Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
P.S. Do you think you could post your evidence that Lew Rockwell released his picture? I'd like to use it for the libertarianism article, too. Thanks in advance.
I believe that I have remedied ths problem with the Lew Rockwell image. DickClarkMises 7 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
Could you please give us more information about the ownership and source of the images that you have posted? They seem to come from copyrighted websites. As you may not know, Wikipedia uses as GFDL license, and so all material must be freely available for any commercial and non-commercial use. I we don't hear from you we will have to blank them. Thanks for your help and for your contributions to the project. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Images need to be released under the GFDL or similar license, allowing for any use, commercial or non-commercial. If the copyright holders are willing to do so, please indicate that fact on the image pages. Thanks, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:38 (UTC)
More information about the various image designations available can be found at Wikipedia:image tags. Thanks, -Willmcw July 1, 2005 20:46 (UTC)
I believe I have taken care of this issue...-DC 5 July 2005 14:59CST
Thanks for noting the status on each image. I've followed you and applied the GFDL tags. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 20:46 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the new VfD. Whilst quite lengthy, it is at least informative. I dropped by to say that, as the 'original' author, you are entitled, and almost expected, to vote keep, although the closing admin may or may not count your vote. -Splash18:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - as an active participant in the ongoing edits to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article, I wanted to inform you that I have started a "Request for Comment" (RfC) proceeding over this article in light of continued disruptive and abusive editing behavior by two other participants there. The RfC is located at the link here [1]. In case you have not participated in an RfC before, it is the first step after the talk page in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process for articles in which an agreement cannot be easily reached (outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). I decided to initiate this RfC over the actions of two users who I believe to be seriously impeding the constructive development of this article into an encyclopedia-quality description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In one case the editor's behavior was long term. In the other, the editor responded to negotiation efforts I initiated with him on the talk page with unprovoked personal hostility against me, which in turn led me to first warn him of the potential need for an RfC and then follow through as his belligerence continued. I am hopeful that this process will assist in working out the differences that exist on the LVMI article and help to direct the responsible editors toward making their future contributions in compliance with the neutrality mandate and with other Wikipedia standards and policies.
You are also welcome to contribute to this RfC, and as a participant in the LVMI article development your participation here may be beneficial. To those who are unfamiliar, participants may contribute by endorsing (or declining to endorse) the RfC case regarding the problem users as stated. Endorsements should be placed here [2] per the RfC page's instructions and entail the use of a tilde signature in the normal fashion. RfC participants may also contribute by way of discussion of the RfC case and all pertinent materials here [3]. A formatted area is also provided on the RfC for the named editors to respond to the complaint. Thank you for your continued work on the LVMI article and for your patience during this process, as it is my hope that we will be able to produce an agreeable quality product upon its conclusion. Rangerdude00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. Unfortunately a few of the usual suspects are also trying to disrupt this process and dismantle work being done to better the article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude18:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you are a member of the Mises Insitute, might I suggest that it might be appropiate to recuse yourself from editing articles related to the Mises Insitute, such as Lew Rockwell, to avoid the possible impression of conflict of interest?
There is no reason for an editor to "recuse" himself from a topic simply because of a connection to that topic. All editors are required to adhere to the principle of NPOV, so it should not matter what their affiliation is. (The only exception I can think of is autobiography, but this is not an autobiographical matter). So long as user:DickClarkMises follows the policies and guidelines, he can edit any article that he likes. -Willmcw 18:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
As Willmcw points out, I have no duty to "recuse myself." I am a Wiki editor with an account, and all the edits that I make are easily traced to me. My affiliation to the Mises Institute is something that I wear on my wiki-sleeve, hence my mention of my employment on my user page. I'll let other editors decide if my edits violate NPOV on a case-by-case basis. I assure you that I am editing in good faith. Dick Clark22:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting all criticism of related organizations or Lew Rockwell himself does have the appearance of being a bit unethical, and perhaps not in the best of intentions. Lew Rockwell, to say the least, is not held in uniformly high regard among our Libertarian community. As such, criticism from within the community is something that should be mentioned.
