User talk:PCHS-NJROTC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm quite busy in real life at times. If you have an important message for me and I don't get back to you here, try leaving me an email. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

{{Shared IP edu test}}[edit]

It states that the school is interested in being contacted in case of vandalism. Unless you (the editor adding the template) has contacted the school, this is a BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject:REHAB update[edit]

You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab


Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page
RDN1F TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Shared IP templates[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Maryana (WMF)'s talk page. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lexington Middle School[edit]

If you nom it for AfD, I'd support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just sent it to AfD. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PCHS-NJROTC. You have new messages at Alex3yoyo's talk page.
Message added 19:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

alex3yoyo (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

I hate you....

Khaledmehriz 2 (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Enbridge COIN[edit]

Hi, I have started a conflict of interest investigation on IP 161.141.1.1 as that IP is owned by Enbridge corporation and has been doing a lot of pro-Enbridge edits to the Enbridge article. As you have also contributed to that article I thought you might be interested to have a look. Cheers, Djapa Owen (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PGMS2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PGMS2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Punta Gorda Middle School logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Punta Gorda Middle School logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:PGMS2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PGMS2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A question[edit]

How can you be an editor on Conservapedia and wikipedia? They're like polar opposites. Besides Rationalwiki. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(Assuming good faith) No they're not. Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view whereas Conservapedia follows a conservative POV. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention one of them seems to value facts and logic most of the time. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To each his own. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 15:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you seem like a nice person, I'll stop trying to aggravate you. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 15:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, spare me[edit]

Your philosophical lectures at WP:AN/I are not helpful. Please do not patronise, nor use such condescending language as "kiss and make up". We aren't children here. Is that how you speak in your place of work? RGloucester 03:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This didn't need to come here; it could have stayed at the AN/I page, but whatever. It was only a suggestion; you may take it with a grain of salt if you so choose. People in my place of work don't bicker with each other, undo each other's work over and over again, and go to manager both accusing each other of being wrong or being "Marxist propaganda mongerers" and "vandals," I had my fill of that in middle school. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I was merely giving you a recommendation. It is quite right that I did none of those things. Instead, they have been done by this fellow, and I'm seeking redress. At my place of work, people are serious, they take themselves seriously, and they refrain from childish language. RGloucester 04:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
At my place of work, people act as the professionals that we are and take our lack of childishness beyond language. Seriously though, what I see at the surface here is two people who think they're right, and instead of trying to reach some sort of agreement like adults or handling things properly, they start playing tug-o-war with an article a page as a rope and then proceed to accuse each other of personal attacks and vandalism at AN/I. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Then you are not seeing very far. This is part of a protracted struggle over the course of months from disruptive editors in Ukraine crisis-related topics, where I do most of my editing at present. A couple of days ago I was accused of being part of a pro-Ukrainian cabal. Now I'm a pro-Russian Marxist covering up a crime equivalent of the Holocaust. I've seen it all, at this point, and I'm not going to take nonsense any longer. I have better things to do. Farewell! RGloucester 04:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────NJROTC, I've just come across the AN/I you felt you had enough of a grasp of to involve yourself in. Not only was your advice unconstructive, you managed to be WP:UNCIVIL towards the editor filing the complaint and, quite evidently, didn't bother to check the diffs properly, or even acquaint yourself with the content in dispute. Consequently, the ANI was closed by the reporting editor rather than having to face any more condescending suggestions and heckling from you. Only one administrator had the chance to weigh in, and other involved editors were denied the opportunity to discuss the new user's disruptive behaviour.

Considering that you don't edit in any controversial areas of Wikipedia, and that you insinuated yourself into an ANI regarding a new contributor to a WP:ARBEE area, I can't help but find myself wondering how you feel you are qualified to take over the incident report and harass the reporter. Essentially, you disrupted the process, did not assume good faith, and turned it into your personal battleground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how choosing not to take sides in the content dispute (policy dispute, which ever you prefer to call it) constitutes assuming bad faith (I'm sure they both had good intentions), and I fail to see how suggesting the two editors discuss the matter rather than come to AN/I to try and get each other blocked/banned/topic banned/etc was disruptive, but I don't see the sense in arguing about it. Perhaps my choice of words could have been better, but I still don't see how anything I posted was WP:UNCIVIL towards any particular user. As for WP:BATTLEGROUND, I don't see it. What I see is a content dispute that made its way over to dispute resolution, which, IMO, is the proper place for it (either there or ArbCom, since ArbCom is involved in the matter). At any rate, it's history now. I see there's another thread over at AN/I now. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)