User talk:Capsela

Welcome to my user talk page!--Capsela 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...

Thanks for the comment.

I didn't realize at first just how much Left-Liberals dominated wikipedia. But I figured it out pretty quickly. You are 100% correct, the only way to bring more balance to the subject is for conservatives to contribute by challenging the Liberal orthodoxy littering the articles.

To borrow a phrase from Chuck D., "We have to fight the powers that be."

The liberal persuasion orientation of Wikipedia is self-evident, but what to do about it? The liberal advocates are the most diligent of the editors here. Trying to correct their POV is mostly pointless, as there's a determined group of people with the same Marxist-Liberal POV that show up here and edit in that direction. In that respect, the self-correcting promise of Wikipedia fails, and probably will never be remedied. Indeed, Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has been deeply bruised by recent events, and probably won't recover without significant reform. The Co-Founder of Wikipedia, whose name we "dare not speak", believes that the answer is to hire editors to sift the candidate entries, and has formed his own Wiki-like venture to pursue that aim. In the meantime, this stuff is mostly harmless, and maybe even a little fun. How we edit or don't edit these articles will not lead to the destruction of the Western World. Wikipedia is just a starting point, not the last word. Of course, that doesn't mean that we cannot give the lib-POVers a taste of their own medicine. I suggest we form a Cabal for the purpose of supporting each other in these French-cheese-eaters vs. rational world wars. Cheers brothers.Morton devonshire 19:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you Morton. I'm glad to find some sense in this vast wasteland.--Capsela 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 Morton devonshire 02:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to join your cabal, sir! Unfortunately I have many work and family commitments that prevent me from being more verbose and doing as much editing as I'd like.--Capsela 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On "Rocko".

Capsela, could you get rid of the "Sexual Content" section on Rocko's Modern Life so I won't delete it again and get banned???!!! --68.37.116.234 12:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not untrue. Why are you trying to hide this information? Do you have some agenda? --Capsela 17:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's fake and never happened on the show. At school, the Wikipedia page at "Rocko" is forbidden and I would really want it to not be forbidden! I've got an idea. On the Rocko page, how about if the information in the "Interesting Innuendos" section got moved to a new page and the only thing in the "Interesting Innuendos" section would be ":See: [[[Adult Material in Rocko's Modern Life]]]--68.37.116.234 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to visit this website while at school? Why don't you make the new page? Why don't you register? Why are you devoting so much of your life's work to this insignificant subject?--Capsela 03:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boot Partition

I changed your page on "Boot partition" into a redirect to the more comprehensive Booting article. If you've further information not covered in that article, I think it's best to expand that rather than fork. Cheers. Ryanjunk 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it's important enough to merit its own article. "boot partition" and "system partition" have a windows specific definition that doesn't fit your within your article. What's wrong with having seperate articles?--Capsela 18:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- First, booting isn't "my" article, I've nothing to do with it. My intent was just to consolidate information to one comprehensive article, rather than multiple very short articles. Ryanjunk 18:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your kind comments. The desperation with which the Socialists post here is evidence that they can't persuade, only force their views on others. The contest is exhilerating, but success is fleeting -- only to be quickly undone. In the end, I don't think that Wikipedia is really that important -- it's just tweaking a few liberal noses. This is more entertainment than anything else. If the campaign mood strikes, I'll ring you again. Cheers brother. Morton devonshire 05:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate for the message of today. Is there some outcome that I am not aware of that prompted your remark? Also, need your help keeping Template:AfdAnons and Wikipedia:Spam reasonable. Cheers. Morton devonshire 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the debate on the adminstrators' notice board, your notifications "spamming" split the admins. I looks like our side won. :)--Capsela 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Denver / Dawn Wells

Added the reference you suggested to the Dawn Wells article. Proxy User (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Just delete my account. Wikipedia is dead. You won congrats. Capsela (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thank you. I'm afraid accounts can't be deleted. Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.