User talk:Agiantman

I said "look up" as in "above". You will find the link in my previous comments. Derex 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

(a) i have never met kizzle & i'm not his professor. i did work for one year at his university, while he was not even in attendance -- a coincidence we discovered by chance not long ago. (b) i'm not a sockpuppet, wolfman retired. a sockpuppet is using two accounts at once. on my user page you will see that i mention having a past name, and i have not made a secret of it (or you obviously wouldn't know about it). i did use wolfman once since derex: to vote in a vfd that required a minimum 100 edits; wolfman had about 6000. i am quite proud of my record as wolfman. i do note that you seem awfully damn knowledgeable about wikipedia details for such a newbie. you wouldn't be a sockpuppet yourself, now would you? (c) of course i checked to see what you were adding to other articles. the first thing i saw you do was say that tyson got convicted with mentioning the wee tiny detail that espy was acquitted of 30 charges. you are indeed a paragon of neutrality. btw, you followed me to the espy page. and i wrote the rape page in the first place. (d) kizzle should indeed mind his language, but you should also consider why you provoke such a reaction. you should mind your language too. (e) don't assume you know my politics. i'm not a democrat. but since SBVT, i have had a very low tolerance for smear campaigns and lies. i like to combat smear with fact. and that is what i have been doing. if you don't think i'm being neutral, then supply facts of your own. that is what i have been doing myself. i am happy to be educated. Derex 17:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Musachachado

Responding to User talk:Casito#Vandal Musachachado:I am not an admin, so I can't block him. I added him to WP:VIP so he should be dealt with. I know several admins personally and I will contact them if need be. BTW, his German grammer is so bad that it's pitiful. -Casito⇝Talk 03:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Thanks for your help. I've been trying to get a balance on this page for weeks now. 24.147.97.230 00:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks mr.sockpuppet

always nice to have a vandal target the clinton article, seeing how it isn't george bush there's vritually no chance of it being reverted - 172.150.56.37 01:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

no, you were warned--172.150.56.37 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

On Stalin

look, i appreciate removals of pro-Communist bias as much as the next guy -- I'm a registered U.S. Republican. however these guys are right that what Stalin did is not genocide by any definition of the word and you're really not helping your case on the talk page. i'd suggest you concede this one and try to make more objective edits on USSR-related articles where leftist bias actually is a significant problem.

i'm messaging you rather than just dismissing you because it is my opinion that several wik political articles do have a leftist bias, in some cases very egregious bias that goes untouched, and if you could focus on NPOV rather than political debates you'd gain more credibility on this project. J. Parker Stone 03:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On Lenin (and Stalin)

I am asking for page protection. You may want to add your comments here [1]. Ultramarine 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Stalin

Hi Agiantman, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Stalin and for incivility on the talk page. This is just to warn you that if you violate 3RR in future, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Also, it's better to leave out the ad hominem comments when dealing with contentious issues. I've never been involved in editing this article, but I know it has caused a lot of trouble for various editors, so it's best to tread lightly and deal only with the content issues, and not with what you perceive to be the motives of other contributors. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling Error

question for user:Agiantman : the question is, are you sure your name isn't supposed to be spelled AgiantTroll? It is unclear if this is a mere spelling error, or a more serious misrepresentation, thanx -- Gee Wiz

Zoroastrianism

You may be interested in participating in this vote. KHM03 15:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That was my point

!= means "does not equal" Glenford 14:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Page

Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks 24.147.97.230

No Personal Attacks

Please do not refer to two editors who happen to agree that two particular Ted Kennedy incidents were non-encyclopedic as sock-puppets. That is a personal attack. Robert McClenon 19:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No Frivolous Accusations of Vandalism

The deletion of unsourced material is not vandalism. The deletion of sourced material may be. In this case, the statement that Freeman did not believe in antisepsis does require a source. Also, is there any evidence that infection played a factor? If not, it simply proves that Freeman was a quack, but that is not the issue about Rosemary Kennedy. Frivolous accuasations of vandalism are personal attacks. Robert McClenon 23:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A further warning about Wikipedia policies

Over the years, the Wikipedia community has developed several policies and guidelines about editors' conduct. These standards are applicable to admins, other longtime editors, newly registered accounts, and even anonymous IP’s. We want to avoid biting the newbies, but that doesn't constitute a license for them to be disruptive. You've been here several weeks now, and important policies have been called to your attention, yet you continue to violate them:

