User talk:Commandur

<<redact polemic rant>>

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 07:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tag team Commandur (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<<redact polemic>>

Lack of Neutrality and Fake Consensus on Wikipedia:

<<redacted>>

"I gave Jimmy Wales an ultimatum: you do something about these problems or I'm going to distance myself from the project permanently, and he simply denied that there were any of the problems I listed."

<<redact>>

(emphasis added)

- Dr. Larry Sanger, Nov 2019

Commandur (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Sanger thinks the 2020 election was stolen. He's gone fringe. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's absolutely right about each quote I posted, so it doesn't really matter if he was incorrect about something else at some point.

Besides, you can't really prove beyond all doubt that the election was not "stolen", and it's clearly much easier for you to label dissenters "fringe" than it is to actually argue their very valid points. Commandur (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been proven beyond doubt. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been proven beyond doubt that tons of extremist leftist editors and admins on Wikipedia want only their own biased side represented and do not actually care about NPOV if it does not fit their agenda or match their worldview, hoping that "plausible deniability" will somehow protect them. But though some gullible idiots may fall for it, it's easy for the rest of us to see the obvious hypocrisy. Commandur (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the place for your buzzword-laden diatribes. Try Conservapedia instead. Dricoust (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.50.214.130.225 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Commandur

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Commandur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Star Mississippi 01:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

I'm sorry, but I or another admin have deleted content from your user space, User:Commandur .

User pages and User talk pages are intended only to assist collegiality among users. They are not to be used as a soapbox for writings not connected with the editorial process on Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and

not a free webhosting service ,
not a personal website,
not a blog
not a social media site

Nor are user pages intended to host articles, CV's/resumés or lengthy autobiographies. Wikipedia is not a promotional venue or a place to post ads. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ~ subjects of articles must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources which are unconnected with the subject and which provide verifiable information. For article creation, Please use WP:AfC and/or request help at the TEAHOUSE. You can also seek help via IRC chat.

More information on user pages is available at THIS PAGE.

Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletion and restoration

The deletion removed pertinent content going back years. So I restored. I've redacted the rants and the personal attacks, leaving what I could. Commandur, you might have greater success with that content as an essay in project space. As we have seen, it's just disruptive in user space. I've been here a long time. The best way to deal with disagreements is polite discussion. That does not ensure getting the changes you want, but neither does being disagreeable. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]