User talk:Duchamps comb/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Moneybomb, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Moneybomb, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I noticed you're not using any citation templates when you reference articles. In the future, please use the citation templates listed at WP:CIT. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Moneybomb. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party amount[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a giant Paul fan myself, but you'll notice there are a lot of folks who will hold you to strict neutrality here, so be careful. It is my understanding the campaign announced $6.0 million actually raised even though the widget went up $6.4 million in the 24 hours. The $.4 million in offline receipts was not necessarily received on 11/16, and (being a Sunday) probably wasn't, given the campaign's statement; we have no source that it was in fact received 11/16 (HNN does not address this, relying only on the widget number). While we have sources for both $6.0 and $6.4, we should either state it as a conflict, or resolve the conflict unarguably. IMHO the evidence favors sticking with the $6.0, but if you want to use some neutral wording like "between $6 million and $6.4 million", that'd work with the sources cited. But we may not favor one number in the light of a conflicting number without resolving the conflict. Anyway, as a new editor, you would do very well for yourself to demonstrate your neutrality by picking some compromise version (or going right back to the $6.0) before someone else does. Trust me, that's a lot better than trying to defend a pro-Paul edit in the face of conflicting sources. I'll wait to see how you handle it, but I might step in tomorrow if nothing happens. Thanks! John J. Bulten (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm serious, they will come after you if you keep it up, it will not help the "improvement of Wikipedia" to fight this battle on the article page itself. Your Ambinder source says $6.6 million, not $6.4 or $6.0. When you have conflicting numbers, don't insist on one of them without talking it out or demonstrating unarguable proof. Obviously only one of them is correct, and we cannot presume on which one without consensus. But "over $6 million" is correct regardless. I would strongly encourage you not to fight this particular battle and instead learn useful stuff like Template:cite news instead. It would greatly help your reputation to think of a neutral way of accomplishing your goal and revert yourself accordingly. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Warning re Moneybomb[edit]

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. Your language in your edit summaries, such as this is inappropriate. Please discuss your edits civilly and remember that edit summaries are not a proper venue for discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ron Paul Revolution[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ron Paul Revolution, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at: User:Buspar/Ron Paul Revolution

Re: AfD - Ron Paul Revolution[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. That article is a close call, but I think we should err on the side of caution for now and keep it, as I don't think we've ever seen anything as large and organized at the grassroots level as the Ron Paul campaign. And to think that we were amazed how well Howard Dean could use the Internet for campaigning back in 2004! --smileyborg (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enasni (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Duchamps. I hadn't seen the article but had edited related ones. Now that I see it I like it. I voted to keep it. Korky Day (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎[edit]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--What an Asshat...--Duchamps comb (talk)

Please read WP:CANVASS[edit]

One way to keep people from accusing you of canvassing to stack discussions is to make sure you notify people you know disagree with you. In the case of the Revolution AfD, which seems to be headed to "delete", you informed only editors you knew to be Ron Paul advocates.

I don't really care; AfD's aren't votes. But I thought you should know, it's pretty easy to tell what you're doing.

--- tqbf 03:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. But I only contacted people who edited Ron Paul's page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views.--Duchamps comb (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true- I am not anywhere close to being a Ron Paul supporter, and he contacted me just to take a look at it without any sort of impropriety, which I did. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He only contacted people who had (a) edited Paul content and (b) hadn't added negative material about Paul. I'm sorry that I suggested you were a Paul supporter; I don't blame you for being irritated by that. --- tqbf 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tqbf, that's not true. I did contact people who edited on ron paul's page (as I have already said) without knowing how they feel, to open up the Discussion. I am new here (this place is not like myspace) I contacted Monsieur because I bumped into him/her on another page, (and he/she seems to give unbiased feedack) as well seem to be rather pleasant, unlike other ~~DUMB FUCKS~~ like you running around here on some sort of power trip. -Keep your small-mindedness-idiocy off of my page...--Ducha mps_comb

Nice. --- tqbf 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comment above:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- tqbf and HelloAnnyong you both only reveal what YOU really are, "Cyber-bullies" who are weak-minded (and probably obese) that have nothing better to do but mess with the "new kid." On some sort of self-aggrandizing-power-trip deleting new articles, sending warning messages and being very Anti-Ron Paul. -I suggest just leaving me ALONE!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talk • contribs) 06:31, December 28, 2007