"Unnamed critics" do not belong on Wikipedia. Undoubtedly Rockwell has been notably criticized by fellow libertarians. Let's find their names and specific criticisms. -Willmcw 06:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I just re-read your laughable defense of the 'conservative' Cindy Sheehan lol! Man, she sure jumped the shark in a hurry, huh? Sorry things didn't work out for her like I'm sure you and
her liberal friends would have wanted. Now she's gone and started eating her own. Today she was trashing one of the two left wing senators in California. I think the Jewish one. Interesting...she hates Israel and hates Diane Feinstein. Is that the real reason why Lew Rockwell is so sympathetic? Just curious... Big Daddy22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I justify my edits on the following: Inflammatory does not equal non-neutral, as it is an entirely subjective description. If the truth offends, then there is obviously some bias on the part of the one who is offended; and in this case, the truth is that Lew Rockwell is an ideologue who's willing to allow lies about the American/Japanese situation in World War 2 and the matter of the American Civil War to be posted on his website in order to justify his views about it, rather than conforming his views to the facts. Now for your specific objections:
"'The site also hosts screeds against the United States' participation in the Second World War, hopeful if unrealistic speculations about an end of the United States as a cohesive nation, and accusations of fascism on the part of the free world.'(Emphasis added)"
The word "screed" is in no way inflammatory by itself; it is an accurate description of the articles in question. Further, the article I posted on the future breakup of the United States is wildly unrealistic; for starters, even presuming that a breakup did come to pass, there is no way that the states would break up along the lines specified; economic, political, and logistical realities dictate that this is so simply because of the nature of the commercial relationships between several of the states depicted as joining separate factions. California, for instance, would not only never join with decidedly more conservative Arizona and New Mexico; it would experience massive loss of electrical service as energy from Oregon and Nevada is cut off. Secondly, no rational person could expect that to happen any time in the near future; I could have justifiably called it a pipe dream, because that's what it is. As for "free world," it's a common description for the West and liberal democracies in general; I have absolutely no idea how you consider it inappropriate. Rogue 916:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator(talk)16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly user:Theblacklarl claims to be Walter Block, but from his other edits it appears more likely that he is a high school student. However his edits are mostly not what we'd call Wikipedia:vandalism. It appears that he may soon violate the 3RR. Or he might be blocked for disruption as he's posted nasty notes on some user pages. Not to worry. This guy will either come around, self-destruct, or lose interest. Cheers, -Willmcw18:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a liar and a cheater. He basically goes around Wikipedia making up lies about other users. You can't delete this- I was given permission from Wikipedia administration to criticize you for your lies. You are your socialist buddy Willmcw are liars and cheaters. You know nothing of libertarianism or its leaders. I never claimed to be Walter Block, my name is Sean Christopher Marinara and I have said that before and I say it with pride. (unsigned post by User:Theblacklarl)
No, you did not get any permission to launch personal attacks against other users. I said you can respond to criticism, but your post here is a violation of WP:ATTACK. Theblackarl, this is your final warning. Owen×☎18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that you did claim to be Walter Block, as Willmcw pointed out above, and as can be seen by all here[4]. If you feel that one of my contributions includes errors, please enumerate your criticisms on the appropriate talk page. Dick Clark18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you can all see, the user DickClarkMises has made numerous comments regarding me. I will not insult him here because I do not want to be kicked off of Wikipedia. Please just know that I see things very differently from him. Again, my name is Sean Christopher Marinara and I am a college student at Holy Cross. Dr. Block used to teach here, and I learned about him through that. My friends and I are all libertarians. We have personal information about Dr. Block that we learned from his former colleagues here at Holy Cross. When I tried to post this information, some users, including DickClark, deleted it. The information is 100% true. I ask that you please carefully consider the situation before making any decisions which might be considered rash. (unsigned post by User:Theblacklarl)
Everyone, look at the discussion page for Walter Block. You will see that the information I posted about him was correct. This proves the lack of knowledge on the part of DickClarkMises. He used his prejudice against italians to lead to trying to exclude my factual informtion from the redcord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl (talk • contribs)
They like to be called Italians, not italians. They consider having their nationality spelled uncapitalized an insult.
