User:BigDaddy777

Welcome!

Hi BigDaddy777! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Hipocrite 20:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hippocrite

Man, you know there is a SYSTEMIC problem at Wik when they have someone like ---the rest of this comment has been removed consistent with Big Daddy's new found spirit of WiKomradery, good will and civility.--- Big Daddy 14:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there

I was looking at your contribs and I noticed that you maybe got off on the wrong foot with some people. I hope that your impression of Wikipedia was not based on the misbehavior of a few who may not have realized you are new around here. (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers) I hope that you stick around long enough to realize wikipedia is not the liberal bastion that you initially thought it was. It's just a bunch of flawed people trying to write a good encyclopedia MPS 19:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

Hey, pal

BD, I really appreciate your work on the Coulter page -- especially your persistence and willingness to defend yourself. But I encourage you, in the spirit of friendship, to please calm down and self-edit your frustration and tone out of the discussion. It will only be used against you by others. Many people game the system by making unreasonable edits to bait others to frustration. Do not fall into their trap. Quietly, calmly, make your point, and discuss things on their merits. If others are acting in bad faith, it will be evident -- you don't have to point it out.

Also, stop right now and do a very thorough check -- twice -- to count all the reverts you have made the Coulter article in the last day. If you step over the line and make more than three, it will be used against you and you can be blocked. A revert can be construed as any time you changed back someone's remarks, and not just 3 for the same remark, just three in total. I'm afraid you might be getting close to the line, and I'm trying to protect you. Let me know if you have questions about the policy. Kind regards, paul klenk 00:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A different page.

Are you interested in anything but politics? One of the best ways you can help with the encyclopedia is providing knowledge in the less contravercial sections of our encyclopedia. Give it a try. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

I find it terribly amusing that you insist on pigeon-holing everyone into your "conservative" and "liberal" categories. Unfortunately, that is just overly simplistic. With regards to the Sheehan case, how can you seriously make any claim that she is a liberal stooge, puppet, etc? She has availed herself of various media resources as they were offered, but that doesn't make her a puppet--that makes her media savvy. As for your constant presumptions of neo-liberalism (I assume that you know the difference between classical {free market} liberals like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, et al., and neo- {socialist}liberals, like FDR, Hillary, et al.), you should do some more research. Cindy Sheehan was writing for lewrockwell.com long before any of the so-called liberal media got involved in covering her activism. If you want to make the laughable claim that LRC, an anti-war, anti-state, pro-free market site, is a mouthpiece for the socialist left, go ahead, but I think you know better. Dick Clark 16:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from DickClarkMises' talk page for clarity)I just re-read your laughable defense of the 'conservative' Cindy Sheehan lol! Man, she sure jumped the shark in a hurry, huh? Sorry things didn't work out for her like I'm sure you and her liberal friends would have wanted. Now she's gone and started eating her own. Today she was trashing one of the two left wing senators in California. I think the Jewish one. Interesting...she hates Israel and hates Diane Feinstein. Is that the real reason why Lew Rockwell is so sympathetic? Just curious... Big Daddy 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell considers Cindy Sheehan heroic because he believes that statist (Democrat or Republican) wars are evil. She is an anti-war activist. It's not terribly hard to make the connection. You are simply toeing the party line and reading off your talking points. Just so we can actually have a meaningful discussion here, would you care to define the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as you are using them. It is difficult to tell exactly what you mean by either. I mean, are you a Goldwater conservative, a Burkean conservative, a Reaganite/Neoconservative, or what? And do you think that Cindy Sheehan is a classical liberal, neo(socialist)-liberal, or some other variety? I would love to hear your honest, reasoned answer, but, unfortunately, your previous comments have been so ambiguous as to be pretty meaningless. Dick Clark 16:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

" You are simply toeing the party line and reading off your talking points."Wow! I guess you're not very well developed in 'assuming good faith', huh? lol! (Not to mention that your charges are laughably bogus.)

Actually, I spend a lot of time thinking about definitions because I think most people are far too sloppy in their nomenclature. I have a good working definition of both liberal and conservative. I can break it down for you in two or three concise sentences and am happy to do so, only...you first. Big Daddy 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you're smart.Gator1 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree, if BD didn't deflect the question. --kizzle 18:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In keeping with...

