User talk:Kingshowman - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingshowman (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 11 August 2015 (→August 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:06, 11 August 2015 by Kingshowman (talk | contribs) (→August 2015)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

LATER GOONS

LATER

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iraq War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. (Hohum ) 13:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in an edit war. You just removed my contribution without cause. It is you who are "edit warring." I added 7 citations and could give you 100 if you like of how commonly the Iraq War is referred to as the "worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. History" in policy discussions. This is an uncontroversial position. What do you think was the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. History? Kingshowman (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Coal. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Coal

You should stop adding commentary to the article and start trying to find better text to add, so that the health effects are mentioned. It is not helpful to indulge in excessive language and use references that only mention coal ash. Mikenorton (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I was getting frustrated at other people's deletions (not yours) that I thought were unreasonable, but I'm being serious again. Can you fix my link fuck-up for me on the coal page? I screwed it up and I don't know why all the links came out incorrectly.Kingshowman (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Nevermind. I fixed it. Hopefully you'll find the new edits more reasonable. Kingshowman (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

They are a considerable improvement, but I've moved the bulk of them to the relevant section and integrated them with the existing text and added a brief summary to the lead section. Mikenorton (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be in the lead. You're wrong on this, but I have other things I need to do. The health effects of coal should obviously be in the lead. I've yet to hear a single argument why they shouldn't be. You even said earlier that they should, and now you're backtracking. I'm just wasting my time with this, too many shills who won't accept any criticism of coal in the header of the article, like it should just be presented as some harmless rock when I've clearly cited multiple reliable sources that it kills 10-20,000 a year depending on estimates.Kingshowman (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Returning to adding commentary is not helpful, virtually everything that you added is in the article, just not in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the article - see WP:LEAD. Mikenorton (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Truth. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Coal Industry Shills are Winning!