Burned! --- tqbf 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moneybomb Conspiracy?[edit]

To: — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ]

Yeah, I saw that go by on my watchlist, but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. I agree with you that it's getting tiring, fighting the POV-warriors there. My guess is that the increased activity is because of the weekend fundraiser. I'll try to take a look later. No matter what though, we can still wait them out, which is what I did last time. In a couple days when activity decreases, we can go in and re-neutralize the article without much fuss. :) --El on ka 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To:--- tqbf

Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I responded, but I'm going to try to disentangle myself from this article as well. --- tqbf 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To: --- tqbf

I'm not sure about that. It's certainly big with the Paul community, and this may be WP:COATRACK. But we've been down the avenue of deleting it, and it came to no consensus. I think you'd hit the same with a move. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) + +[reply]

To:--El on ka

Hey Elonka. I know you were active on the Moneybomb page awhile ago, so I could use some help. A single-purpose account has been editing/hacking/butchering the article I'm trying to assume good faith, but the page is a mess now. I reverted it twice today already, but the page could use some help. Could you take a look at it and try to work out the kinks - or failing that, give me some advice on how to proceed? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacist part[edit]

I think you are wrong on the addition of the USA Today article regarding Black's donation and it being kept by Ron Paul. It is from a perfectly legitimate source, and I see no POV problems. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with, "Paul keeps white supremacist donation", USA Today, 2007-12-20 www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-20-Paul-donation_N.htm

If you digg back far enough I even added to the criticism section. I take issue with “unknown users” statements: “It is a well known fact that white supremacists- including the KKK and David Duke- support Ron Paul.” and to imply “he's on good terms with hate groups? “ --Duchamps comb (talk)

I didn't see the part you were talking about- that sounds to me like vandalism that should have been removed ages ago... I'm sure it wasn't an intentional keep. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

19:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎ It is in the talk page.--Duchamps comb (talk)

SSP case[edit]

WP:SSP VanBrigglePottery is a username violation, so I've blocked it for that reason, it matches a company name. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking (martial arts)[edit]

Hi, I restored the sentence you cut out because Wikipedia should probably not make an impression in its articles that Chi energy is a scientifically proven and really existing phenomenon. If you can rewrite the sentence in such a way that it reflects this doubts, naturally I have nothing against other wording. happy new year! Pundit|utter 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and I restored the brick breaking image, which is relevant and useful for tameshiwari article. Pundit|utter 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not arguing whether it exists or not, I'm just saying that it has not yet been scientifically proven, and this is more or less the encyclopedic requirement. It will definitely be sufficient to write that in many kung-fu styles there is an assumption or belief that Chi can improve the hit. The image indeed is not very impressive, but still relevant, and alas there is nothing much on commons to substitute it with. take care Pundit|utter 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your uploads[edit]

Please don't upload images with incorrect license tags. If you need help figuring out what the correct license for an image is, ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Carnildo (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on copyright law. In regards to your edits here, there is no magical "10%" rule, you can't claim ownership of an image simply by making changes, de minimis and public domain have nothing to do with each other, and "educational purposes" is not a blank check for using other peoples' work. --Carnildo (talk)

protection templates[edit]

WP:RFPP. The admin will add the templates. Burzmali (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron paul presidential appearances[edit]

Can you add back the appearances? Tracer doesn't know the difference between merge and delete. And you were one who said it's best to have it all in one article. Buspar (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert Tracer's last edit? He's disruptive and has already started insulting me on my talk page. He can't revert again without violating WP:3RR. Buspar (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm working on writing him up on the admin board so he's banned. The last thing we need are disruptive editors. Buspar (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section looks good. Thanks for putting it back. Now the others can get to work turning it into prose as they wanted. Buspar (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting.. maybe you should look at the time stamps on the article... I have not reverted since the first warning...what gives? as a matter of fact your boy here reverted again after being warned.I stopped editing the article. Its obviosly going to stay as a wikipidia propoganda piece anyway..I know your a ron paul fan by your userpage but thats a bit silly to give me a warning for no reason. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracer's been blocked for vandalism and harassment. Buspar (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I've reminded you about your adding of references, and I've reminded everyone on that page about them. I just had to fix the reference you added again. That article is already cited on the page; rather than just adding a ref to the article, why not take a minute to look through the page and find the source? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Please read up on the fundamentals of copyright. I don't know where you got your ideas of how copyright works, but they're about as wrong as possible. Some good starting points would be Wikipedia's articles on copyright and derivative work. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                              Making Changes to Photographs

