User talk:Tronicum

Welcome to Wikipedia from Ocaasi

Hi, Tronicum. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ocaasi (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Barr

Hi Tronicum. I'm not sure if you've seen the Barr article, but it was a hack-job, literally an attack piece. If you had something to do with it then you understand already. Needless to say, we have different standards here that don't permit furthering of personal vendettas no matter who the person is or how much they deserve it. Please don't waste your time on this one, since it will only waste other editors' time, and no matter how you slice it, Wikipedia editors are on the side of putting out information so that others can benefit from it (when it's sourced, of course). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for not turning your joke into anything more than a joke. Also, now that you have an account, you can't do stuff like that or you'll get banned almost immediately (not by me, I'm not an admin, but by someone). If you want to keep cleaning up the article to bring it in line with other biographies--including a robust criticism section--that is cool. If not, maybe an article where you have less of a personal interest/deep-seated hatred might be a good idea. Have you seen WikiLeaks? Not entirely surprisingly the Anonymous (group) article is in smashingly thorough shape. I'm sure there are others in the hactivism category that need working out.

Incidentally, and off-topic, what's the beef with Domscheit-Berg. I was a big supporter of WikiLeaks, but I don't take the criticisms against Assange as mere bluff; some of them seem like serious organizational challenges. If DB is going to start a competitor with a less 'leader-centric' model, then maybe that's a good thing for the wiki-leak, open-leak movement. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

to quote a overrated community: its complicated. there is a fight between Wikileaks and Openleaks, they even "stole" data from wikileaks. as Wikileaks is a community project it is also hard to say who owns anything. assange wanted to use his legal support to stop DB from using wikileaks material. if you think twice this is a joke. you cant sue sb. for stolen documents if those documents have been obtained non legally itself. there will be a couple of leaks site within the next months. and competition is always good. --Tronicum (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, any organization which depends on secrecy (governments or anti-government groups) seem to inevitably wind up acting like the groups they are typically against. Governments promoting democracy through secrecy end up spying and torturing. Anti-government groups that promote transparency but use secrecy end up battling those who challenge them with lawsuits and smears and copyright. I think that although DB may not have been completely honest about his role or about Assange's problems (and either way isn't giving Assange enough credit for what he created), a set-up like OpenLeaks is the inevitable way forward. Any organization which depends on a single individual, whether a monarchy or a non-profit, is always more vulnerable to disruption. Hopefully Assange will parlay his celebrity into continued success somewhere; or maybe he'll just get a break from the craziness, though I doubt it. Ocaasi (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chrome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Patrick O'Connell (american actor)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Patrick O'Connell (american actor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)