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your talk page shows that your incivility has been called to your attention by SlimVirgin and by Robert McClenon. When Robert tried to help you by advising you of this policy, you accused him of harassing you. After these warnings, you made this edit, suggesting that Robert was "on the Kennedy PR payroll". The policy against such personal attacks isn't just some vague hope that people will be nice. It's a policy. It's enforceable. Fred Bauder, a longtime member of the Arbitration Committee, has written: "The no personal attacks rule has been one of the most frequently cited Wikipedia policies used by the Arbitration Committee. Violations have resulted in bans of up to a year in extreme cases."
• Wikipedia:Vandalism. We have a clear policy: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." The policy goes on to note that NPOV violations are not vandalism. So, if you disagree with an edit, even if you disagree because you consider the edit biased, that doesn't make it vandalism. You shouldn't continue to sling around the word "vandalism" in such circumstances.

This message is not an attempt to harass you. It's an attempt to persuade you to conform your actions to the community's policies so that you can remain a member of the community. JamesMLane 15:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman. Robert McClenon 12:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing user comments

The message that user:JamesMLane left for Agiantman was extremely civil. Deleting warnings about bad behavior is, by itself, evidence of bad faith. -Willmcw 01:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, user:JamesMLane is a POV warrior and his "warning" was just part of a concerted an effort to harrass anyone who tries to introduce NPOV on the page of liberal politicians. Deleting warnings about bad behavior when there is no bad behavior is not evidence of bad faith. user:JamesMLane writes on his user page that he is "Hostile to the right wing." I am hardly right wing, but I certainly have felt the brunt of his hostility. --Agiantman 02:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You also removed at the same time a 3RR warning from user:SlimVirgin, and two warnings from [[ User:Robert McClenon, about personal attacks and false vandalism accusations. -Willmcw 04:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It could be due to my reference of complaints against him on his talk page in the current RfC. --kizzle 05:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, the editors you mention are all part of the same cabal who harrass and pigpile on anyone who disagrees with their POV. They contribute to the same articles. "Warnings" on discussion pages are part of their m.o., as well as RfC pages and frivolous 3RR reports. It appears you are in the same club. Please do not leave any further messages on my discussion page. If you would like, I will leave a nice warning on your page. --Agiantman 14:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

To see a recent complaint against user:SlimVirgin and User:Willmcw for wikistalking, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Willmcw_and_User:SlimVirgin LOL!

your request

i glanced at some of your changes on the Kennedy article. i'm not really well-informed on the subject of Kennedy family shenanigans but the "Mormon" bit seemed a little POV to me (although the previous version could use some tweaking.) i dunno if i'll involve myself in this but i may look at it a little more. J. Parker Stone 06:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You might like this

User_talk:Anonip#Gamaliel and Impartial 3RR Blocking

Also note that Gamaliel did his best to remove this from his talk page.

TDC 16:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cliques and arbitration

Greetings and thanks for your note of support. The clique composed of Willmcw and SlimVirgin is one of the worst operating on Wikipedia and I'm sorry (but not surprised) to hear that you've had a bad experience with them as well. Willmcw has very strong political and personal beliefs and pushes them regularly in his edits and screening of other people's edits, and SlimVirgin is always standing nearby to assist him when somebody objects to the way he batters and harasses other editors that don't conform with those beliefs. I've experienced this first hand and seen the two of them do it many times, occassionally calling in other fellow travellers in their clique to assist in things such as burying an RfC against one or more of them for misbehavior. SlimVirgin tried to do this to me recently when I filed an RfC against Willmcw for a very blatant and incontrovertable NPOV abuse (he was inserting David Duke quotes into an article to make it look like the Klan supported a viewpoint opposite of his!). Most of the normal good faith editors who visited the RfC immediately recognized how Willmcw was in the wrong and went to work trying to fix the problems he'd created on that article. But Slim and the clique showed up to "vote down" the RfC en masse without even looking at the evidence because Willmcw is one of "their guys." Another way this group operates is to find a newcomer to Wikipedia who disagrees with one of their opinions. Newcomers are by definition inexperienced at how edits happen here so many times they react in confusion when they start getting bombarded with hostile allegations of vandalism or mass reverts of their edits. I've seen Will, Slim & Co. show up and effectively run some of them off the forum this way, completely disregarding Wikipedia's policy against biting the newcomers with hostility the moment they arrive. If you have a moment please stop by the Wikipedia:Stalking article and contribute to the discussion there as non-clique voices are needed and the aforementioned clique is trying its hardest to bury and dismantle the thing (partially because one of their own - Willmcw - knows he's guilty of the very same offenses it pertains to). Thanks again for your support. Rangerdude 04:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)