[1] The 1976 Copyright Act grants the "fair use" of copyrighted materials for a variety of purposes, for the creation of new works, for educational use, and for personal use.

QUESTION: What if the student or teacher were to change the attributes of a picture.

ANSWER: Yes. This would be considered fair use for education, comment, criticism, or parody. One must inform the audience that changes were made to the photographer's copyrighted work.

Fair use normally entails copying and is of three kinds:

1. Creative fair use by authors who copy from other works to create their own work.

2. Personal fair use by individuals who copy from works for their own learning or entertainment.

3. Educational fair use by teachers, scholars, and students who copy for teaching, scholarship, or learning.

The fair use statute is section 107 of the copyright statute, which is printed in full in Part IV. It provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies," is not an infringement of copyright. As exemplars of fair use, it lists "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" and provides four non-exclusive factors to be used in determining whether a use is fair. They are: (1) the purpose of the use, including whether the use is a commercial use or for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the work; (3) the amount used; and (4) the effect on the marketing of the work. These factors are discussed below.

Fair Use and New Communications Technology The application of new communications technology created by computers developed after Congress enacted the 1976 Copyright Act. Consequently, application of fair use to the transmission of material by computer, e.g. on the Internet, merits special mention. Originally, fair use was a judicial doctrine that one author could make fair use of another author's work in creating his or her own new work. If the amount used was fair, the method or scope of distribution made no difference. If, for example, Author X made a fair use of the work of Author Y, the fact that Author X's book sold a million copies did not divest the material of its fair use status.

Today, fair use is a statutory right that applies to all copyrighted works and all rights of the copyright holder, and whether a use is fair is to be determined by applying the four factors listed in the statute. Since the method of distribution is not one of the statutory factors, it follows that the distribution of material by electronic rather than print media is not the decisive issue. The important point is that if the amount used does not unlawfully interfere with the copyright holder's marketing monopoly, it is a fair use. The Fair Use Doctrine, which was codified in §107 of the 1976 Act, excuses certain infringing uses of a copyrighted workThe exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public For example, nonprofit educational purposes. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page[edit]

In moving stuff around to maintain coherence, I may have pasted in an outdated version of your comment. Please restore it to what you meant to say, as I certainly didn't mean to falsify your civil comment. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

You need to learn how to report 3RR violations. If you do it improperly, it most likely will be ignored. You need to specify the version that is being reverted to not as a diff, but as a revision, like this. You seem to confuse revision links with diff links, which makes it very hard to evaluate the situation. Note that the example on the WP:AN3 page says that the version reverted to is mandatory for a 3RR report. Crum375 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You report is still improper, and by now stale. If 3RR violations continue, you can report it again, but your report must be correct — even now it is not. Crum375 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Your report is stale by now. Focus on the future, since our primary goal is to stop ongoing disruption. You already know how to link to a diff, because you have done it in your report, and you can see in my above message how to link to a version. For a proper 3RR report, you need to show the alleged offender's preferred version, that he is trying to revert to. Also, if you want your report to succeed, you should clearly show what is being reverted, for example, say the user wants to include the words "foo" or "bar" each time, and others are removing it. So you would have:

Original version reverted to: Link (not diff) Time - Note "foo" and "bar"

Diff1 Time1 - Added "foo"
Diff2 Time2 - Added "foo"
Diff3 Time3 - Added "bar"

. . .

