User talk:St. claires fire

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Why do admins so often act like dickheads?

Wikipedia:Why do admins so often act like dickheads?, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why do admins so often act like dickheads? and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Why do admins so often act like dickheads? during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. WaltCip (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Interactive representation

added a link pointing to Electoral quota

Trump resistance

added a link pointing to Muslim ban

Virginia's 12th House of Delegates district

added a link pointing to Joseph Yost

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP

You may not speculate as you did at stealthing about people. I'm not sure what you were trying to do there, but it's not even close to acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

At one of the cited refs, it says, "It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom".

Out of an abundance of caution, I had second thoughts and reverted my edit a minute after I made it, but I was actually apparently correct the first time, that the allegations in Assange's case are relevant to the issue of stealthing.

Since you're "not sure" what I was trying to do there, I don't know how you can conclude that "it's not even close to acceptable" but my guess is that based on past interactions, you've decided you don't like me, so now in cases such as this one where the evidence might seem ambiguous, you're going to interpret it in a negative light.

I'm aware of how this scam is played, though. (1) Admin hides a bunch of revisions from a page. (2) Admin leaves user talk page message about how outrageous an alleged BLP violation was. (3) Other users can't review to see whether the admin is full of shit correct or not, because the revisions are hidden. Only fellow admins (aka part of the admin clique) can review it, and they're going to support their fellow admin's decision just because that's what admins do for one another. (4) So for all the average passer-by knows, there was indeed a BLP violation. St. claires fire (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What other accounts have you edited with? EvergreenFir (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to keep that between me and the ArbCom. St. claires fire (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So ARBCOM is aware of other accounts you've used per the suggestion at WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're a banned user who's conducting a breaching experiment. Acroterion (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There must have been an email glitch. Could you please send us (the Arbitration Committee) your disclosure email again? If you are using a Yahoo account sometimes email gets rejected. You could always email me with it and I'll forward it to our mailing list. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a pretty good essay while it lasted. In my view, very insightful and cogent points were made about some systemic and/or cultural problems we have around here, yet without using more words than needed to analyze and sum up the nature and causes of some of the issues we're seeing arise on Wikipedia. A friend of mine liked it enough that he put it on his personal wiki. I'm about as proud of that essay as Donald Trump is of his business deals and his children.

Delete the essay all you want, but just the fact that my mind produced such a masterwork is an achievement that nobody can ever take away from me. St. claires fire (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My comment on this business: if you are going to write an essay on why admins are dicks (I am not saying they are), at least do some more research into it, and try and get it right instead of reverting to sophistic arguments. And anyways, if you ever feel like an admin is a dick, then maybe consider if your own actions incited perceived dickishness, or that maybe the actions of others did. Really, try and look at it from another perspective, and not just from that of yourself. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation

Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calton | Talk 06:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: This editor is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Impact of capitalism on women

Hello, St. claires fire. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Impact of capitalism on women".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gender socialization

Hello, St. claires fire. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gender socialization".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ron Crickenberger

Hello, St. claires fire. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ron Crickenberger, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Ron Crickenberger to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks,

PGWG (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)