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Coal. KSFT 18:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kingshowman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ALL I DID WAS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT COAL WITH SOURCES. Those who blocked me ARE IN THE POCKET OF BIG COAL and i exposed their nefarious plots. LOOK AT MY EDITS. I PROUDLY STAND BY EACH ONE. THEY EACH TOLD THE TRUTH IN A VERIFIABLE FASHION. Please FREE KINGSHOWMAN! William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM! William Wallace: Alba gu bràth! They won't even tell me what I did because they know all I did was Bring Justice and Tell Truth! I'm not being disruptive. I simply added a single sentence about Misplaced Pages and Truth. And some paid coal industry supporters have been reverting my edits where I try to add useful public health information that coal kills 10-20,000 per year, with provided citations. They claim it's not neutral, but if you check, they are all Ph.D's in Coal Theory working for big Coal. This block is rather unfair since it is not even mentioned what my supposed crime was. If you want to claim I was disruptive, please tell me what edit was disruptive so I can at least defend myself. I don't know any court of law where you can accuse someone of a crime without telling him what the crime is. I really don't see what edits are disruptive, and the fact that no one has told me what edits I made that were "disruptive" indicates to me that the Coal people have gotten to you. My coal edits greatly improved that page, which was about as Non-neutral POV as could possibly be before I made changes to it. I also greatly improved the David Hume page, and several other pages today, as you can verify. I gather the admin didn't like that I added a single sentence about Misplaced Pages and truth saying "Misplaced Pages is actually not based on the search for truth, but the search for consensus." I fail to see how that was disruptive. Admin also appears steamed by the fact that I added this sentence to Landlord: "Some tenants find the term "landlord" offensive, since the person who one rents one's place of residence from is not thereby one's feudal lord." Again, I fail to see how that's disruptive, it's a statement of fact that many people find the term offensive due to its association with feudal landlord law,in which the "tenants" or serfs lived in a quasi-slavery relationship to the landlord. What is disruptive about either of those edits? And if this is about the coal edits, then this encylopedia is simply corrupt from top to bottom and has no mechanism of preventing large multinational billionaire corporations from using their resources to make sure public verifiable information about the negative health effects of their products cannot be placed in a public place of knowledge. Those who blocked me are corrupt! You allow yourself to be in the pocket of Big Coal. There was NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, wrong with my edit simply stating verified facts about coal in a neutral tone. I don't even get told by thel WIkipedia Block-Lord what I did that he/she considered disruptive? How can I defend myself when you won't even say what your problem was? This is a grave injustice! RememberIt is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to hang 1 innocent man!. Do not hang this innocent man! I have not even been told what my crime was! my only crime was my love of truth! If anything, I told too many truths! Kingshowman (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sure there's an actual unblock request in there somewhere, but I'm not going to spend time sifting through your attempts at humor to get at it. If you want to make a real request, please do so. Note that further nonsense will result in your talk page being disabled, and/or the block being extended. Kuru (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kingshowman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Old reason: I am being punished because I dared put information about coal being estimated to kill 10-25,000 Americans yearly in the lead of the coal article. I was never, never, never given a reason why it was being taken out, other than "not lead material"," not important." You can see some of the controversy below, and in the history of the page. It is frankly ridiculous that this is being considered an insignificant fact, unworthy of "lead status. " I wrote it conciusely,, neuytrally, backed it up painstakingly with multiple sources, replacing the ones that weren't liked, and still, for no reason, my edits kept getting reverted with little to no explanation, other than "Not lead material." I began to suspect that an underground Big Coal cabal might be behind the reversions because they were so unreasoned, and so clearly destroyed my hard work in improving the Coal page today. When I found the page this morning, it was in terrible, non-neutral POV shape. It looked as if it was a marketing brochure straight from the Coal Companies. I added some very neutral and well researched, concise, encylpedic sentences that I worked hard on, adding them very sparsely to the lead, just so the reader, MIGHT find out JUST from reading the lead that coal was a highly toxic substance, responsible for 10-25,000 premature deaths annually in the U.S. due to air pollution, and damage to heart, lungs, and brain. I was never once given a reason why this wasn't lead material. It was always, after very careful work BURIED deep within the article with little to no explanation. Soon after, it would just be deleted for no reason at all. Please have a look at the Coal page history. You will see my edits vastly improved the page and shifted it away from the state of ludicrously ideological Pro-Coal Propaganda piece that it is now. The other so-called disruptive edits were extremely, extremely minorafter my frustration with what appeared to be coroporate-controlled blocking of negative information about their products. Even so, the edits were hardly highly disruptive, but a short line, written in a neutral tone, albeit unsourced. I MERELY added to the Truth page this 1 line: "Although it is commonly believed that Misplaced Pages is based on the search for truth, it is actually based on the search for consensus." This was my apparently tremendous disruption to the truth page, by bringing up the topic of Misplaced Pages and Truth, in a separate 1 section sentence. I see that my edit to "Landlord" was also deleted, where the disruption was simply this "Many "tenants" find the term landlord offensive, as the person one rents a home from is not thereby their feudal lord." I can't see how either of those were really disruptions, so I am forced to conclude I am being banned for being insistent on the fact that mention of Coal's annual death toll deserves a fair spot in its Misplaced Pages lead--in fact you violate non-neutral point of view, if you omit it, since it is such an important fact about it, and only an ideologically driven, propagandistic source would omit the fact that something causes tens of thousands of deaths a year in one country alone. Also, I have to say it is kind of unfair that I was never even told what I did wrong. Kingshowman (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

New Reason: I promise to stop edit-warring about insufficient attention being paid to coal deaths, and will try to go back to my Philosophy edits where I have more subject knowledge and my edits have so far been generally well-received. I am a new user, but please look at my work on the Hume page today, which I think you'll see have been very productive. Kingshowman (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Actually, don't bother considering my request. I quit. In the few days I've been here, far too many of the helpful edits I've contributed to extremely low quality current articles like "Hume" "Plato", "childhood" "happiness" get mysteriously reverted without any reason by a variety of editors, for example, Flyer22, who reverts my sourced edits, and then marks them unsourced without explaining why.