DiffN TimeN - Added "foo"

Diff of 3RR warning (if relatively new user, never before blocked for 3RR) Time (before TimeN)

If you provide this kind of report, it will have good odds of being effective. Crum375 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose faith, just learn to play by the rules. Read our policies carefully, and learn how to file a good 3RR report when needed. If there are new 3RR violations, by all means report them. Just be careful to do it correctly, and don't lose your cool. Crum375 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

1. It is not acceptable to edit other people's comments, unless they are genuinely slanderous/libelous. The comments you tried to edit clearly do not meet that specification. Other editors have as much right to criticize your edits as you do to criticize theirs. 2. Language such as "...you FREAK!" is simply not acceptable here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined both of your edits to these articles for some time, and your assertion of slander, in particular, is simply without foundation. You are highly partisan, whereas I would class his attitude as skeptical: a much more useful attitude in an editor attempting to achieve a neutral point of view. (I have no idea who he supports in the 2008 race; your preference is obvious.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RonPaul2008OfficialLogo 5000x1438 white.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:RonPaul2008OfficialLogo 5000x1438 white.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Paulville, Texas[edit]

I have just created a new article at Paulville, Texas, and wanted to invite you and a handful of other friends to have first crack at helping to improve it. Cheers! JJB 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul[edit]

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete John Ng?[edit]

Dear Duchamps: You added him to the Ng wiki page made notable by Obama's half-sister. Would you reconsider John Ng, because he seems to be using Wiki for advertising purpose. EJohn59 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)EJohn59[reply]

Hi, I think what the other person suggested on the Ng page makes sense. Can you ask John Ng's admirers to contribute a Wiki article, so it can be linked from the Ng page? That'd be great! --EJohn59 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Ng[edit]

A tag has been placed on John Ng 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 person or group of people, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now restored, at User:Dank/John Ng. I've added a {{noindex}} tag so that it doesn't get picked up by Google; please don't remove that. See WP:BIO and WP:Your first article. Let me know when you think it's ready for mainspace, and I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your note on my talk page[edit]

I believe the important thing is to get about 5 external references or citations. The WP admins always need independent verification. For example, you mentioned that poker lady. I took a look: her page has a number of external citations. If you can find such links, we can help. Otherwise, the basic WP requirements cannot be satisfied. Good luck & good hunt. --EJohn59 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59[reply]

John Ng[edit]

Please do not add names of people that do not have their own Wikipedia page to lists, especially not if their articles have previously been deleted due to non-notablity concerns. Passportguy (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of John Ng[edit]

I have nominated John Ng, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ng. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Passportguy (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Stating that someone's edits suggest to you that their hero may be Stalin, as you did in the deletion discussion for John Ng, is far from appropriate. Avoid such statements in the future. Thanks, لenna vecia 13:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore the personal attack again. It is not appropriate and will result in a block. لenna vecia 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed Personal Attack

WP:TPO The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

WP:RPA "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate."

Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:RPA and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything.

WP:REDACT Strike out, strike-through, strike through, etc. To place text in strike-through (HTML ~~...~~, ~~...~~, or ~~...~~) tags. This is very rarely used in articles, but is relatively common in votes and discussions when a contributor changes his or her opinion. As not to cause confusion, the outdated comments are struck out (~~like this~~). The inserted material HTML tag is sometimes used with it to show a replacement for the struck material. Generally, one should strike out only one's own comments. Some editors prefer to simply remove or alter their updated material, though this is discouraged if others have responded to it and their responses would not longer make sense after the change. Note: Neither strike nor s will exist any longer in HTML 5/XHTML 2, so del is recommended. Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context.

Due to the following edit I believe a strike is appropriate for continuity.

Comment--Dear Wiki fans, I sincerely ask your pardon for last message (27 May) with no sign-in name. My friend told me it’s rude, so I now register with my real name, for 1st time. I am occasional user of Wiki only, so don’t do editoring, also not good in English. But looking at your discussions turn off me. For example, how can call someone Stalin in such discussions. Scary.--Zhang-ZQ (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Zhang-ZiQing

P.S. My comment may be off color but is not a personal attack. As many Communists look up to Joseph Stalin as well his cult_of_personality [2]. So simply do not undo or delete my edit (due to your personal perceptions); I would hate to report a 30,000+ edit administrator for a 3RR violation .--Ducha mps_comb MFA 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. The person you made the remark to took it the same as me. Learn to behave yourself or you may find yourself unable to edit. لenna vecia 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me just note that comparing an editor to a totalitarian dictator that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people really cannot be taken as anything other than completely inappropriate by anyone with a shred of common sense, whether or not there are sick people in the world that admire the man. لenna vecia 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sweetie pie maybe before you go around deleting someone’s comments and leave curt-passive aggressive messages on someone talk page you should familiarize your self with wikipedia policy; because the tone of your messages and innuendo leaves much to be desired.

