User talk:Redondomax

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Redondomax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProCon.org[edit]

I saw that you requested a third opinion, but I don't really see a lot of discussion. I've started a thread on Talk:ProCon.org to discuss your edits. I would also remind you that Ckatz is an administrator here, and that you should assume good faith and not engage in personal attacks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with user Ckatz[edit]

Hello!

I see you have gotten into real match with an extremely obnoxious administrator Ckatz. This is the real problem with Wikipedia where some juvenile administrators with very little knowledge of subjects almost have Napoleonic influence on Wikipedia. You just have to look at this person's contribution to see how with his shallow mind he goes about removing things arbitrarily. He seems also to be quite vindictive and hence it will be a good idea to bring him to the arbitration committee. I think you should get like minded people to appeal to the committee on Ckatz'z behavior.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljung (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the now blocked sock puppet Carljung was created only to attack Ckatz. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:ProCon.org. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, along with many Wiki editors, are here to make Wikipedia better, and we sometimes find that using ProCon fairly and best achieves that purpose. There is nothing wrong with healthy and civil disagreement for the great purpose of improving Wikipedia. If you think are occassional times when ProCon can be used to improve Wikipedia, how would you advise editors to go about linking or sourcing the site to avoid the same negative repercussions I and others have experienced? I am asking honestly.

Also, I reviewed the Wikipedia rules in the link you provided, and I now understand by using one person's name in a criticism, Wikipedia considers that a personal attack. I will avoid using that person's name going forward. Thank you for the link. So I can avoid being future threats about losing my ability to edit Wikipedia content, would you mind advising me on the method you suggest editors use to highlight unfair actions by a Wikipedia administrator? You can see how I and others have been routinely frustrated by your coworker, and given this person's actions and my novice familiarity with WIki's complex system, I am at a loss for how to proceed. User:Redondomax 10 January 2011

WP:ANI is the place to go to complain about Admin actions. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Do you have any thoughts regarding my first question: "If you think are occassional times when ProCon can be used to improve Wikipedia, how would you advise editors to go about linking or sourcing the site to avoid the same negative repercussions I and others have experienced? I am asking honestly." I'd much rather post content the right way than tattle on an Admin. User:Redondomax 10 January 2011

Your complaint might be taken more seriously if it were not a fact that the vast majority of your efforts on the site involve trying to add links to ProCon. That is what we regard as a single-purpose editor. You have ignored the repeated explanations - not just from me, but from several other users as well - that Procon does not meet our standards as a reference site. You have also ignored the fact that the site has clearly been spammed to external links sections. If you wish to be taken seriously as a contributor, why not contribute per the site's established policies instead of simply trying to promote one site? --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do other editors now see what I mean? I have honestly contributed content to several areas of Wikipedia. I have responded to questions earnestly and by citing Wikipedia rules whenever possible. I don't understand why an Admin would so strongly discourage a reasonable Wikipedia editor. Now, it appears that the argument has shifted to a personal attack on me vs. a discussion of the content. I believe this issue needs to be brought up to higher authorities by someone with a strong knowledge of Wiki protocols (aka not me). In the meanwhile, I would appreciate a sincere response to my one remaining question from someone other than the person who continues to attack me personally. You still there Doug? Anyone? Help! I'd like to know: "If you think are occassional times when ProCon can be used to improve Wikipedia, how would you advise editors to go about linking or sourcing the site to avoid the same negative repercussions I and others have experienced? I am asking honestly." User:Redondomax 10 January 2010