You all drove me to make the few "disruptive" edits I made in the first plae, because after I spend my time making useful edits to your pages on Hume, Plato, Happiness, Childhood, etc. where I fix glaring omissions (no mention of Freud's theories on a page on childhood? can you all be intellectually serious at all? Or No mention of Nietzsche on the Sub-section of Philosophy of Happiness while you mention a bunch of lesser figures who have little connection with the topic? And then it gets deleted for no reason as "unsourced"?) It's far too easy for someone who knows nothing about the topic at hand to simply come along and revert sourced information and just not look at the link I've provided (hint; to an actual encyclopedia, with real information, one that solicits contributions from people who know about the philosophical topics at hand), and then deletes the information. And then I got blocked for "edit warring" on coal, once my contributions to philosophy pages have been deleted with no explanation or reason. Done contributing my time and knowledge here. Your encyclopedia is largely terrible for information outside of popular culture because you acitvely drive away people with substantive knowledge of the topics at hand. Most of the philosophy articles I looked at were pure dreck, but when I made helpful, productive edits, often they were reverted with no explanation or reasoning given, or false reasoning, like "unsourced" when I provided a link to a source at an actual encyclopedia, but you were too busy to read the link, or you have some stupid vendetta against me, because I reasonably insist that Freud's theory of child development ought to be cited in an article on childhood, a completely non-controversial opinion. Done here, later y'all! Enjoy those c-class articles , and I highly suggest you take a look at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy or the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy to see what encylopedic articles on Philosophy or intellectual topics should look like. Wikipedians are drunk with their petty power and their silly "blocks" over "edit wars" when they can't win an argument with reasons. Hint: Having the "consensus" or the "most votes" doesn't in any way make you more likely to be right. Kingshowman (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't think you're ready to be unblocked just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You need me. Most of your philosophy articles read as though they have been written by people who have not read the books in question, and who "know about" the authors rather than have read them. There is little difference in tone or intellectual substance at the moment between your articles on Plato and Aristotle and your articles on the Kardashians. I tried to help, and you badly need people who have actually read the original sources to edit these articles. My helpful, productive edits keep getting reverted by vindictive editors who seem to have a middle school education for NO REASON. , It is impossible to have an enclyopedia that simultaneously covers intellectual topics of philosophical substance like "Childhood", "Happiness", "Hume", "Plato" and popular culture topics about garbage because the garbage editors come over and destroy hard work for no reason. And as for coal. and landlord-- I am being discriminated against my the American Big Coal Association, and the American Landlords association, who have sent members of thier cabal on here to destroy me, because I added well known facts about "laws are necessary to protect tenants against landlords" -- no citation should be needed for such a banality, not every sentence in wikipedia has a citation, and there is no person alive who could contest that claim. NONE. As far as coal, i provided extensive references to coal killing 25,000 americans yearly and 1,000,000 people worldwide, information that is elsewhere on wikipedia, and I just kept getting disciminated against by Big Coal for putting it in the front. THIS ENCYLOPEDIA IS DYING THE DEATH OF LOSS OF KNOWLEDGE. FREE KINGSHOWMAN Kingshowman (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman Kingshowman (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The landlord thing was because you were putting an unsupported claim in. "Many people do this" things need to be referenced reliably and independently - see WP:RS - otherwise the claim is regarded as WP:OR original research. If you can prove that the people reverting you at Coal are really working for Mr Peabody and his like, please do so. Otherwise, don't say it. (I'm not a landlord, not do I have one, and where I live, the term often means the chap who runs the pub. My only connection with coal is that I have been down three coal mines - one still working.) Peridon (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not everything in Misplaced Pages is cited. I see no citations for all of these sentences in "Landlord": 1." Many owners hire a property management company to take care of all the details of renting their property out to a tenant. This usually includes advertising the property and showing it to prospective tenants, and then, once rented, collecting rent from the tenant and performing repairs as needed" 2. "In the United States, homeowner–tenant disputes are primarily governed by state law (not federal law) regarding property and contracts. State law and, in some places, city law or county law, sets the requirements for eviction of a tenant. Generally, there are a limited number of reasons for which a landlord or landlady can evict his or her tenant before the expiration of the tenancy, though at the end of the lease term the rental relationship can generally be terminated without giving any reason. Some cities have laws establishing the maximum rent a landlord can charge, known as rent control, and related eviction. There is also an implied warranty of habitability, whereby a landlord must maintain safe, decent and habitable housing, meeting minimum safety requirements such as smoke detectors and a locking door." 3. "A rental agreement, or lease, is the contract defining such terms as the price paid, penalties for late payments, the length of the rental or lease, and the amount of notice required before either the homeowner or tenant cancels the agreement. In general, responsibilities are given as follows: the homeowner is responsible for making repairs and performing property maintenance, and the tenant is responsible for keeping the property clean and safe." 4.. ."A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land or real estate which is rented or leased to an individual or business, who is called a tenant (also a lessee or renter). When a juristic person is in this position, the term landlord is used. Other terms include lessor and owner. The term landlady may be used for female owners, and lessor applies to both genders."