But hey what do I know, I don't give a WP:FUCK...--Ducha mps_comb MFA 09:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above has been brought up at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Outside opinion requested[[3]]. لenna vecia 12:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on political straw polls[edit]

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Global-warming Skeptics[edit]

As a personal note I hate the phrases "Global-warming skeptics" and "Skeptics" (when in relation to man made global warming). However if (Al Gore's) global warming is the official party position/global religion (and I was not informed) then maybe #2 it is correct.

[4] skeptic

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

--Ducha mps_comb MFA 04:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view advisory[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Climategate.jpg[edit]

I've removed Image:Climategate.jpg from your user page. You cannot use non-free images in your user space. You've been here long enough to know that, so I hope this behavior does not continue. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not, ever, delete speedy deletion notices as you did in this edit. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "{Di-orphaned fair use}" tag. At the time it WAS used in two articles.

The template states, "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles." I DID NOT REMOVE the tag for speedy deletion it was removed by user Tony Sidaway. [5] Thanks. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 19:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give up spamming this image or I report you at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptively and inappropriately tagging numerous images in order to hound another editor. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 30 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Why was I not warned before being blocked? I did not know following the wiki rules to the letter were not allowed. As there are so many orphaned imaged that DO fall into the Criteria for speedy deletion. How was I “tagging them with completely inappropriate deletion rationales”?

What about William M. Connolley and his hounding [6] [7] [8]. I find it quite convenient that my file and talk page have been deleted [9] there you could find the destine of WMC that I would dare upload a screenshot of FOX news. He and his WP:TAGTEAM did every thing in their power to have my file deleted. Tagged it for Speedy deletion, then tagged it as an orphan (which they were the reason for) and switching tags to advance their cause. On the talk page there you could see blatant POV-pushing and bad faith.

Here is what is on the talk page of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident [10]

Apparently my image was deleted per F7 [11] However F7 does not apply (It should not have been deleted for 7 days).

F7. Invalid fair-use claim.
Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {Non-free logo} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately. Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with (subst:rfu) may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability. Invalid fair-use claims tagged with (subst:dfu) may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.

Thank you for any and all information/help. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your contributions immediately leading up to this block show a point-making campaign of the worst kind, and I see no reason to lift your block early given that there have been no assurances that you intend to stop this sort of behavior. Regarding warnings, you've been an editor at Wikipedia for 2 years, you can't expect us to believe that you thought being disruptive in this manner would be allowable? Jayron32 04:12, 1 December 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.

Due to your repeated, recent disruption to this user talk page, I have extended your block to indefinite and removed your ability to edit this talk page further. If you wish to be unblocked, please email the Arbitration Committee using the mailing list arbcom-l AT lists.wikimedia.org, or follow the instructions at WP:ARBCOM for contacting the arbitration committee. --Jayron32 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

Per our email discussions and your assurances of future good behaviour, your indefinite block has now been changed to "time served". This suggestion incidentally comes from the blocking administrator, Jayron32, and is very much a last chance. Happy and productive editing! Roger Davies ^talk 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4th of July 2010[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using SYN and original research to try and distort sources to say what you want them to say. The birther nonsense is not going to fly on any article on Wikipedia. Dave Dial (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dave Dial (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text you are entering does not reflect the source in the first entry, and the second entry is pure original research and SYN. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duchamps comb and Birther edits-[[12]]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for a week for your pattern of disruptive tendentious editing, shown in edits like this and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation, consider yourself topic banned indefinitely from all articles and discussions related to Barack Obama. More information about the ban and how to appeal it, should you wish to do so, can be found on that page. NW (Talk) 20:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time line:[edit]

My first eddit as of 00:04, 4 July. [13]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [14]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [15]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July. [16]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [17]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [18]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July. [19]

I stopped editing the article as of 01:37, 4 July; I was blocked as of 08:00, 4 July. So for 6.5 hrs. I had no activity, I walked away with consensus from the talk page to not add any of my information or refs. Is this not how wikipedia is supposed to work?

Let me point out just how valid the information I added is. (I understand that a couple of my refs are considered non-reliable.) This is the last attempt at the edit that brought the controversy:

--Occidental College transcripts--

Obama has declined repeated requests to release copies of his transcripts[20] from Columbia College [21] and Occidental College [22]. This was seased on by critics who alledge that Obama is not elligable to hold the office of Presient, in an internet email hoax, Obama was said to attend collage as a foreign national from Indonesia as an undergraduate[23] College officials have contacted Obama's lawyers, who argued to the court that the election was over and that future concerns should be addressed to Congress.[24]

--Executive Order 13489--

Om January 21, 2009 Obama's first full day in office[25] he sealed all "Presidential records" of his past with Executive Order 13489.[Executive Order no. 13489, Presidential Records, 74 FR 4669 (January 21, 2009)][26]

This is how my refs play out into what I put on the college transcripts.
NY times-[27]"Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

Snopes-[28]"One of the avenues of approach taken by "birthers" in their quest to demonstrate that Barack Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States is to try to demonstrate that, even if he was born in the United States, he gave up his U.S. citizenship somewhere along the way ... and if he's not a U.S. citizen, then he can't legitimately be President of the United States. Therefore, many birthers have gleefully seized onto the above-cited news report from April 2009, which purports that Barack Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles under a scholarship granted only to students of "foreign citizenship." However, this item isn't a news report at all — it's a hoax whose elements are all demonstrably false."

This is how my refs play out into what I put on the Executive Order.
This should be a non-issue as it is a matter of national record (the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President, took place on January 20, 2009, the EO was signed on January 21, 2009) as anybody that can read a calender should know this EO was signed on his first day in office! The title of the EO was "PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS".

The Guardian, "Obama the first 100 hours"[29]"51 Issued executive order limiting the powers of former presidents and vice-presidents to block the release of sensitive records of their time in the White House. It would allow the administration to approve release of former vice-president Dick Cheney's records, among others, against his objections."

Basically the Archivist must give notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records identifying any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. Only the Attorney General and Council to the President, are able to review records’ requests and determine if they can be made public or not. First thing Obama did as president was to issue EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning the release of his record without his permission which also revokes section 6 of Executive Order 13233 which bans congress and courts from interceding. No matter how you spin it his first act as president "sealed his presidential records"(not his birth certificate, transcripts, or any other per-presidental document).

"1 week (disruptive editing on WP:BLP issues (Obamam "birther" fringe POV pushing)." Come on the page is titled Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" Is not that page all about fringe theories? I did not put any of these edits on the Barack Obama official page.

I think I have been judged unfairly. That my good faith efforts have been negatively painted over by a content issue. I know my writing is not always the best, I expect others to help or edit. I do not believe I did anything to warrant a block, and the "indefinite topic ban" seems way over the top in excessiveness. As I have never edited any Obama pages until a few days ago. I have no intent to make him a battle ground/personal issue for myself here on wikipedia.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 18:08, 6 July 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think I have been judged unfairly. That my good faith efforts have been negatively painted over by a content issue. I know my writing is not always the best, I expect others to help or edit. I do not believe I did anything to warrant a block, and the "indefinite topic ban" seems way over the top in excessiveness. Can it be lifted, or shortened to 30 days, of something more reasonable? As I have never edited any Obama pages until a few days ago. I have no intent to make him a battle ground/personal issue for myself here on wikipedia. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In answer to your questions below, tendentious editing in this case is editing that is trying to make a particular point as opposed to simply reporting the facts, and refusal to accept consensus on the issue. 3RR is not an entitlement, it's just a specific application of the policy on edit warring, you can be blocked for edit warring whether you breached 3RR or not, whether you were uncivil or not. If you return to your previous editing pattern after this block expires, you can expect to be not only topic-banned but blocked again for a longer period of time. There has been a lot of disruption over the last few years in the Obama birther conspiracy articles, and they are under intense scrutiny, as you have seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2010 (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.

