User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Daniela Cicarelli

I think that linking a sex video(at Spike)is a violation of WP:BLP. Evidently you did not think so at the time you linked it. Has your opinion changed? Rich (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempts to improve Wikipedia. However, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, not even for profanity or pornography. Everyone is encouraged to remove offensive material and obscenities that are blatantly vandalism, but please do not remove/censor profanities or remove/disclaim sexually explicit material or links that are relevant to the article. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate your point of view, and to be honest I wasn't sure of the policy myself,(although I thought it was a bad policy if allowing such links was the policy) until I emailed an admin who specializes in celebrity articles. In addition I recently looked up WP:BLP and found this:

Presumption in favor of privacy

"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

I also explained some of my thoughts about it as a question on the Help Desk and other points on the Daniela Cicarelli talk page.

• Best wishes, Rich (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It says, "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions."

But this is an action that the subject chose to do, on a public beach, during broad daylight, in front of an audience. How does that have anything to do with "privacy"? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween

Richard (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! That's great! Thanks! Happy Halloween to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Pissing

Hey, just wanted to let you know I removed that image since it really isn't relevant to the topic at hand. Hope this is acceptable. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK. But then would you please replace it with a better image? Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure an image is needed there at all. Most people know what peeing entails. :) Perhaps if we have a free-use image of a pissing contest itself, but anything else is irrelevant in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that picture gave me the best laugh I've ever had reading Wikipedia. I won't ask where you found it. PhGustaf (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the image at Urination. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Doughnut Drive 2009

Is it okay if "we" use your userspace for this important project? I'm uncomfortable about having it in my userspace because I don't want anyone to be intimidated about participating or feel like they will be associated with something controversial. If you aren't interested that's okay, or feel free to let me know of someone else that you think might want to host the event (also known as the Doughnut WikiFestival). I picked you because you're so nice and I think everyone likes you. That's the kind of atmosphere I think is good for the event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure! Please go ahead and use my userspace for it! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Do you have any preference on the name of the event? Should we stick with Doughnut Drive 2009? A motto might be good if you have any ideas for one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're the one leading this, then I prefer that you pick the name. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a collaborative effort. I'd like you to be a chairperson. Or you can take responsibility for an article, a country, or recruitment. You are under no obligation to participate, but I'm hoping to delegate most of the responsibility for the event's success so I don't actually have to do anything. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for eating all of the subject matter. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Upcoming death

Template:Upcoming death has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We're famous!

And I've created a new userbox to celebrate,

(you can move that to your main page, or just delete it if you don't want to be in the category). Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's wonderful news! Thank you for telling me! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello, You have been currently blocked from editing! cheers. Rest west (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be more creative when trolling. If you want to trick me into thinking that I've been blocked, you at least have to cite a reason for the block. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Connection?

Is there a connection between Lou Dobbs and Oprah both ending their shows around the same time? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I thought Oprah ending her show was because after having Sarah Palin as a guest and the super high ratings that it created, Oprah thought she could never outdo that particular episode. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a clear case of media bias: Associated Press is having 11 of its reporters fact check Sarah Palin's new book. But they never did any fact checking on Barack Obama's two books. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Obama adminitration has told women in their 40s to stop getting annual mammograms. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Obama administration is claiming to have created jobs in Congressional districts that don't exist. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy tiger. Don't get me in trouble for getting you all riled up. Although I did find the AG's testimony before Congress interesting... but just sit back, relax, and have a coconut doughnut. Is that your favorite kind or did you pick it at random? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Coconut really is my favorite kind - especially the one at Dunkin' Donuts. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I enjoyed helping to work up that article. It was an interesting food niche.

I came across the Derringer Cycles store today [1]. It seems kind of wacky and interesting. I guess they're modeled after 1920 bikes and being marketed for their environmental benefits, fuel economy, flexibile operation by human power, gas power, or a combination, and as being stylish. I don't know much about it, but it seemed like something you might find intriguing. I've also seen some comments about climategate floating around, but I'm even less familiar with that or the details as of yet. Cheers. I hope you're enjoying your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe in global warming, but I also believe that there hasn't been any so far this century. Since Climategate happened in Europe, it's not covered by my topic ban, and I had already read a few articles about it, so I may (or may not) decide to contribute to that article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, CO2 levels have definitely risen dramatically from fossil fuel use, and it looks like the atmospheric levels will continue to rise rapidly as the global population and fossil fuel use continues to increase. The effect those atmospheric changes, and increases in other greenhouse gases, will have on weather and climate is an interesting issue. The system is complicated and dynamic, with many variables involved. If there is a human caused increase in temperatures or other climate changes, certainly those need to be addressed and understood. The best way to go about doing that is also a hotly contested discussion. So there is a lot to figure out, and I think there are interesting scientific, political, and economic issues involved. There's also advocacy on both sides that isn't "pure". I think those distractions are also an interesting issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

France gets 80% of its electricity from carbon free nuclear power, and I think the U.S. should do the same. I am against cutting back energy use, because energy use correlates to living standards. I want every person on Earth to have a first world standard of living, with modern agriculture, supermarkets, mass production, electricity, refrigeration, indoor plumbing, desalination, modern medicine, washing machines, telephones, computers, etc. I love technology. I think Al Gore is a hypocrite for telling other people to reduce their energy use while his own energy use is magnitudes higher than that of the average person. I also think that environmentalists in rich countries who oppose development in poor countries are hypocrites too. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You "think" he's a hypocrite? I'd say it's pretty well established, not to mention his family's wealth coming for oil investments and industrial products, zinc mining holdings, and other wholly non-renewable enterprises. But the do as I say not as I do approach is pretty common in politics these days (always?).

I was just reading that wind power is subsidized in the U.S. for every kilowatt produced, but that the power being generated is often not usable (zero demand because of oversupply for much of the time when the most wind power is being produced). That seems problematic to me. Energy storage is a huge issue that could help, but it seems quite a long way off. It's also needed for electric cars and to make other alternative energy technologies feasible. Until energy can be stored, peak demand periods make conventional production methods necessary for most of our power sourcing, and they can't just be turned on an off. So there are still a lot of issues that need to be worked out. Anyway, good jibber-jabbering with you. Take care and have a very happy Thanksgiving. Power to the people! ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Thanksgiving to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very kind of you.

However, I must decline, as I have been indefinitely topic banned from all articles related to U.S. politicians and politics, as well as their respective talk pages and other related pages.

Thanks anyway!

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow that's a harsh ban. Does it also apply to historical U.S. politicians? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - my topic ban applies to historical U.S. politicians. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 2

I have blocked you for continued disruption and tendentious editing of the Obama-topic area. I will unblock you if you agree to stop disrupting the Obama area through frivolous comments and appeals of any kind for a six month period. Reviewing admins please see [2] and [3]. MBisanz ^talk 05:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any edits to any Obama related articles since my topic ban began. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tarc claims that my 7 questions have been answered. He is wrong, and he has not quoted any answers. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I have been indefinitely blocked from everything except my talk page - all because I asked seven legitimate questions about my topic ban, which have never been answered. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been indefinitley blocked from everything except my talk page, because I asked these seven questions about my topic ban. Tarc claims that my questions were answered, but he refuses to quote the alleged answers.

Here are my seven questions about my topic ban, all of which concern Presidency of Barack Obama:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, please quote the alleged answers to my seven questions. You won't, because you can't, because they were never answered. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have received an indefinite ban on everything except my talk page, because I asked the administrators seven legitimate questions about my topic ban. This just proves again that the administrators are afraid to answer my seven questions about my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For reasons explored in other threads, most editors aware of those questions are pretty bored with them by now. My suggestion is that you not post them again. A formal unblock request would likely get your privileges to nonpolitical pages back, but you've got to stop dancing on the edges of your topic ban. There's surely someplace other than Wikipedia that would be happy with your contributions, but since you're much too smart for Conservapedia I'm not sure just what it would be. PhGustaf (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Great. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am formally requesting to be unblocked from articles that are not related to U.S. politics or politicians. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

1. You need to use {{unblock}}
2. I highly doubt you will be unblocked from such articles without a pledge to stop engaging on AN/ANI/your talk page with your 7 loaded questions that are just tired at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked those seven questions because I believe that NPOV justifies everything that I added to the article before my topic ban, and that my topic ban is a violation of NPOV. Thank you for telling me about proper way to make the unblock request. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

MBisanz said, "I have blocked you for continued disruption and tendentious editing of the Obama-topic area." But I did no such thing. Since my topic ban took effect one month ago, I have not edited any Obama related articles. I did ask the administrators some questions regarding NPOV, but that is not the same thing as editing an article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no vow to drop the issue. The topic bans is clearly warranted and so is this block. Once more with feeling... Viridae^Talk 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