...the above comment. You should match intelligence with brevity. I just looked thru Pat Robertson and thought "useful contributor who's so all over the place I don't f***king get it." Short and sweet works better than a rant and you're ranting too much. Seriously, leave the liberal/conservative bullshit for blogs. And don't take this comment badly at all. You strike me as someone who could and should provide worthwhile stuff. Write back as you please. Marskell 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

repeated vandalism

1. 

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You continue to ignore the notice about discussing changes before making them to the Ann Coulter article. --155.91.19.73 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Formatting issues

Please sign your posts by using four tildes in a row ~~~~. Otherwise it gets confusing as to who is saying what on talk pages. Also, please try not to use so many line breaks. Consolidate your sentences -- there's no need to have one sentence per line break; it makes pages scroll too much and discourages editors from reading your comments. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I see you're using the tildes; thanks so much. But can you please, please start consolidating your sentences? You're still using one sentence per line break. Now I'm having to come in behind you and strip them out, and I'd prefer not to be doing it. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pat

I made an edit today and suggested a couple of more to address some of your concerns. I do hope you realize that others do bear in mind perceived problems and that you can usefully contribute if you mention things without the initial confrontational attitude. Marskell 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Please be aware that an RFC has been filed regarding your conduct on various talk pages. You can read it and respond at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. As a personal note, I contine to hope that you will become a positive contributor here, and I did not file this RFC with the intent of moving it further down the chain, or driving you away, merely as an attempt to get you to tone down on various Talk pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Echo Hipocrite. --kizzle 00:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're doing the right thing by not responding to the RFC (if I was our attorney that's exactly what I would tell you too :), it would only dignify it and it can go nowhere. There seem to be a healthy number of people fighting it.Gator1 12:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

You do realize how the dispute resolution chain works, right Gator? The requirements for an arbitration case (much more serious) is to point out that an RfC was already tried before and failed. Both Hip and I have stated just above this that we are not seeking punishment against BigDaddy but to try to convince him to change his behavior. If BigDaddy takes your advice, then it could get much more serious. --kizzle 17:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Now the threats...what a surprise. All of this from an RFC that they said wasn't meant to punish you....now if you don't respond to them or bend to their will and tell them what they want to hear then it "could get much more serious." This IS a joke and will go nowhere as its unfounded and completely unwarranted. Next thing you know, they're going to start threatening me (assuming that "condoning" language wasn't already a threat") Some people just make me sad...Gator1 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

This RFC is an attempt to get the community to help convince BD777 that his behavior is in no way helping to improve this project, or even push his POV into article space. I would hope that he takes the advice contained herein to heart

That's really not a lot to ask. --kizzle 17:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey check out the respnse I got on my talk apge for this:

Seriously, WTF?

- - Have you ever participated in an RFC process before? All I want is for him to stop being such a jerk to his fellow editors. If he came to the RFC and his responce was "I see your concerns, and will address them," then that would be all. By advising him to ignore our incredibly reasonable suggestions you're explicitly condoning his behavior. An RFC is not severe in the least. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I blanked it and didn't respond, but I might get an RFC too since I am "condoning" your actions....yeah righ.....Anyway, enjoy the ride, this entire episode is beginning to make me giggle.Gator1 13:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hip = stalker. Striaght up. Big Daddy 13:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Now he's gone and told on me!! LOL. Man, now this is making me laugh out loud! This is embarassing.... I hope he just moves on soon, what a huge waste of time and wiki-resources.Gator1 14:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Hi, I realize you're new here, but it seems like a lot of sparks have been flying as a result of some of your edits. It may help you to read What Wikipedia is not. Some of the key "nots" include: Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. Talk pages are for discussing articles, not politics. Even on political articles, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article.

You'll get much better results if you take a less combative stance (this means refraining from insulting other editors), and briefly explain on talk pages what changes you think the article needs, and why. The long polemics simply turn people off and make them less likely to read your entire post or take you seriously. The use of CAPITOL LETTERS may also tend to turn people off.

Another key point to understand is, Wikipedia articles are NOT meant to contain "The Truth", either yours or someone else's version. Deciding what is The Truth would lead to endless disagreements, so on Wikipedia we go by what is verifiable instead. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response via email, but I'm afraid it just shows that you're not understanding the problem here. Verifiability is an official policy, and your assertions that other articles aren't following it properly don't really relate to anything. These issues should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Also, note that verifiability may not mean what you think it means. If someone wanted to add a bit to an article, saying, for example, "Larry King reported on 9.5.2005 that George W. Bush is a lizard-headed alien disguised as a human", we do not have to try to "prove" the truth of this claim. It's verifiable as long as we can cite a source that Larry King said it. This example is a bit silly of course, but hopefully it will illustrate what is meant by verifiability. Friday (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You may be wrong...

BigDaddy... I think you may be wrong on your assumption that Wikipedia is controlled by left-wing/liberal/democrats/whatever. One easy way to tell that there is at least some bastion of conservatism is the fact that many of our liberal editors claim a conservative bias. Only a few times have I run across an article that was very, very POV. There are conservatives like yourself here, and a good example is the George W. Bush article. Liberals have been complaining about that for quite some time now, and so have conservatives. That's generally a good indicator that an article is NPOV. Try "writing for your enemy." No one wants to see editors leave WP, and to lose you would be a shame. In order to stick around, however, you may need to change your attitude somewhat. When it comes to politics, religion, or other really touchy subject matter, everyone needs to use some restraint. I hope you take my words to heart and stop your personal attacks and incivility. Discuss matter in a calm, rational tone and I assure you, you will achieve much more than with yelling. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Here to help

BD, remember my comments above, asking you to calm down? Well, it looks like I should have stayed around and helped you a bit more. It appears you're now under some scrutiny. I'm sorry I didn't give you more help.

I totally understand where you're coming from. But you're going to have to trust me and follow my instructions. I think that if you do, you can grow a bit and begin to gain real respect from others.

The first thing you have to do is follow the rules about working in the community. If you cannot understand WP as a community, instead of as an encyclopedia, it will work against you.

I truly trust that your intentions are good. But I think you are going about things the wrong way. If you're willing to work, let me know. If you'd rather do it by chat or phone, I am okay with that. If not, I understand, and good luck with the RfC.

Kind regards,

paul klenk 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

BD, I did a bit of history checking on you. Setting aside your "ranting" for the moment (and I do understand you better than you know, believe me), I have noticed you have chosen to simultaneously edit many of the most controversial and disputed topics on Wikipedia, at least from a politically conservative point of view.

There are several problems with this choice: 1] They require an advanced level of engagement with others which you have not yet achieved (in other words, they're over your head socially); 2] They represent topics which are too close to you to allow objectivity; 3] The sheer number of them is exhaustive -- they are simply too many for once person. How can you possibly contribute to these articles (and I don't contribute on their talk pages, but contribute substantive research, material, and editing)? The answer: You cannot.

My suggestion on this aspect of your activity here:

1. 1. Pick only one of these topics, and completely abandon the rest. You are never going to really contribute any other way. A one-man campaign to turn WP upside down will kill you. Then, while you are focusing on this one page, make a point to be extra civil with all editors there, and do heavy research to become an expert on the subject -- perhaps even one aspect of the subject. E.g., don't try to be the expert on Ann Coulter; just be the expert on her scholarship, or her TV career, or her quotes. Be selective.
   2. Last, work on other non-political topics, like wood carving, or marionettes, or the Bohemian Skunk Lily, that you know something about and love and that won't be likely to attract an edit war. Also, originate one new article -- again, one that is non-political -- which no one has touched or is likely to touch, that you can thoroughly research and edit with no interference from anyone. paul klenk 04:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! In a place so DESPERATELY in need of conservative editors to balance the overwhelming number of liberals editing the political articles, I've now had two...count 'em 2...'friendly suggestions' that I edit something OTHER than politics!

Kinda like Democratic Governor Blanco telling those private charities she didn't want any more provisions of diapers, food and water sent to the Superdome, cause it'll just 'draw in more people' huh? LOL!!

Big Daddy 14:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)