Yes, my sentences were uncited, but they were as uncontroversial, and matters of common knowledge just as these. They fit perfectly with the rest of the article., and made it read like less of a landlord propaganda piece.Kingshowman (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

A great Injustice has been Committed Today

A crime AGAINST THE TRUTH ABOUT COAL

A question for you Kingshowman - have you read Environmental impact of the coal industry? Do you find any evidence there of editors denying the serious impact of coal mining and use? The environmental part of that article is summarised in Coal#Environmental effects, while much of the health impact is summarised now in the Coal#Health effects. The lead section is supposed to present the important points from the article content in a concise manner. I've tweaked the sentence on environmental and health effects in the lead - to me as a scientist 'significant' has a particular meaning, but I understand that others may not read it that way, so I've changed it to 'severe' after reading the sub-article mentioned above. I am a member of an international environmental organisation as well as a geologist and I don't take kindly to being called a shill for an industry with which I do not deal. Mikenorton (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Need I have read it? First, of all, part of the very point is that information should appear in the lead, because 90 percent of people aren't going to read past the lead! . I'm sure Tobacco, and Mercury, and Asbestos, and other similarly toxic/hazardous products all have information about their negative health impact in the lead. Killing thousands yearly should not be buried halfway through the article as "unimportant" as if the deaths of thousands of human beings are incidental. I really can't tell if you're serious about this-- do you honestly think it isn't important enough to be in the lead? Thousands are dying. Seems important if anything is. I really don't understand if you're serious, because that's the kind of thing that I would think someone would only say as a joke. I should not be getting punished for speaking the Truth about Coal! It is not a subsidiary bit of information that coal kills 25,000 Americans annually. Anything with a Misplaced Pages page that kills more than 10,000- 25,000 human beings annually should have that information in the lead. I didn't even realize coal was this horrible until I started looking for citations for this-- how is coal power even legal given how lethal it is? And more importantly for our purposes, how is killing 10 -25 ,000 humans in any country alone unworthy of lead ? This seems like one of the most relevant and important facts to know about something. I really don't get it. How can coal killing tens of thousands of people per year not be "important" information about Coal? I would think it's by far the MOST IMPORTANT thing to know about coal. Arguably, that's all one really needs to know about it. If you are a member of an environmental organization, why are you sticking up for Coal? I don't know of any environmental organizations that supports Coal. Coal is almost universally regarded as retrograde energy source that should be left in the ground. I understand exactly what 'significance' means in your sense which is precisely why it was inappropriate. Significant is the completely incorrect word.Kingshowman (talk)

Kingshowman, accusing people of working for coal organisations is not going to help with an unblock at all. And have you looked at the lead of Environmental impact of the coal industry? All but the opening sentence of it is negative. —George8211 / T 20:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok- I had not seen THAT article, but who is going to search for enviornmental impact of the coal industry? You're going to search for Coal, and info on coal death should be there. FIght the Power! Kingshowman (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)KingShowman

A suggestion-- why do we separate out "Environmental Impact of the Coal industry" into a separate article, which no one reads, allowing the main coal article to remain clean? Why don't we just take the lead from Environemental Impact of the Coal Industry, and add it as a PARTIAL lead to the Full Coal article?Kingshowman (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Ok, I've just gotten back from the suggested Environmental Impact of the Coal Industry article. It's even worse than I thought! 1,000,000 lives worldwide per year from Coal? Why is Coal even legal again? Are we all living in some Charles Dickens novel?Kingshowman (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

The environmental impact of the coal industry article exists because it's too long to include all of it in the main article. Perhaps the lead of Coal isn't balanced, but improvement of it will be reached by discussion, not edit warring.

