User talk:Retired user 1q43153
October 2011
[edit]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Bruce Cockburn. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)- Please read the following: WP:TRUTH, WP:VNT, WP:NOR, WP:NPA. If you read and understand those, and can agree to abide by Wikipedia's policies, you will be unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Cazedessus
[edit]User:Cazedessus, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cazedessus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cazedessus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Bushranger and whoever: It seems to me that some people at wikipedia are determined to shut me up and this is the latest effort: DELETE EVERYTHING BY CAZEDESSUS. Of course they won't use their real names and will not engage in a civilized conversation. I posted several pertinent questions right here just a few days ago, and they have all been simply deleted with the only new comment that the entire Cazedessus section has ben "nominated" (?) for deletion. What a joke. Several years ago I substantially rewrote the Kit Carson entry and added almost all the information about novels, films television, music and noted that all that information came from my book THE UNREAL KIT CARSON. But now it has all been rewritten, my book is no longer in the foot notes, and now over that section, Wiki has the audacity to insert this notice:
"This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2011)"
Wikipedia editors have treated me like a dog and piece of shit. Cazedessus (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the references that you added cannot be verified as being reliable sources. Your book doesn't turn up on WorldCat or Amazon - books that are self-published or published by vanity publishers are, in most cases, not considered relable souces. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has treated you "like a dog", nor like a "piece of shit". You need to remember that a song is a piece of fiction ... your writings about Kit Carson and Mr. Cockburn's writing on Kit Carson happen to be two pieces of work on the same topic - just like Godin's painting of a fruit bowl would be very different that Salvador Dali's painting of the same fruit bowl ... which one would be "fiction"? I do not believe that Mr. Cockburn purports his version to be absolute fact. As such, your personal railing against a piece of fiction is rather pathetic, and the WP:OR behind it is extremely beneath anyone who claims to be an author. We writers are required to have an objective view of any piece of art. It reminds me of the people who picketed Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ (film) with signs saying "this is not real"... well of course it's not real, it's a fricking movie! Because your inability to separate the truth in your writings from the fiction in Mr Cockburn's songs, you unfortunately violated our living persons policy. This is not an optional policy, and it is not optional to edit according to Wikipedia's policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- First, please be aware that I do use my real name - nothing to hide behind.
A man’s life is like a fruit bowl? Truly, I am talking to a moron. And one who is in severe denial. Really...”two pieces of work on the same topic” ? Whether Kit Carson was an honoroble man or a genocidal maniac is just matter of opinion? What a child you are in thinking that Bruce wrote a “piece of fiction” when right there on Youtube, he states without reservation, that he is talking about the real Kit Carson, and that he was an unsavory character. You and wikipedia are the typical tyrants we’ve seen for 10000s of years: blind, arrogant, superior, mean spirited, and way too often in positions of power where their agendas and prejudices expose themselves for what they represent; TYRANNY.
- Given your belligerence, I'm not surprised that the response has been this calm. I see no evidence of you being treated like a "dog" or a "piece of shit" (your words); I do see, however, plenty of evidence that you don't understand the fundamental policies of Wikipedia (namely WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:No personal attacks) and that you won't even take the effort to learn them. The only person you can blame for your present predicament is yourself. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
HA! Here is my first response to WIKI BS back in Sept. 2006 (I've kept a copy of it) FIRST RESPNSE ------ you say: If all those quotes are real, stop right there...what do you mean IF THEY ARE REAL? They are all taken from information from KIT CARSON, INDIAN FIGHTER OR INDIAN KILLER, a symposium of articles by several professional historians published in1996. They all illustrate the extreme hatred, misinformation and disinformation that exists in the general public about Kit CarsonCazedessus (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
here is a short part of the WIKI response, from: -Karafias Talk • Contributions 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC) then it's possible that they should be listed here - because they were made by notable people, and the opinions of such people is notable can be something of a reference. However, you shouldn't put your own personal opinion of them here. This is supposed to be a neutral reference, not your personal website to post your views. Of course, those quotes shouldn't stand by themselves. We strive to maintain balance here, and all notable sides of the argument deserve - and WILL HAVE - a listing here. Naturally, all sides should have representation, and references backing them up.........blah, blah,blah.
95% of my contributions to WIKI have been on Kit Carson and the present entry is acceptable to me, short of WIKI not giving me any credit whatsoever for my 5 years of contributions to that entry. That is "treating me like a dog and piece of shit." Of course my Kit Carson info comes from my own "original research", so, unacceptable by one of your rules. And now some anon. jerk is calling me belligerent, while Bruce Cockburn tells the world that Kit Carson was a genocidal maniac, an unsavory character, dealt in poison, pestilence, famine, flame, war" Well you anon. jerk, THAT IS HATE SPEECH. And since you brought up "blame"; I blame Wiki and you for letting him have his bio. on WIKI and no mention that he is a liar about Kit Carson, the famous American Hero. I am in no "predicment" Mr. smart ass, get off your perch and dig a hole.Cazedessus (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk page access deleted
[edit]The discussion here has gone beyond reasonable bounds. I have disabled your talk page access for the duration (presumably indefinite/permanent) of the block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)