I did not make any edits to any Obama related articles since my topic ban took effect. And no one said that asking administrators questions about NPOV was part of my topic ban when my topic ban took effect. I have been indefinitely blocked for asking administrators questions about NPOV. That seems highly odd. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The questions appear to be made in bad faith and to prove a point. The problem is not that you asked questions or requested clarification, it's that you're asking leading questions and are doing so in such an obvious way that even a moron can see the POV in them. This is like one kid holding his finger 2cm from another kids face and repeatedly saying "I'm not touching you I'm not touching you.". Please stop beating the dead horse. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already promised to stop in my most recent request to be unblocked. I said, "I promise to stop addressing all of these issues on the administrative noticeboards." Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, you are mischaracterizing what has happened here, as no one has extended your ban to literally include "a prohibition against asking administrators questions about my topic ban". You posted what is essentially an ultimatum at WP:AN; "answer my questions or unban me now". Do you not see how that was pretty confrontational and somewhat dickish ? Tarc (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a request, not a demand. You said that my questions were already answered, but you refused to quote the alleged answers. You won't quote them - you can't quote them - because such answers were never given. As the article stands right now, it is heavily POV. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! You people deleted everything that was on my userpage. Please put it back. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My topic ban states, "The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks." How is an indefinite ban a good way to start a series of "escalating" blocks? Isn't 24 hours more appropriate, if a block should be given at all? And how come when my topic ban was enacted, no one told me that my topic ban applied to asking questions about my topic ban on the administrative noticeboards? How does indefinitely blocking me from editing articles on animals, science, technology, music, movies, etc., make wikipedia a better place? When, ever, have I ever had any major problems with any articles in any of those categories? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I endorse an unblock. This block seems purely punative. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Deep breath everyone

(after edit conflict with WSS) I was kind of shocked that Grundle2600 was blocked at all, much less indefinitely, for re-posting the seemingly rhetorical questions about why certain information isn't in the Obama articles. It's not surprising that he'd be a little unhappy and taken aback. I don't think he's acting out here, just expressing an opinion that it was unfair. If the community has decided that he's not allowed to ask these kinds of questions about Obama I think we should make sure that's really the case. Does this warrant a new discussion or just pointing to the last one? Anyway, can't we just sort this out by making clear what the expectation is going forward, and then moving on? Although I don't agree with Grundle very often about politics edits it does seem a shame to close the door. But if that's the case he does seem to enjoy editing various other kinds of articles too and is a productive editor so can we all just take a breath and move on? Surely this can be resolved in a few hours. I hope it works out for the best. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From this post it appears the block may have been politically motivated. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My userpage is back! Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your are missing the point

This block wasn't imposed because your questioned your topic ban (though asking for your topic ban to be lifted less than a month after it was imposed is pretty ridiculous). You were blocked because you provided an ultimatum: Either answer this series of loaded questions or remove your topic ban. Now admins have no requirement to do either of those things. Firstly because we don't capitulate to threats/ultimatums and secondly because those questions are related to editing disputes over which we have no power. You were blocked, and remain blocked (though not for much longer) because your ultimatum was disruptive, when heaped onto the already disruptive behaviour that led to the topic ban in the first place. Simple way to stay unblocked: avoid the subject entirely. The community has made it quite clear they don't want you in that subject area because you couldn't play nicely. In six months time after you have demonstrated you can stay away from the issue then ask for a review of your topic ban. Viridae^Talk 23:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a request, not an ultimatum. My block is "indefinite," not "not for much longer." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was phrased as an "either" "or". That is an ultimatum. Your block was not for much longer because I unblocked you after that. Viridae^Talk 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see your point. I didn't mean to make it seem like an ultimatum. Thank you for explaining that and for unblocking me. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that a single administrator (MBisanz) can give someone an indefinite block without any discussion or debate, is really scary. And he still hasn't even explained what rule I violated. Anyway, he said, "I will unblock you if you agree to stop disrupting the Obama area through frivolous comments and appeals of any kind for a six month period." I promise that I will never again post in the Obama related area as long as my topic ban is in place. But I didn't do that anyway, so it seems as if he has blocked me for something that I did not do. As far as making an appeal of my block, I was unaware that there was a policy against it. Now that I know such a policy exists, I promise to not appeal my block at least until May 31, 2010, which is slightly more than 6 months. So, please unblock me now. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop arguing semantics or I will re-instate the block becausre you haven't realised why the blocked occurred in the first place. Viridae^Talk 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't post in an Obama related area. You posted Obama related questions (for the umpteenth time) in a non Obama related area. Violation of the topic ban IMO. There is no rule against appealing topic bans. But appealing them less than a month after they have been imposed and in such a disruptive manner (see prev) is ridiculous - and shouldn't need to be codified. Viridae^Talk 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! I was not aware that the block had been lifted! And it was you who did it! Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15