Owen, you're both rude and unhelpful....and a bully. You clearly spend a lot of time (probally all of your time) on this website but that doesn't give you permission to give people who have actual lives a hard time when they don't do everything just the way you want it. Stay away from my posts. Proudly signed by ~~TheBlackLarl
Theblacklarl,
This page is not your discussion page, as you claim. Check the title if you're not sure.
I will not stay away from any discussion page, yours or otherwise. When you rudely accuse someone of being ignorant and prejudiced, you will hear from me, and from other admins.
Please sign your posts using ~~~~. Your username is Theblacklarl; there is currently no registered user called TheBlackLarl, as you can clearly see. If you wish your username to be changed to the latter, please place a request on Wikipedia:Changing username.
I don't see how it is any of your business what I spend my time on. I suggest you concern yourself with your own life, rather than mine.
Everyone look above? Notice the untruths that DickClarkMises has put forth? Let me give you an example. I never claimed to be Walter Block. I am a student of Holy Cross, a CATHOLIC university. Now maybe some here have a problem with that...I know not. 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)~TheBlackLarl
Please do not add the category Category:Living people into articles. It is the most silly category I have ever seen here and it will be soon defeted due to CfD. Such additions only make Wikipedia look like garbage bin. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek02:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yeah. It's a little piece of trivia that sure dates me. I must have seen it on CBS News with Walter Cronkite.... cheers!
Mytwocents18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's describe him as 'libertarian' then, and avoid the left/right issue. The problem with that to my mind is that as a European (and an anarchist) 'libertarianism' is for me synonymous with the tradition also called anarchism, which is generally seen as left. This is how the term is mainly used (or in Spain the cognate 'libertario') outside the US, and thus I generally refer to US libertarian-party style 'libertarians' as 'right libertarian' in order to distinguish. I'm aware that too isn't perfect giving your belief that your position is 'beyond left and right', and the page on Raico is probably not the best place to start a major debate on it. A better idea would be to make the issue clearer on the libertarianism page.Bengalski15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re anarchism and anarcho-capitalism - it's not that I don't want to have this discussion with you, but I've had it already at some length with User:RJII and User:Hogeye and don't really want to go over it all again.Bengalski21:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, sorry about the deletion of the "Living People" category at the Bill Gothard article. My reasoning came from browsing other similar articles (e.g. ones in the "Christian Leaders" category) and not finding anyone else with the "Living People" category; guess I thought it kind of farcical to have it in this particlar article alone (well, not "alone," but you know what I mean ^^).
...Almost as if it were a category where you'd put people who were rumored to be dead, but confirmed otherwise. XD Ahwell, always happy to be corrected! Thanks, Weien06:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was admitted to the hospital at 5:30am EST on 7 February, and was discharged this morning at 7:30am EST. I just got a little last minute editing in before I went to the hospital, despite my away message already being posted. Thanks for the good cheer! Dick Clark17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
don't be a d-bag we're here for the knowledge and learning...everything here should be judged on its consequences...do you want that user to just go back to going around and engaging in vandalism or do you want the user to become a productive member of the wikipedia community...its freaking idiots like yourself who ruin this site...get a frekin life and read a book while your at it (unsigned comment by User:140.247.43.84)
sorry my friend was being an asshole on the library computer...please accept our apologies no offense was meant whatsoever... (unsigned comment by User:140.247.43.84)
While no one claims that Lew Rockwell posts specifically anti-semetic material on his own webpage, LewRockwell.com, he has been criticized for posting the material of Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review (an organization which denies the occurance of the Holocaust.