And by the way, I don't like fossil fuels either. —George8211 / T 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, George. I guess you're right. I suppose my countervailing concern would be if you split off "negative effects" always onto a separate page, and then leave it mainly out of the main page for purposes of redundancy, you won't present an accurate picture in the main page.Kingshowman (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Don't remove declined unblock requests or anything else related to your block while it's active, or you might lose the right to edit this page. This time, I've restored it for you. Max Semenik (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015 edits to Shakespeare

@Kingshowman: Please stop your disruptive editing, as you have been doing at Shakespeare. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Any proposition that Shakespeare may have used cannabis is entirely speculative, purely hypothetical and undocumented, although a discussion of the clay pipes found in his garden in recent years by the South African study team is included in the article. The pipes found there, however, may not have even belonged to William Shakespeare, but possibly belonged to any number of others over the years during and since his periods of residency there. Consequently, it is not appropriate to make the inductive leap, as you are wont to do, from finding the pipe-stem fragments, to our being receptive to categorizing him with a "Cannabis User" tag in an encyclopedia-quality Misplaced Pages article. Thank you. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the clay pipes filled with cannabis information to Shakespeare page, under the heading "speculations". I didn't present it as non-speculation.

As for the category, I was just trying to create a new Category page. You have plenty of categories less worthy of inclusion than "Cannabis users", which is a perfectly respectable category.Kingshowman (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

@Kingshowman: Your edits are welcomed, and no problem with having a new "Cannabis User" category --- that's fine, thanks for the contribution --- it just can't, and shouldn't be tagged to Wm. Shakespeare on the basis of existing (or non-existent in this case) evidence. And, the article as it stands now is OK, too, as it includes your contribution, and discusses the recent pipe-stem fragments study, etc., but makes clear that any possible connection to Shakespeare himself is pure conjecture and speculation. So, both of your contributions (the new category, and the pipe fragments with traces of cannabis) are now in fact included, but with necessary qualifications vis-à-vis their applicability to "the Bard". Your contributions are always welcome and encouraged, but may be challenged and edited as appropriate by others, particularly if they go beyond that which can be verified with valid sourcing. Happy editing. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Professor, many thanks. I agree your changes were an improvement, and for the reasons you state, the studies were indeed more speculative than I had originally taken them to be. Kingshowman (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Misplaced Pages

If you find something that should have a citation but doesn't, it's not an excuse to add more uncited stuff.
Don't accuse people of working for companies, industries, etc.
Administrators can revoke talk page access if you become too disruptive.

—George8211 / T 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Serious Question: Does Misplaced Pages, in fact, even have a policy AGAINST persons working for industries, say, for instance Big Coal, editing the Misplaced Pages page on Coal? If not, Misplaced Pages would lose a great deal of intellectual legitimacy in my opinion.Kingshowman (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

And I did not mean it as an excuse to add more uncited stuff, but that my information fit in with the rest of the page, which added well-known stock information about landlords (but curiously omitted any negative information, as if this was a paid advertisement of the Landlord industry.)

See WP:COI. —George8211 / T 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And think about this: if you are in a campaign to tell The Truth about Big Coal or anything else, you too have a COI. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not in a campaign to tell the truth about Big Coal. Everyone knows this. It's been extremely well-evidenced since at least 2009 WHO studies that coal kills millions annually. I simply happened upon a page that was shockingly non-neutral and not up to date. It would be as if the wikipedia "Tobacco" page buried the fact that Tobacco is highly lethal 12 paragraphs down in the article and no one was allowed to write that this substance kills millions annually in the lead. If you think such information doesn't belong in the lead of the article, frankly, it is you who are wrong and ill-informed. However, I take the point that I need not have accused my opponents of being paid employees of the Coal industry or fundamentally morally corrupt because they disagreed with me. Still, they were quite wrong, and continue to be so.Kingshowman (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Sweet Freedom!!!!

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty we are free at last!--Dr. MLK, Jr.Kingshowman (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM! William Wallace: Alba gu bràth! Kingshowman (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. --the first president of freedomland

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.- Albert Camus, philosopher of freedom

Freedom is never given; it is won.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.- GOETHE

Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish? Nothing else.Kingshowman (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)EPICTETUS

Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost.--ROUSSEAU

BEHOLD KINGSHOWMAN IS FREE

THE TRUTH WILL OUT

August 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Cannabis, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Misplaced Pages is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce jokes into articles, as you did at David Hume, you may be blocked from editing. Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call this "vandalism", it was some dry, encylopedic-style humor. Rule #1: Assume good faith! I'm not sure this really was so un-encylopedic as you've implied, but I'll defer to your judgement.