On point of procedure, I removed much of the background and timeline information from your unblock request, keeping a copy of the request itself in the template; this will make it easier for the reviewing admin to review. On topic, The Obama articles are very high traffic, high profile targets for both bad faith vandalism and good faith editing, and they have seen enough controversy to warrant additional protection. So, whenever someone's conduct on those articles triggers a block, the sanction is applied to prevent further problems. I appreciate that you feel strongly about this material's inclusion, but consensus says otherwise - and wikipedia is a consensus driven project. The problem with the sources is also an issue, one that you did not address at all - you merely continued to insert the material into the article. No disrespect intended, but the sources don't support the claims you made, and you were told this - repeatedly - and continued to add the material anyway. So, it went from a content dispute to disruption, and you were blocked.

I leave the template for another admin, but I believe the block was proper. When it expires, please be more careful. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. The block is whatever it will be. However I take great offense at the "indefinite topic ban". Can it be lifted, or shortened to 30 days, of something more reasonable?

As to the sources there is really only two that I am aware of that were in question. Snopes.com, but it turns out to be a RS for conspiracy theories. As well worldnetdaily.com, and it in not RS, but I thought it was. Really the main problem is my summery skills, which are not always the best. But that does not make me a useless contributor.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I would even consider unblocking would be an indef topic ban as well. In fact, even when this current block expires, I will propose the same thing. Indef does not mean forever, it means until the community is convinced that the problems will not happen again - from your style of editing, 30 days won't cut it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what, "until the community is convinced that the problems will not happen again" means? --Sounds pretty nebulas to me, like admins do whatever they want with little to no way to appeal (regardless if it is right/partisan or not).--Ducha mps_comb MFA 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, one makes the request at WP:ANI after a significant period of time to have the restrictions removed. There's also ArbComm who can rescind such as well...the whole thing is very common when editors become overly tendentious about certain topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the answer. -But I don't agree with your assessment that my "style of editing" requires more than 30 days or that I am "overly tendentious." If you go to [30] you will see that people that did MUCH more than me have gotten fare less.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 02:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM ... only you seem to think so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I list my case with what others have done and what sanctions they were given as a bar of fairness. Please explain the wikipedia rules I have broken (in detail) to receive a "indefinite topic ban" (without warning or prior topic block of any sort) and how/why my edits can be defined as "overly tendentious" (without a 3RR violation, without being uncivil, Etc.).--Ducha mps_comb MFA 14:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I fully accept Beeblebrox ruling on not lifting the block. However I do not agree at all with the "indefinite topic ban"; apparently for what NW believed to be disruptive editing. If you look at the time line above, after the second editor stepped in I backed off and went to the talk page (the way wikipedia is supposed to work). I accepted the consensus and walked away as over the next 6.5 hours I did nothing to the page in question. The topic ban issued by NW does not follow the same logic, severity of offense, or level of fairness that other admins have issued on [31]. Topic bans in every case except mine have been sockpuppeting or shorter incremental ban leading up to a total ban. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 18:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Super. You can debate the topic ban when your block expires. Please do not use this template for that. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2010 (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.

Sheffield Steel[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the not the correct forum for your concern. If you would like to pursue this (which I don't recommend), take it to WP:RFCN. TN X Man 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your entry on WP:ANI before it was removed, and was going to reply there. But as it's gone, I'll post here:

I don't know Sheffield Steel's nationality, but if he's from the UK his username will refer not to the modern US companies you quote but to the generic Sheffield Steel industry of Sheffield, England that operated from 1770 onwards, and as a result of which 'Sheffield Steel' became a byword throughout the world for superior quality steel products from the eighteenth century onwards. Look on virtually any piece of cutlery (silverware in USian) in any kitchen drawer in the UK and it'll be stamped 'Sheffield Steel'. I'd wager your US companies took their name from the great UK Sheffield Steel industry. So no, chances are it's not a username violation. 81.129.135.102 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is not the correct forum to raise a username concern. I have deleted the page you created because of this. If you have questions, please let me know. TN X Man 18:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]