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)

Rules of the Turf

NOTICE: I reserve the right to remove comments from this page. Please keep that in mind when posting. Thanks! Big Daddy

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)

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)

Despite a reasonable motion to suspend the RFC, Hipo still wants his pound of flesh and Kizzle, depsite making the motion, quickly reverses himself when he sees Hipo's very rationale response ("no"). It's clear what the whole thing is about. I have removed the RFC page from my watchlist as it is a complete waste of my time and energy. You might want to consider doing the same (if you haven't already).Gator1 02:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify Gator's "reasoning", I am still offering to suspend the RfC BigDaddy, as I do truly believe most of your recent discussions have been focused upon content rather than editors, and that if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be very motivated to continue such good behavior with an open RfC against me. I would just like if you could comment on the page acknowledging that you are trying to change, that's all (and that would also get Hip off your back too). --kizzle 02:06, 18 September 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)

3RR

Please be aware of WP:3RR. If you've violated this rule, you could be blocked. Undoing your revert is a good way to avoid a block. Friday (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Be careful...

...you are coming perilously close to being blocked. Please read my comments at Talk:Karl Rove. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Policies

I can see that you're new; it can be difficult to get your sea legs. But I would encourage you to take responsibility for your words and actions. What is clear to me is that you have been unusually belligerent. You don't need to be intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies to know that everyone ought to treat each other with basic civility. (RyanFreisling wasn't exactly a saint either of course.) You don't have to agree with everyone, but you must be civil. This is not UseNet. Flame wars are not tolerated here. Wikipedia is not a battleground. The aim here is for a collegial atmosphere. Failing to be civil, if it rises to the level of disruption, is a blockable offense. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:3RR, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Wikiquette and you'll be well on your way to being a productive Wikipedian. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Request

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A request

Please do not discuss article content disputes on my personal talk page. I will only respond to questions regarding content disputes over an article on the article's talk page itself. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You said: That's how they try to silence conservatives in here. That and falsely accuse us of vandalism. But don't worry Katefan...I can see based on you blaming last night on me and dredging up this bogus RFC that you're not being fair either.

I've never silenced you or accused you of vandalism. I also didn't "blame last night on you," though you certainly played a role. I admonished both you AND Ryan. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

fyi, Ryan is a she, not a he. Derex 21:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor, Bigdaddy777. Do not attack the admins. Us versus them does not work here. You will get yourself banned for life quicker than you can say it if you don't stop attacking everyone that challenges you. Being aggressive does you no good here. So calm down...try to compromise a bit and maybe you will start to slowly get what you are looking for. But the "us versus them" approach does not win you any friends. No friends on here means no one supporting you, which means people will be less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. --Woohookitty 17:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0

She is, bar none, the most impartial person I've run into on Wikipedia. She says on her page she's a journalist. She's a journalist for an impartial publication. I've been reading her work on here for several months and I have no clue what her political affiliation is. None. If you are fair with her, she will be fair with you no matter what her personal beliefs are. So again, do yourself a favor and try to cooperate on the Rove article. Fighting this is just going to prolong this. It's not going to gain you a thing. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, whether you like it or not. And I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you. As I said, if you have that attitude, you will get nothing you want here. --Woohookitty 17:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was not insulting you. I was illustrating what you've been doing the last 2 1/2 weeks and gently telling you that if you continue on that tact, you will get nothing done here. You've had the "anyone who contradicts me is just a liberal" attitude ever since you got her. You even did it to Katefan and she has shown no indication as to her political beliefs. I'm not being disrespectful. I'm going on what you've told virtually everyone else who has contradicted you on here. You are not the first person to come onto here with guns blazing just assuming that everyone here is out to get you. I've been emailing Kate and working with her on here for several months and yet I have no clue what her political beliefs are...not even a hint.

Katefan and I and Simesa have just spent the last 2 months dealing with someone named Ben with the exact opposite attitude of yours. He thinks that Wikipedia is a big business, pro-government pushing rag that will not let other viewpoints in. And he has the same tactics as you. He attacks everyone who contradicts him and he's had a "us versus them" mentality ever since he came on. I'll be honest. I'm a liberal. But you know what? So was Ben and yet I was part of the effort to curb his comments on the Price-Anderson Act page. I actually believed in most of the things he said, but I worked hard to get the article to some sort of neutral viewpoint. I actually wrote things against my personal beliefs. Why? Because Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. I don't object to your views one bit. But Wikipedia is outside of all of that. We're supposed to be neutral and unbiased. Coming on here with guns blazing and announcing to everyone that you are conservative, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of liberals and you are out to change Wikipedia into a conservative bastion or at least make it more conservative(and I'm not being disrespectful. It's right on your user page) is disrespectful to Wikipedia and everything Wikipedia stands for. It also doesn't help you in getting along with everyone else. Just like everywhere else, getting along with people will help you get what you want.

In the end, if you believe that Wikipedia is left leaning, that's fine. That's your opinion. So work *within the system* to get it changed. Don't come on here with guns blazing and assume that everyone here is out to get you or to stop you. It's the same mistake Ben made. In the end, he didn't get all he wanted because of his attitude, not his views. I believed in his views, but the way he went about trying to get them on here was disrespectful to the neutral point of view policy that we have on here. And at least so far, you are going down the same path. I'm trying to help you here. Really. Just try to get along with people and tone down the "you are all a bunch of liberals" stuff and you will do just fine. But continue along your current path and you won't be here long. We don't tolerate biased people on here no matter which side of the spectrum they come from. --Woohookitty 08:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if Ben has an RFC filed against him....wait, no I don't.Gator1 12:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Look man, I'm just trying to help you here. But if you choose to completely ignore what I was trying to tell you about just to pick a fight, that's your choice. --Woohookitty 00:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

motion to suspend RfC

I don't know if you even have the RfC filed against you on your watchlist, but you should take a look as well as heed my previous messages to you on this screen. If you do not reply to the RfC by the end of Tuesday, I will withdraw my motion to suspend the RfC. I believe I am the only one left besides paul who is trying to help your cause, and if you can't even reply to your own RfC, then I'm afraid I can't stop those who want you to be punished (of whom I am not a member of). --kizzle 20:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

E-mail from me

I just sent you some coaching/mentoring material. Please read it before making any edits of any kind to WP. Thanks.

Sandman, outraged, wants justice. He sputters about his vengeance to his friends at the Hoofers' Club, plotting how to kill the supervisor. The central moment of the sequence comes when Bumpy Rhodes, a black racketeer, faces him down: "I'm a pimp and a gambler and a thief. I don't have your talent to dance myself where I want to go. . . . There's only two things I gotta do in this life: I gotta stay black and I gotta die. The white man ain't left me nothing out here but the underworld, and that is where I dance. Let me ask you something, Sandman: where do you dance?" After a long pause, while they stare at each other, Sandman says decisively, "I'm gonna kill him with my tap shoes." This breaks the tension of the sequence, and the camera tracks back to include the other hoofers, who raise their beer mugs in a toast. As in the dance scene that repairs the rift between Sandman and Clay, a dance - here used both figuratively and literally - restores community. Sandman and Bumpy are no longer framed alone, but within a larger group devoted to artistic (read nonviolent) achievement. The prodigiously talented Sandman will find a creative way to exercise his power.

Sandman's rejection of violence bears its final fruit in the film's penultimate scene, in which he tap dances alone, without orchestral accompaniment, at the Cotton Club: He has got so much rhythm that he does not need music. His dance is intercut with the climactic assassination of Dutch Schultz (James Remar) by rival white gangsters at a restaurant hangout.

• Let me ask you something, BigDaddy: Where do you dance?
• Put on your tap shoes.
• Work on your rhythm.

paul klenk 08:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

BD, I just tried sending you an e-mail, but don't know if it will work. If you don't get anything, please e-mail me and I'll send you what I sent before. Thanks!Gator1 13:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment

"Why would you say such a thing? Seriously." You have come up with a lot of bull! "My friend, it's clear you HAVE NO IDEA what it means to be a born again Christian. A liberal describing Christianity is like listening to a gay friend of mine describing woman's breasts. He'll tell you their number, color shape and size, but he...just...doesn't...get it! lol!" Is this bull? Sure it is. However, I meant it totally harmlessly; I have good friends who are good friends largely like because we like to talk bull.

All of this said, two wrongs do not make a right and in this sense I should not have posted the comment on a talk page; I can see it would be off-putting if you are now trying to avoid the inflammatory remarks of the past. I will retract and apologize there. Marskell 08:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. I thank you.Big Daddy

Hey there

Just hangin' out -- how's things? paul klenk ^talk

Got your message. I'll leave that for the Coulter talk page; you just keep making contributions and let your work speak for itself. Also, not too crazy about the phrase "getting ganged up on by liberals," or however you worded it. paul klenk ^talk 09:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Just keep making a large volume of small improvements -- real imrovements, ones that no one can make reasonable objections to. Let some of them get reverted, and let some of them stay. When your work is good, and then removed, other people will put it back for you. Make good enough edits and a large group of friends and collaborators who respect you that people will be willing to do the reverting for you. paul klenk ^talk 09:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Saw the image you just uploaded. Do you also have a profile shot? paul klenk ^talk 10:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: either say, "slanted leftward" or "leftward in its tilt" (with no apostrophe), not "slanted leftward in it's tilt." paul klenk ^talk

Hey BD, I only put that on paul's page toillustrate that I was being objective on my support for you and that too may have had reason to attack you in the RFC like all the rest. I also found it interesting, because we didn't know each other then and I had forgotten all about it. :) See yah.Gator1 13:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Just sent you an e-mail on the Coulter photo. paul klenk ^talk 10:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Some unsolicited but helpful advice

BD, I have reviewed your edit history going back to September 1. It appears that only three times in your entire history have you used the "edit summary" to make a comment on your edit that might help a fellow editor learn what you were doing.

What does appear in your summaries are the section headings in which you made your edits. Click on the "my contributions" link and look: The section headings are in gray type, and your own text is in black.

What you should do is leave the section there (it is useful for other editors), but type your reason to the right of it. Look to see how others use it and model after them. Use a shorthand and include what you did and why.

In talk pages, you can use it to alert who you are responding to, so others don't have to check.

When I started editing, I found this box a bit annoying -- I don't always use it myself. But I have found that when my reason explains my edit, my edit is better received by others.

Many times people have incorrectly accused you of not explaining your edits. You do, but you do it on the talk page. You give thoughtful, well-argued explanations. However, every time a page shows up on someone's watchlist, they can see not only who made the edit, and in what section, but what they did and why. Not putting a comment there forces them to check every single edit for themselves to see what just took place. This annoys people.

That's valid. I'm surprised to read that I used it 3 times, as I don't remember EVER using it. But this was, once again, behavior that stemmed more out of being a newbie than anything else which makes my accusers all the more meritless in their attacks. But, well informed that I am now thanks to you, I will avail myself of this feature more frequently in the future. Big Daddy 13:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I found a great quote from the Miss Manners page which says it all:

In a 1995 interview by Virginia Shea, Miss Manners said, "You can deny all you want that there is etiquette, and a lot of people do in everyday life. But if you behave in a way that offends the people you're trying to deal with, they will stop dealing with you...

This also applies to annoying people. Hope it helps. paul klenk ^talk 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:BigDaddy2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BigDaddy2005.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy, if you got this image from the National Geographic Society, I have a contact there that can help you secure a GFDL license. paul klenk ^talk 13:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that it's uploaded, I need an explanation in how to tag it, but I want to tag it with

Big Daddy 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I tagged the image for you, but image pages are just like article pages. For future reference, go to the image page, click on edit, then type in {{GFDL-self}}, or whatever other tag you want. Please respond to your RFC. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know

You are a step away from being put into arbitration. [1] If you don't want to respond to the request for comment, that's fine, but you are just digging your own grave. You are probably going to be banned in 2 weeks once it goes to arby. --Woohookitty 05:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL, classic!Gator1 12:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Gator1, you are not being helpful to wikipedia or to BigDaddy here. You encouraged him several times not to even respond to the RFC. Now, with remarks like that, you are suggesting that arbcom is a joke that won't happen. You are wrong. You've been around less than a month according to your edit history. Based on my experience of well over a year, I am virtually certain that people will take this to arbitration if the type of the behavior in the RFC persists (and I don't know if it has). And I would place a very high probability of BD, his IP, and any sockpuppets, being banned from editing political pages for a year if it does go to arbcom. I've seen it happen many times, see for example User:Rex071404, User:OldRight or Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests. It's not a joke. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen: it's a waste of everybody's time and the loss of a potentially useful editor (if he would lose the attitude). On the other hand, if you are secretly BD's enemy, you are doing a very effective job of it. Derex 18:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong that I don't think it will go to "arbcom", I'm sure that those bringing the claim will try and will, likely, get to arbcom, but you're rigt that I think this is all a joke. It's a big joke and will not result in anyhting of significance.