In the book Buckley identifies Joe Sobran as an anti-semite.
16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
Would you be willing to accept,
While the concensus is that Lew Rockwell does not post specifically anti-semitic material on his own webpage, LewRockwell.com, he has been criticized for posting the material of Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review (an organization which denies the occurance of the Holocaust). 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
If other editors think that this information merits some mention in the article (I am not convinced of this), I would suggest the following wording as more in line with Wikipedia standards:
Some critics, including Tom Palmer of the Cato Institute(insert link to source here) have expressed concern over Rockwell's association with Joe Sobran, who has been accused by (insert name of notable, published accuser here) of anti-semitism.
As I said, though, I don't think that this criticism is particular notable, and I await the opinion of other editors on this matter. Dick Clark17:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to set your wiki-agenda for you, but you're doing such a great job! <g> Actually, I have truly been holding back on editing that article a bit due to my obvious affiliation, etc. I appreciate your hard work. Dick Clark15:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just removed your 3RR report [5]. Sorry, but there have to be *4* reverts, see WP:3RR. Feel free to re-add it if you can find 4. But if you do, please list the IPs that are causing the problem. A quick glance at the article history didn't look like there were 4 reverts. William M. Connolley22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very excited to try to contribute in a constructive manner to this fantastic open media project. Like every other editor, I have opinions on matters, and like all others editing in good faith, I do my best to comply with WP:NPOV. If I fail to comply with NPOV, I certainly hope that others will bring the article in question into compliance with Wikipedia policy as well as utilize the article talk page to explain why my edits were inappropriate (so as to allow the community to find consensus) . Other editors are always welcome to critique my contributions, and to make arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Regards, Dick Clark05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules against editing articles with which one has an involvement. In fact, some beleive it is better when editors make their biases clear. What is important is that all edits must be NPOV and verifiable. -Will Beback06:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My campaign is like any other editor's job or hobby—disclosure can help others see likely bias. My disclosure is certainly not meant to somehow augment my election returns, especially given that my district is so small (my district is roughly half of the population of Lee County). How many constituents do you think will be influenced by my user page? Also, I make no attempt on my user page to convert or convince anyone. The information on my user page is intended to disclose potential bias and to inform others as to my areas of particular expertise. I have several personal websites where I attempt to persuade others to agree with me. If you don't believe me, please refer to [6], [7], [8], [9]. I do not depend on Wikipedia for promotion, and I am not attempting to self-promote via Wikipedia. I am here to write an encyclopedia. Cheers, Dick Clark19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that Wikipedia policy clearly sets a metric for "excessive personal information" that is "more than a couple of pages." Given that my personal information takes up about one screen, my userpage seems not to be in violation. Dick Clark19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with you, not MONGO. It's your userpage, and it's not like you just made an account to put that link up. You've made over a thousand edits. Just letting you know you aren't being ganged up on. --Golbez20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who Golbez agrees with, so sorry, if he disagrees with MONGO he is disagreeing with policy. Until and unless policy is sucessfully changed, your link to your campaign page is against WP:NOT, and even mentioning that you are running for office is self-promotion, albeit one I personally would let slide. Please remove the link. And good luck in your campaign, btw. KillerChihuahua?!?20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua: I object to your statement that User:MONGO's pronouncements are somehow equal in weight to official Wikipedia policy. I will wait for interested parties to chip in their opinion on my userpage's compliance with Wikipedia policy, and I will abide by community consensus. I would, however, note to interested parties that MONGO reported this alleged violation immediately after I asked him to refrain from personal attacks and incivility at Talk:Scholars_for_9/11_Truth. Dick Clark20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unclear, I apologise. I did not place MONGOs opinion as somehow equal to policy, I meant that he was citing policy. Please see WP:NOT, the policy referenced. Golbez's position is contrary to policy. He is entitled to his opinion; but here we need to follow WP policy not anyone's personal opinion. If this is still unclear, please let me know. KillerChihuahua?!?21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua: My apologies for jumping the gun earlier—I should have known that wasn't what you meant. I would ask, however, for you to quote the specific text from the cited policy that prohibits the link at issue here. I have read said policy and I believe that I am in compliance. Regards, Dick Clark22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of which was a wrongful accusation and one in which you, after telling me that I was making personal attacks, then labeled all of them as "crazy". How obtuse can you be. I mean really...the gaul of advertising and linking us to your politcal efforts by way of Wikipedia. As an established editor, you certainly should know better.--MONGO21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO: The difference is that I clearly couched my own opinion as such, and not as incontrovertible fact. Another difference is that I am arguing for a rigorous adherence to Wikipedia policy in spite of my own opinions. I am not using my opinions as an argument for or against a particular edit. I was answering the direct question that you asked me above. Dick Clark 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (Copied from Talk:Scholars_for_9/11_Truth) I would add that my comment was not addressed at anyone. I think the whole thing is crazy, but my only role in that article's history is vote keep, and to add a link to Morgan Reynolds website, which I think is a reasonable, if modest, contribution. I viewed the talk page after making this addition, and saw what seemed to be a very seasoned admin attacking another editor. Now, I happen to believe that most of the editors involved in that dispute were arguing over the correctness of the conspiracy theories, and not the verifiability, notability, etc. I believe that is clearly a violation of WP:NOR. Dick Clark21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Least I know from you linking Morgan Reynolds where you stand. Thanks! It would be best if you removed (at the least) links to your political efforts from your userpage. Also try not to twist or use wordplay with me when you try to back out of the comment in which you called them crazy by now stating that "clearly couched" that is a bad attempt to back out of the argument...you called them crazy, that is plainly evident, so don't throw rocks at glass houses...something might get broke.--MONGO21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO: I wrote in very clear language exactly what I meant to write. I'm sorry if you or anyone else got the wrong impression about what I was saying, but you can read it for yourself. I didn't call anyone crazy. If you don't like precise language, perhaps you should reconsider your chosen hobby. As for my posting of the Morgan Reynolds link, I don't see how that somehow tells you where I "stand." It was a germane tidbit and I added it. I have heard Morgan Reynolds speak, and I happen to think he is wrong about a lot of things. What I think, or what you think, or what the Wikipedia reader thinks is not important here. What Reynolds' thinks? Now that's notable in his entry and related entries. I am not in favor or censoring any information that is verifiable and germane, even "stupid" information. Dick Clark21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should find a new hobby? What hobby would that be. You've heard Morgan Reynolds speak...so? You called them crazy and now refer to the information as stupid. Okay. Please remove the webspam link to your political campaign from your userpage.--MONGO22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put the word "stupid" in scare quotes to make sure that everyone would recognize that I was using the word rhetorically. What I am trying to convey is the idea that my thinking something is stupid shouldn't have any effect on its inclusion in Wikipedia. I like information, even information that others deem "stupid." Additionally, I like for information that I think is "stupid" to be available for critical examination as well. That is why I personally own far more books that I substantially disagree with than books that I agree with. My link, which is buried in the text of my bio on my userpage, is not "linkspam." Please cite one Wikipedia policy or guideline that explicitly states that such a link, even in the context of my userpage's other contents, is against community standards. Excuse me if I won't just take your word for it. I have read those linked above, and I have explained why it is very clear that I am adhering to said standards. Dick Clark22:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is clear. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not myspace. Your userpage is to be used for the purpose of helping us write a better encyclopedia, not to self promote yourself in your own political campaigns to gain political office. I would be appeased if you removed the link to your campaign information, however, I see that this won't be happening. The userpage is not yours, or mine...it is on loan to you by the Wikipedia Foundation. It is not a blog and it is not a pulpit. Once you hit the save button, it belongs to the world...not you, not me...but everybody. This is the same in article space and the same rules that we commonly use in article space to remove links as I have mentioned, applyu equally to your userpage. You'd really have a gripe on your hands if I did remove it, but I haven't. Liking information does not apply either...Wikipedia is not a random collection of misinformation.--MONGO02:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty apparent to me that your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is in this instance not the community interpretation. I will abide by community consensus. I am not interested in "appeasing" you. I hope that you will accept community consensus, and that we can work together in the future. Cheers, Dick Clark03:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry...under no circumstance will we work together in a collaborative effort so long as you continue to misuse Wikipedia resources for your own self promotion. That's okay...good luck beating this guy.--MONGO05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Clark, I want to apologize if I have upset you with my tone. My interpretation of policy does not seem to be what the concensus seems to indicate. I don't care about your politics, or whether you are in the midst of a political campaign. I am concerned about Wikipedia's appearance and it worries me that you link your current campaign website on your userpage. I personally see this as doing nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia. I stumbled into your website after our disagreement and, well, I've been around awhile and I never saw anyone who linked to their campaign website like this before. Now, I don't know a thing about your editing and apparently this is no big deal as no one has brought any problems regarding that to light. Not that my admiration or appeasement is of any importance to you, but it would surely be completely restored if that link wasn't on your userpage. This is my final comment to you on this matter.--MONGO12:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO: Thank you very much for the above. I hope that you will believe me when I say that, as some admins surmised, the link was more or less to prove that I am really running for that office. In a manner of speaking, I was citing a source in what I thought was the least promotional way. It may make you feel better to know that I have made a campaign pledge to accept no salary for the office if I am elected. I will definitely lose money on this campaign, even if I win, so the link will in no way help me get any material gain. According to Google Analytics, my low traffic website had zero visits that were directed from Wikipedia before this blew up. Since the incident report, there were three hits directed from Wikipedia yesterday: one from Chicago, one from Sanford, FL, and one from Manchester, England. Today there has been one Wikipedia-related hit from Spokane, Washington. I have not received any donations to my campaign from visitors directed from this site. Dick Clark15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are irrelavant...Wikipedia is not supposed to express popular opinion, but rather the truth. My edits of the Joe Sobran article are legitimate because they are facts. Besides, what "community"? are you talking about. It's pretty obvious that just as many editors support my edits as the Sobran defendors' version. -Roger
I thought your above comment was for me. But just for full disclosure, I'll post here the comment which you left on my talk page which the above is responding to:
Please work towards consensus on the article talk page. Your previous edits have, for the most part, been viewed as attempts to push a POV. A little extra effort in arguing for your edits would go a long way in helping other editors collaborate with you. Cheers, Dick Clark 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-Roger
Please sign your posts with "~~~~". Wikipedia is a community as you can read for yourself at WP:NOT: Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. Thus, Wikipedians must act in a collaborative fashion. See WP:DR for dispute resolution guidelines. Dick Clark02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with you before. Essentially you spend your entire day going through Wikipedia articles trying to make fit Lew Rockwell's vision. It's wrong, and it violates the principles that the Wikipedia was founded upon. Why don't you leave the Wikipedia alone. Why do you want to pervet facts to promote racism and anti-semitism? Why do you want to want to disrupt the flow of information? Please stop. I'm sure Lew could use some help keeping food away from himself so he can loose some weight.
-Roger P.
in every Wikibattle you get into, you are always on the opposing side of Jewish interests. You act like Joe Sobran is some effin hero----he has stated that he thinks Jews as a people, not as supporters of Israel, but as a people, are diametrically opposed to the interests of the US as a whole (and this need to be removed). Shame on you FOR DEFENDING ANTI-SEMITIES!!!!!!
I really don't appreciate the implications of your comment above. I am not a racist—that is to say, I do not prejudge people by their ethnicity. I judge people by their personal stances and behavior. I will defend any article against violations of NPOV, even if you personally want to deface it for some ulterior motive. I am not here to sway people towards my worldview through rhetorical stratagem. I am here to help many other volunteers write an encyclopedia that outside parties (and the volunteers) will find useful as a research tool. Please read WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. As for my personal feelings about Sobran, I must say that I have not read much of his work. I have never read anything of his that was overtly racist. If I had, I would probably dislike him more than I presently do. It is not very intellectually pragmatic, in my view, though, to reject everything that someone has written because some small portion of their writing was in error. If I were to assume a stance such as that, I couldn't really like any author. Dick Clark15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it seems the community mostly agrees with the version which states that Sobran was fired for anti-semitic behavior. I don't see what the issue is to be honest with you. User:TheDookieMan
I'm sorry, but you don't have any special authority to make that judgment. You are inserting text is that is countered by verifiable, notable sources. I will continue to make edits that reflect the sources cited, rather than your wishful thinking. Dick Clark17:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "issue" is that the statement is false, and provably so, and has been proven so by citing Buckley's uncontested words. St. Jimmy10:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yer damn right I left that at another user's page. It's because you and DJac75 have something in common. You constantly, and I mean every time, go with the anti-Jewish side. So I'm giving you an opportunity to explain it. What is your explanation for this?
06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlingsCaliforniaDreamlings
Maybe it's because the "anti-Jewish" side understands the difference between an encyclopedia article and an indictment. St. Jimmy06:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done prattling around. It's clear that DJac is an anti-semite and you are an apologist for them. You should be ashamed of what you are. It's sick that you're even able to edit these Wikipedia boards. Grow up and realize that we're all one people. Stop singling out minority groups and using them for target practice.
~CaliforniaDreamlings
I would again note that I am not an anti-semite, and I would further state that I have no sympathy for racism in general. I am myself the son of an adoptee, and I wouldn't take the chance that I might end up hating myself...<g>. I would further note that an encyclopedia isn't as useful if all undesirable views are misrepresented. If you disagree with someone's positions, isn't it then all the more important that others be able to accurately assess them? I also take umbrage at the suggestion that I am somehow "singling out minority groups and using them for target practice." My girlfriend is technically part of an ethnic minority here in the US, and I take her out shooting so she can get some target practice. I never shoot at her (although she may have contemplated shooting me at times <g>). Dick Clark22:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a rule which dictates that users are not allowed to enact more than 3 reversions in the space of 24 hours. Please do not break this rule. Thanks, TheDookieMan04:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan[reply]
Feel free to report any violations of the 3RR on my part. While you are at it, why not tell me when and where I did it as well, just like you'll have to report to the admin incident report page? Dick Clark15:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. . The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley13:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would note that [18](ext link #15 above) is not a simple revert, as I not only addressed what I saw as User:CaliforniaDreamlings refusal to work towards consensus, but I also wikified "Israel" and "anti-semitism" in the same edit. Technically, that should not qualify as a simple revert. [19](ext link #17 above) was also not a simple revert, since I made a minor wording change to the previous version for clarity. (After writing this, I felt a little confused about why the 3RR was even at issue here, so I read the 3RR again.)
After reviewing the 3RR, it seems that my impression that only a simple revert qualified as fodder for 3RR enforcement was clearly mistaken. The policy clearly states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. Sorry about the mistaken interpretation, and I will comply in the future. Thanks,Dick Clark19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good, in that case I shall now unblock you. Please remember (its a hard lesson, it took me a long time) that even getting close to 3RR is a bad idea. Almost always there is a better way. William M. Connolley19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate the sentiment above, but I still seem to be at the mercy of the autoblock feature:
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by William M. Connolley for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "DickClarkMises". The reason given for DickClarkMises's block is: "3rr on LewRockwell.com "."
Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalisingmy RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian)(talk)19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!
Yeah, well, luckily I live less than a mile from a pet shop that carries all the rodents that I need. My girlfriend still gets scared every time the snake starrts rattling. Dick Clark19:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