Your edit added "Unlike Tobacco, Cannabis is generally regarded as tasty, delicious, and possessed with a lovely bouquet and aroma. " which is most definitely not encyclopedic. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's like a tasting note. Kingshowman (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I QUIT DUE TO UNWARRANTED HOSTILITY. WILL NO LONGER WASTE MY TIME CONTRIBUTING TO A HOPELESS ENCYCLOPEDIA

REQUEST FOR DELETION BECAUSE I NO LONGER WISH TO ASSOCIATE WITH THIS WEBSITE

WP:Courtesy vanishing is only available to accounts in good standing. Given your block history and your recent deletion of material from articles, I don't think bureaucrats would deem your account suitable for it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC

Flyer22 told me she was going to personally have all my contributions deleted, so I pre-emptively deleted them myself. I don't understand your refusal when I've been effectively chased away anyway.Kingshowman (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Whatever though, I'm done anyway. And I only deleted my own material that I personally contributed.Kingshowman (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Parting question: If I was indeed such a "terrible editor" according to some, why does my material keep getting restored now after I deleted it? Why am I being reprimanded for removing material I added when I was told my edits were all "poor"?

That's fine, don't vanish me, I don't even care anymore. But Fred, do realize that I only deleted "content" that I wrote, because I was rudely getting badgered by an editor that "your edits are poor, plain and simple." The content you restored was content that I authored andI deleted once I was falsely told my edits were "poor," I didn't delete any material from articles that was already there or written by others, Fred. I only removed my own content when its quality was rudely and ignorantly questioned (by someone with likely no acquaintance with the primary sources on which I was writing) I do have to note how remarkable it is that if my edits were so "poor, pure and simple" why is it that nearly all of them got restored wholesale by others within hours of my deleting them, FLYER22, despite that I even requested that they be deleted? Puzzling. Kingshowman (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Anyone wanting to know what I actually stated to Kingshowman should click on this link. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's quote from there, shall we? "Your editing is poor, plain and simple." "You don't listen to anyone about how poor your editing is " "Your edits to the David Hume article consist of such editing, and I am tempted to revert you there and assist Theroadislong in doing so.". We are all extremely lucky you didn't give in to such temptation, since when I took up your suggestion, and reverted all my edits myself, they were immediately restored, and I was told not to get rid of them. Amazing how if they were so "poor, plain and simple" - your words- my edits got restored. You are an ignoramus who enjoys opining on topics she knows nothing about., "plain and simple."

And you're an insufferable, humorless boor to boot. Kingshowman (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Other than this, I have nothing more to state to you. Your childish WP:Personal attacks are only adding to my case against you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What is your "case"? I already quit this POS encylopedia to begin with due to your unwarranted Hostility and Personal Attacks against me. You insulted my edits, told me they were "poor, pure and simple" and yet, strangely enough, they were restored within hours of my requesting them to be deleted (aside from the dead pages you patrol that no one posts on and which you allow to be filled with garbage, crackpot theories like "Nature deficit disorder", a concept apparently invented by a journalist in 2006 to sell some book and which has not been heard from since. . So you were, in fact,quite wrong in your assertions.. And you lack the integrity to admit your mistake. Don't you have some articles on sexology you could be editing? The world needs your expertise! Any tips to share with us mere mortals?Kingshowman (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Proposed deletion of Joe Maddon's Beard

The article Joe Maddon's Beard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Just because someone wrote a news article about it, that doesn't make it notable. Not really a useful redirect term either.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. A page you recently created, Joe Maddon's Beard, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.Template:Z43 Bongan →TalkToMe← 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Joe Maddon's Beard, you may be blocked from editing. Please don't removing deletion templates without them being discussed, thanks! This is also known as Blanking a page here on Misplaced Pages. Snowycats (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I was told the article was not notable, so I went to delete it. Kingshowman (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

To clarify, your actions on Joe Maddon's Beard, wherein you blanked the page you yourself created, are generally allowed and are recognized by the community as an author's request to have the page deleted. In the future, should you wish to take this action, you should place the {{db-author}} template on the page. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Happiness. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

She did the same to me. Check her log of "contributions" which mainly consist of unwarranted personal attacks on me, after I questioned her on her reversions without any reasoning given. Why is she not being warned?Kingshowman (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman