User talk:CaptainNicodemus

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CaptainNicodemus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mr mark taylor (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

I have reverted your edits to Joseph McCarthy, for a very simple reason (which was also pointed out to you by an earlier editor in an edit summary): Sobell and Rosenberg have nothing to do with McCarthy that would support your claim that Sobell's recent 'confession' would exonerate McCarthy. You inserted in the article that McCarthy sent Rosenberg to the chair--it was, of course, a judge who did so, Irving Kaufman; McCarthy had nothing to do with it. There is a link: one of the prosecutors, Roy Cohn, later worked for McCarthy, but that doesn't make your claim of (partial) exoneration even remotely accurate. Your edit thus suffers from a lack of accuracy, and smacks of NPOV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Please note, there is a place called conservapedia. You can go there and write as biasedly as you wish on topics. Wikipedia is not a place for you to assert you political beliefs. your ideological babble is not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that wikipedia is liberal, and what you are doing is censoring free speech and the ability to have a neutral, scientific debate. This is censorship. It is weird to see liberals, who are so in favor of free speech threatening to ban or censor a point of view that runs counter to their own. I don't need conservapedia, I need for wikipedia to be a legitimate place to offer a balanced rational point of view. You are the one who is babbling.

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crowder

I am trying to establish a fair and accurate page for Steven Crowder who is an avid supporter of Americans for Prosperity, but feel I am being Wiki-bullied by editors who have a personal dislike for him and want to include libelous/POV comments about him. I would appreciate anyone taking a look since we've reached a deadlock and the Wikiguide suggests having a 3rd party look at it to try to find a resolution. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]