His article lol! That's how new I was.
So I learned the system and began making edits. The fact that both O'Reilly's and Coulters article are SOO much better today is largely because of my efforts along with Paul Klenk.
So I feel I should be apologized to for the way Misplaced Pages was and thanked repeatedly for the good I have been able to accomplish, despite the ENORMOUS RESISTANCE that both of you know I encountered in doing so.
And btw, Mr. Conservative JDavid, you did NOTHING to help in any of those articles and you presided at Misplaced Pages when they were literally slime pits. Can you point me to some articles about conservatives that were similarly slimed that YOU helped to clean up. I'd love to see the before and after.
So, I come in and find Kate CONSTANTLY jumping down my throat. She was caught telling Ryan 'just give him enough rope - he'll hang himself' in reference to a battle that RYAN started and I was still a BRAND new newbie and that NOT COINCIDENTALLY had to do with this EXACT same thing.
So spin it in reverse as she will, it is KATE who should have known better than to edit my words on my page without at least asking me.
I reject this whole hacking story and I reject this semantic spin that it was something other than a deletion.
In the end, I grant you that it might not be that big of a deal. But notice how she clammed up, accused me of being ugly and said she's refuse to talk about it anymore? That is until you came up with your revised standard version of what happened. Then all of a sudden she's not only happy to talk about it, she's effusing about it on your page and commenting more briefly on mine.
Bottom line: Kate knows I don't trust her. She can ascribe whatever Freudian motives she may want to way, it's not a newsflash to her. She should have known WAY BETTER than to pull this stunt and pretend it was an act of 'kindness.'
I don't buy it and she never should have done it. Ask Fred? Why Fred? That's suspicious too as he is one of the arbs. I think she wanted to point out the joke to Fred. But not as an act of kindness.
Trust has to be earned. Neither of you have earned it.
It's laughable that JDavid somehow thinks he's more intelligent than I am. But, I'm happy to let him revel in that conceit. Just know it's one of the least attractive aspects of your approach towards me and there's plenty of competition in that regard.
But there are plenty of people I do trust in Misplaced Pages. Honest and good people like the gentel Paul Klenk and the truly intelligent Gator1. Other railroaded people like ultramarine, ketoohwah and oldright.
I always WANT to get along and trust people. And I'm always hopeful that things will change. Even with you two. But, straight up, neither of you even come close to meeting that standard right now. And that's your fault...not mine.Big Daddy 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I was done, until you started making baseless attacks. I won't let that stand unanswered. As for the rest -- of course, nothing has ever been your fault. Right? · Katefan0 06:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I think posting on Bill O'Reilly's ARTICLE (lol!) how mad I was at the 'liberal editor' was definitely MY FAULT.
I think engaging in what can only be characterized as tit for tat insults with liberals on ARTICLE talk pages was MY FAULT.
I think some of my intemperate comments on other's talk pates are MY FAULT (or at least unecessary.)
I am happy to accept the fact that lots of things are MY FAULT.
I'm not here to be perfect or faultless. I think even you would have to admit I have a very comfortable way of approaching things on the actual article talk page especially when I'm dealing with honest actors like JamesMLaine despite our political differences. I invoke Jimmy Wales words as much as possible because afterall it's his vision and yet people jump on me over that. So, I think there's been a lot of growth here and I honestly think that, despite my slightly rough around the edges way of expressing things (I am a guy remember. Not a weeny or geek like a lot of the other people who post here - no specific person intended:) so I do engage in a little chit chat. But I try to keep that on the personal talk pages and away from the articles. I don't see any harm in the guys having a few disagreements now and then. The main problem is culture. I come from a highly masculine conservative background and most of the others do not. It's more a cultural clash than anything. I understand that. I'm willing to work within a 'geek framework.' But look how they've treated me. Disgracefully and despicably. Like little church ladies who can't wait to 'make a case' against me and railroad me out of here. If anything, the way I've been treated is evidence of how SICK the culture in here is. Not just me but the way they've treated outspoken conservatives like me, oldright, keetowah, ultramarine is unconscionable.
I'm sorry, this is not about me and whether I'll admit I'm wrong. I clearly have and gladly will again. I think I just admitted I was wrong to you, Kate tonight on the Ann Coulter page.
This is much bigger. This is much more serious. This is about how Wikipeians treat people who are different.
You can cry and shry for the next 50 years that the reason I was treated so shabbily is because of my attitude or my demeanor, but I'm telling you that people in the real world, who will ultimately deciding this case, just won't buy it.
I mean look at people like that woohookitty dude who literally is drooling and salivating all over himself at the prospect of adding 'fresh new evidence' to my case. LOL! It's pathetic.
Or Ryan, who even the gentle Paul Klenk has deemed an insufferable bully. All she does is call everybody who dares disagree with her a troll. A troll this, a troll that. trollery, trollbating, trollfishing trollfoolery, shrimp, jumbo shrimp...popcorn shrimp....
Of course, they look perfectly sane in comparsion to the completely unhinged elemosynnary and his paranoiad musings which I still think he clings to.
Think about that for a second...
They were my welcoming committee at Misplaced Pages. Those are the ones who represented the Misplaced Pages community to me.
By that standard Kate, you're actually pretty cool. (Not that I trust you.)
But these people, as they would say in MY culture, are some very SICK MOFO'S.
Are people outside the Misplaced Pages community, when exposed to their insidious behavior, gonna buy the argument that I was the 'mean one?' Hmmm...
If JDavid really wanted me to believe he had my best interests in mind, he would already have a proven track record of helping other persecuted conservatives in here and he'd have a track record of cleaning up hit pieces like the ones on Coulter Rove etc. At least Paul Klenk has tried. But JDavid does not. So his arguemnt - 'Well I'm a conservative and I just get along fine in here' is unpersuasive. I'd like to see him take the lead I've established and follow suit. Instead he somehow thinks it should be the other way around. That gives me a chuckle I must admit. But JDavid, go ahead, give me a chance to say I was wrong. Point me to some articles...Big Daddy 06:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- And now you are attacking a fellow conservative. You know why he doesn't fight your battles? Because he believes in the *neutrality* of Misplaced Pages and he believes in working within the system. What a thought! Stay neutral, jdavid. We need more people like you who are willing to forget personal views occasionally for the betterment of everyone. --Woohookitty 07:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You need to catch up my little friend. This isn't the first time that I 'attacked' JDavid. Why I've attacked him...let's see now...Oh, I know...ever since...he attacked me.Big Daddy 07:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Friend? Yeah. The only reason why my comments are not being deleted is because I'm posting on someone else's talk page about you. If I did this on your page, the comments wouldn't last. And btw, I'm not relishing adding evidence to the evidence page. You are one paranoid man. --Woohookitty 07:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Why not friends? I'm willing. I'm not quite ready to invite you over to my talk page. You've goofed up that opportunity enough that I think even you should understand my reluctance. Besides, I'm a private person. I'm kinda selective as to who I want posting there. But why not be civil? I think we have a good arrangement. I keep posting. And you...keep collecting evidence! lol! Big Daddy 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- And this is my last response to Big Daddy. --Woohookitty 07:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Damn! And I thought we were just getting a good thing going! Big Daddy 07:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
I've read your page and I know that you are a conservative so...I *really* appreciate the even-handedness in which you've tried to handle the BigDaddy stuff. It's much appreciated. I really think you are an example of what BD should be following, i.e. a conservative who tries to work within the system. As I've said all along, I don't object to his views. It's the methods I object to. I welcome all viewpoints. And I'm glad to see that you do as well. Thank you. --Woohookitty 07:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Spam
Hey there. Nlu is probably running into some spam issues. Check out this post here . I've suggested on his talk page that s/he come to you for help. I hope that is okay?
I also noticed today that you know Perl! Perhaps you can help me write a bot to clean up the reference desk archiving process? --HappyCamper 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Karma and Reincarnation page
Dear Jdavidb, I believe you are the one who objected to my page Karma, Reincarnation and NDE? Is this correct? Did you look at my page? I have no agenda and am not selling anything. Nor do I make any money on the page. If looked at objectively, many consider it one of the best pages on the subject out there.
http://www.reversespins.com/karma.html
William House editor@reversespins.com
Your 3RR block of jguk
You blocked Jguk for a 3RR violation on his own user talk page. 3RR doesn't apply to one's own user space. I have unblocked him. Please don't do this again. Kelly Martin 21:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
WP policy
WP policy is that a user can do what he wants with his userspace - if you'd been here long enough, you would have learnt that - together with it deemed to be uncivil to keep re-adding comments that a user has explicitly removed.
The 3RR does not apply to the userspace either.
Additionally, please do not interfere with discussions made by editors to WP on how articles should develop. Generally you just end up angering them and prolonging the dispute, as indeed you are doing here. Kind regards, jguk
Uriah copyvios
If you haven't followed User talk:Uriah923, our friend has caused more copyright violations. The ones I checked were from a while ago, but they are blatant enough to call into question the rest of his contributions. Please see what you can do to check the rest, I won't have time. Sorry to dump this on you, but thanks. Check Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems if you aren't familiar with how to deal with them. - Taxman 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Church of Christ, Scientist
I'm curious if your concern for this subject is motivated by your religious faith and if you see Melchizedek's claim to ecclesiastical statehood as a threat to that faith.
- No. I believe in open study of all religions. I have studied religions with which I emphatically disagree, including Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, B'nai Noach, and Islam, sometimes to such depths that I think my wife feared I was planning to convert. I do not believe in the principle of withholding information about a religion on the idea that it may be a threat to true faith. And I certainly fear nothing from the DOM "religion." I see no grain of truth there nor do I even see anything of interest.
- Thankfully on Misplaced Pages we have constructed policies which can be followed by any editor regardless of his personal convictions or motivations which will result in unbiased articles. Editors on any side of an issue or even editors who do not care about an issue can still make the right decisions for an article.
I'm glad to see that you want unbiased articles. Do you really believe that the DOM article is unbiased? I certainly can't see how it is either fair, balanced, or completely factual. Do you see any genuine faith in their translation of the Bible or their effort to "resurrect" the "Dominion of Melchizedek" from antiquity?
- No. Regardless of the fraud claims, the religious claims are utterly without merit and would probably be theologically irrelevant even if they had any merit.
I suspected you would have this opinion, but how much of their faith have you studied?
- Your use of the pronoun "their" is disingenuous, but not unexpected. Jdavidb 13:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- What is disingenuous about my use of the word "their". Are you suggesting that I am one of them? Personally, I am a Christian Scientist, not a Melchizedekian. There is a connection in as much as DOM's translation of the Bible is based on the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. She is the founder of Christian Science. Do you also find Christian Science to be utterly without merit and/or theologically irrelevant? Johnski 16:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC) You didn't reply to this on my user talk page so moved it here in case you didn't see this.Johnski 04:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mr. Jdavidb: I see you answered my question about DOM, which led me here to see you didn't answer Johnski's questions about Christian Science and how much you actually studied the Melchizedekian religion according to the Melchizedek Bible. This led me to another question: Do you believe that any member of the Catholic Church, if asked, would say of your Church of Christ, "the religious claims are utterly without merit and would probably be theologically irrelevant even if they had any merit"? KAJ 20:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance in regard to the DOM page
I appreciate your assistance on backing me up in terms of the lack of consensus on the DOM page. Your user page was interesting, I suppose we could have an interesting conversaton about politics. That's one of my favorite hobbies. Anyway, I hope you'll continue to check in on the pages that are being vandalized. Davidpdx 06:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Please answer my question instead of side stepping it
- Jdavidb, this is not in response to the question I asked of you. Please answer it about Christian Science. You have totally missed the point of what I am trying to do with the Melchizedek article, as I've backed off the original position and only tried to make a compromise using stuff that there is consensus on, just rewriting it to tone it down. I didn't revert it just to revert it but because there was vandalism on the version that you seem to approve. You can also see I've reverted from vandalism on the Enenkio and New Utopia pages without making any changes to the articles.Johnski 06:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Esperanza Spam
Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.
The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.
My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.
On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.
Cheers Esperanza! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
ArbReq against Jguk
You might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Martin Sheen being pro-life.
Hello, I just noticed that some people have decided that Martin Sheen is not really pro-life despite the fact that he belongs to a pro-life organization and they removed the Pro-life celebrities category that was listed on his profile.
What do you think? I think that these two obviously liberal people can't believe that one of their own could actually be pro-life and they use every flimsy excuse to erase the facts. Dwain 02:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Nice to meet you
IP Check on Sockpuppets
I thought I'd let you know, I am still working on checking the various IP addresses I was talking about on the DOM page. I'll let you know if I have any sucess. Davidpdx 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration accepted
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence Fred Bauder 14:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Car Accident Secrets Book Review
This is censorship at it's finest. I gave a book review and followed the format of Chicken Soup for the Soul. The "admin" keeps deleting the entry. This does not make Misplaced Pages an open community, it makes it a censored one. You might as well have the gestapo running it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.164.205 (talk • contribs)
minor vandal section on recent vand
Did some surfing and found where it was added...
I'd go in and move stuff around (I assume everything "minor" should be ip low), but I'd feel better if someone who was an admin did it. I don't want someone 6 months down the line saying "OMG SYRTHISS VANDALIZED THE ViP PAGE AND REMOVED AN ENTIRE CATEGORY!11!" =D
Cheers, --Syrthiss 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello
Hi nice admin! That picture on your page is cool. The baby looks so happy and content!! --216.191.200.1 20:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Have a good day! --216.191.200.1 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
WP:VIP
Nice work at Vandalism in progress. I came here to suggest something: for those users who are indefinitely blocked, could you just delist them from the WP:VIP page? That will help to reduce the clutter and make it more effective to use, much like WP:AIAV works. Titoxd 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just so you know, we noticed it on CVU, so you might want to rattle our talk page to get more opinions. Titoxd 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)