User talk:Peterbadgely

Conspiracy theory

Conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes on the Talk:Conspiracy theory page before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. That being said, the Lead section is ideally a general overview of the subject of the article. It is therefore inappropriate to use this section to present original research. --Loremaster (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

P.S. Remember to always sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom harrison

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might also help to explain why "Tom harrison" is doing what he's doing...

Hope you find this info useful! Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peterbadgely. You have new messages at SheffieldSteel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note

There is no right to edit wikipedia. Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press does not apply on this private website.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as long as Wikipedia does not accept vast amounts of funding from the public trough, then I suppose you are correct. However, many private Universities and other sources support and enforce the 1st Amendment under the penumbra of government protections and rights. If anything, Wikipedia should err on the side of providing too much protection under free speech guidelines as set out clearly in our Constitution. (Peterbadgely (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely[reply]

I'm sorry, but no. Editing Wikipedia is a privilage, not a right.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

If I understand you correctly, you wanted to have a term redirect to some website outside Wikipedia. That, you cannot do. Redirects are by definition linked to articles within Wikipedia itself. There is no way a redirect outside Wikipedia can be created. That's a part of the integral structure of the project, not a design flaw. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (proud to be from the city that elected more Socialists for longer than any other major American city and glad to have escaped from Florida in 1971)[reply]

Hillarious? Which photo? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a jumpsuit. I have an entire collection of orange trousers, shirts, shoes, watches, socks, etc. I just like the color; started doing my "full orange" at science fiction conventions back in the 1970s, but also do it at union conventions, Democratic conventions, etc. (and yes, I do get ribbing from my union brothers & sisters in Corrections). If you google "Orange Mike 2004" you'll probably find various shots of me at the DNC that year (I was a Dean delegate for Milwaukee). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Can you fix your signature so that it points to User:Peterbadgely and User talk:Peterbadgely rather than wikipedia mainspace? Thanks, Verbal chat 14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours

Under the authority of Wikipedia:ARB9/11#Discretionary_sanctions, I have blocked your account from editing for 48 hours. Please use this time to review our policy on verifiability and our policy on undue weight of fringe views. A log of this action will be made here. If you wish to appeal this block, you may do so by placing {{unblock|reason}} on this page below this notice. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Request to unblock. This delanoy character has unilaterally blocked my account with inadequate reasoning in violation of Wiki editing policies. peterbadgely is a new member hhas successfully edited with verifiable information and has added much needed discussion to the renaming of another article. This block is retaliatory and personal and Wiki administrators should not allow this to occurr in this encyclopedia. peterbagely has several advanced degrees, will use verifiable sources. Please see peterbadgely's home page where his purpose is clearly set forth and immediately lift this BAN. (It is strange even to use this word in the United States.

Decline reason:

Per comments and checkuser request reported below. The Arbitration Committee's word IS LAW. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{unblock|Request to unblock. Please note that NO ONE has asked me ONE question regarding this. This is a unilateral block with no stated reason given to an individual with several advanced degrees for taking part in a controversial discussion regarding the title to an article.Who are the administrators that unilaterally decided this, without asking one question?}}

Your question has been thoroughly answered by the blocking admin both above and below. —Travis ^talk 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from all 9/11 related articles

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J.delanoy&oldid=286631142#Peterbadgerly, and after consulting a checkuser to verify, I am banning you indefinitely from editing any article or page related the the attacks made on September 11, 2001, and from editing any of the talk pages associated with those pages.

As before, a log of this action will be made in the appropriate section on WP:ARB9/11. If you wish to appeal this sanction, please see the subheader titled "Appeals" at WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary_sanctions. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Request to unblock. Request to unblock regarding the 911 pages. I ask that the administrators read my contributions to the pages regarding the historic event of 2001. The vast majority of my comments surrounded the suggestion that a title be changed to reflect a neutral point of view. The arguments were sound, professional and pursuant to Wiki policies. If Mr. Delanoy objects to style issues, should he not address me, rather than abuse his blocking/ banning privileges. Mr. Delanoy has violated the "be polite" policy of Wikipedia by not even attempting to speak to the editor on his talk page or read his edits. As stated before, peterbadgely is interested in all histoic subject matter, including colonial era incidents, automobiles, legal fields, and hundreds of other areas. From a lawyer's perspective, Wikipedia people like Mr. Delanoy, or Mr. Harrison should realize that all personalities are not ONE. It takes many different types of writers and personalities to review Wiki, its policies, and to create an encyclopedia that will stand the test of time. Please read the goals of peterbadgely on his home page. Please, read the contributions and then remove the block. Mr. Delanoy is clearly abusing the privilege. Again, please simply read the contributions. Read the few critiques I received, including successful article edits. Peterbadgely has been on here for a few days and has contributed vastly to discussions and an article. Peterbadgely is excited about Wikipedia, but will remove membership upon your request. I have just read Mr. Delanoy's addition to the page regarding "sock puppet". What is a sock puppet? I am not that and will respond to any direct questions surrounding that term. Please read my inquiry regarding that term in my edits. Please address me regarding that defamatory term. Please remove the block which Mr. Delanoy has unilaterally imposed. His references to the "sock puppet" are a personal attack against Mr.Peterbadgely. Note: I have also attempted to address Mr. Delanoy directly regarding this matter on his talk page, but he has unilaterally banned me from communicating with him there as well. Please ask direct question to Mr. Peterbadgely and read his contributions if you intend to defame, and show mr. peterbadgely in a false light. Please address me.
(Peterbadgely (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)) peter badgely Esquire.[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address the reasons for which you were blocked. Please see the instructions, particularly this section. However, in light of the checkuser evidence and your general refusal to abide by our rules, I cannot, with good conscience, unblock you. I also note that you are treading in dangerous territory. P.S. Sockpuppet defined —Travis ^talk 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

As you can see by my contributions, my full and absolute purpose is to ensure the neutrality of Wikipedia, just as Delanoy states that his purpose is to prevent vandalism. I also pledge never to unilaterally ban an editor as Delanoy has done. At least Mr. Harrison engaged in some conversation on peterbadgely's first day. Is there a sanction for those editotrs who routinely engage in retaliatory banning? As can be seen, peterbadgely has not received ANY questions regarding this ban. PLEASE READ PETERBADGELY'S CONTRIBUTIONS AND HIS DISCUSSIONS, before the approval of Delanoy's abusive retaliatory ban. Is there an independent mediation group within Wiki for which to resolve allegations of abusive use of the "banning" privilege? mediation

Decline reason:

As has already been explained, administrators can't unblock when you've been blocked in an area related to arbitration. Repeated use of the unblock template is just wasting admin time, so I'm temporarily removing your ability to edit this talk page.FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 caution you to stop misusing the unblock template, specifically {{Request accepted}}. You are not able to unblock yourself so please stop or you will find your ability to edit even this page restricted. —Travis ^talk 14:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am mostly correcting typographical erros, as can be seen in my history. Also, I did ad a few sentences. Please do not be angry, it's not my intention to misuse the template. I'm only trying to fix my writing for the historic record. I apologize. (Peterbadgely (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)) Thanks in advance for reading my material. I look forward to contributing further and will certainly move away from the more fiery controversial issues into more mundane historical areas. (Peterbadgely (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)) Esq.[reply]

Note to self: further information regarding this Travis person (who has never corresponded with me or asked me any questions reveals two pet peeves:

Pet peeves People who run stop signs 9/11 Truthers - where common sense is anything but common to be continued

What the heck does this mean? Is there an agenda among edoitors that I am unaware of now. What have I stumbled upon? I find this to be interesting--all over discussion of a simple title change.

Note for me: I saw that the Travis person above is listed as semi-retired but states that his purpose is to "swat vandals". This is disturbing! Is there an intimation that I am a vandal? Please refer to my purpose as stated on my home page. It clearly states that my purpose is nothing but NOBLE. This is very strange. It appears that there are circling birds waiting to be called on for the attack, if someone is not in a group think attitude. Again, IT IS THE PURPOSE OF PETERBADGELY TO PROMOTE NEUTRALITY AND IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA THROUGH USE OF VERIFIABLE SOURCES. Some verifiable sources may refer to controversial matters and truthful issues which may place government officials in an unfavorable (but neutral based on verifiable sources)light. Interesting verifiable facts will be added to articles, and NOW, the promotoion of the politeness code of Wiki. Also, there is a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Peterbadgely will disuade those editors who engage in abusive banning and retaliatory editing to stop. AGAIN, this online source will be available hundreds of years from now. Peterbadgely looks at this publication with a wide view toward the future and wishes to contribute to its improvement.

You are welcome to disagree with my opinions, i.e. the pet peeves posted on my userpage, but casting aspersions at the very people attempting to explain things to you is certainly not helping your case. —Travis ^talk 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd person

Unrelated to the above, why do you refer to yourself in the third person? I read all your edits in the voice of Kevin Pietersen now. It might have actually helped if you stopped doing that, but I think it's too late now. Verbal chat 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree; it adds a creepy tone to the posts, and makes people wonder about role accounts and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

peterbadgely's purpose (My purpose)

Peterbadgely, a recent addition to Wikipedia has a goal of improving the neutral point of view of Wikipedia articles, especially in the more controversial areas. Peterbadgely tends to stay in a particular subject matter until a problem is resolved for the benefit of Wikipedia members who will use this source in the centuries to come.

Peterbadgely also will add interesting verifiable facts to controversial subject matter which make the issue more interesting, understandable, and improved to the point of becoming a featured article.''

Thanks for addressing me directly, guys. I thought we had some very interesting and fiery discussions in the more controversial areas of this publication. It was enlightening and would have improved the publication. I have been in more fiery discussions in law school, but I had not been banned there, nor during my practice. The necessity of arguing is essential. If the administrators had read my contributions they would have seen that it is not single purpose. I had contributed very verifiable and interesting information to another article in my short tenure. The on line press put the light on the Controlled Demo area, so I thought I'd take a look. I saw that the title could be improved for the sake of neutrality. I took at shot at going through some discussions on the matter. Apparently, such discussions are off limits at Wiki, even if they will improve the publication. Wiki should really work at improving this portion of their publication to avoid a group think publication. If everyone is walking on egg shells during a "free" discussion, then an article will stagnate.(Peterbadgely (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Use common sense, Pete. The "controlled demolition" term is a mere euphemism, since only a vast and singularly-successful conspiracy could have done such a thing. The only reason to remove the word "conspiracy" from the article title is the fact that conspiracy theories have a (deservedly) bad reputation. Your insistence in persisting in this quixotic crusade against widespread consensus is giving you a bad rep, and making you sound like you have a bad case of The Truth.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Das stimmt und das endet. I agree, and I'm off to the colonial era to take a look. Enough of the contemporary controversial stuff. History and the passage of hundreds of years allows one to have a different, yet tempered perspective, untainted by the contemporary social restraints. Thanks for the input, and I hear you loud and clear! (Peterbadgely (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File source problem with File:View down central Holliston (1).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:View down central Holliston (1).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]