As far as not being helpful to wikipedia.....what a load...that RFC has nothing to do with the welfare of Wikipedia, that's nonsense. BD will respond if he wants to, that's up to him. Either way, the RFC will remain a complete joke and waste of everyone's time. Now get back to editing and stop wasting your time here.Gator1 18:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's only a joke if you don't care whether you get banned, that may well be your attitude. I'm just saying don't encourage BD to think that won't happen. Also, I find your last sentence above obnoxious. Derex 18:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I am getting banned?! News to me. LOL....more reason to beleive that this entire process is IN FACT a joke. BD can think for himself and doesn't make his decisions based on what other peoples say about or to him. He's his own man. I can say what I please, thank you...even if you do find it obnoxious. That doesn't bother me in the least. Now let's get back to editing real articles (RFCs on't count) and stop wasting even MORE time here.Gator1 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What? I didn't say a thing about you getting banned, although I'd shed no tears if you did. I said it may be your attitude that getting banned is of no concern; otherwise, why would you regard arbcom as a joke? Now, quit wasting your time and get back to work; I'm sick of your dawdling. Derex 19:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Now who's being obnoxious? :) I'm sure banning somone is no big deal to you or lese you wouldn't think it could happen to BD or would want it to happen to someone else so easily (I don't want you to be banned). Sorry kiddo, but that just ain't gonna happen to BD with this RFC just because he doesn't respond to an RFc that's a complete joke.....oh and I'm still dawdling.....Gator1 19:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Derex, don't even worry about it bro... this one's not worth fighting. Gator for all intents and purposes is doing all he can to try and get BD kicked off... just let it be :) --kizzle 19:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There we are! I was wondering when either you or Hipo would show up to put your two cents in. You never fail! Have fun with the RFC arbcom whatever you're trying to pull off now, I'm sure it will be very effective and you will look back and say I'm sure glad I did that, it made SUCH a difference and such a GREAT use of my time!"......LOLGator1 19:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I think YOU'RE the one that's confused. I am not the one trying to get BD kicked off, YOU are, remember? OH, but wait, the RFC wasn't meant to do that, just to get comment and balh balh blah....wait now I'm confused.....Gator1 19:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gator! :) --kizzle 19:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Are these your edits?

BigDaddy,

Are these edits below yours? Someone has added them to your RfC. You haven't signed any of them; if they're yours, you should say so; if not, they need to be removed from the RfC.

BigDaddy's contributions from 68.40.168.173

Let me know either way and I'll take care of it.

paul klenk ^talk 14:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

BD, Hip showed me where you took credit for those edits. No need to respond to the above message. paul klenk ^talk

Hello again

Big Daddy, Regarding your message, I think you have gotten way better in the last couple weeks as far as civility. I think if you put in a one sentence blurb to this effect in the RFC page I would be happy to write a one sentence blurb concurring with you and that paul klenk person. Two more suggestions: (1) When directing people to check out pages, I like to directly reference them with a hyperlink like this Ann Coulter Page and (2) check out Correlative based fallacies like the False dilemma. I think it's instructive to consider that not everyone who "disagrees with you on edits" is "against you." (Not everyone who disagrees with BD777's last edit is a liberal Ann-hater.) Just food for thought. Glad you are sticking it out. You make really legitimate points in many of your talk edits. MPS 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well said, I concur.Gator1 23:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Taking a break

Good comments on my talk page earlier; note my response. Too bad about the Rove article. I will be on-line only for a while; am taking a break soon. paul klenk ^talk 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"...the cites you came up with look more like they came from a Nexis search for 'Why Karl Rove is demon-possessed..." Truly a classic. paul klenk ^talk

Only if you "truly" believe that I somehow biasedly cherry-picked the citations, which I did not. I wouldn't expect BD777 to think anything else, since he's already judged me, but I somehow expected more from you, Paul. Is that what you're really saying? I'd like to know. · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, I have responded my my page. paul klenk ^talk 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be curious to hear your opinion of Hip's last set of questions on my page... paul klenk ^talk

I think you have unfairly taken a lot of abuse merely for tying to bring fairness to Wikipedia. You've played by the rules and tried as hard as you could to be courteous. Lessons I am still learning. I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices your many contributions and I'm shocked and saddened to observe that some Wiki veterans, rather than effusing unfettered gratitude for all your good work as they ought, seem to perennially be committed to keeping you on the defensive. Big Daddy 09:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, everyone's behavior speaks for itself. Read Hip's lengthy conversations with me carefully. He says so much with tone, by what he fails to address, and by what he chooses to go after. Edit histories are unforgiving. (By the way, what is this piercing thing all about?) paul klenk ^talk 09:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"What is this piercing thing all about?" Trust me. You don't want to know. lol! Ps I always thought Hip was a she. And Ryan was a he. I was corrected on Ryan awhile ago. I now stand corrected on Hip...Man, I would have sworn Hip was a she...Are you absolutely sure about this?Big Daddy 09:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do. Seriously, the only image I see in Kizzle's history is one of Bush at debate, showing a bulge under his suit coat at the back, indicating some sort of electronic device. Seeing your comment on Gator's page, sort of hanging out there, makes me sort of curious; probably will make others the same. paul klenk ^talk 09:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

---

BD, sincere congeniality is not just about courtesy; it's also about winning your arguments. Take JamesMLane as a model; he gets things done because of the way he argues. Tit for tat gets you nowhere but a stalemate. Neither does "this is how it's going to be". Since you are trying to change the article, a stalemate is not what you want. Plus it's a waste of time. Derex 17:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you took it in the right spirit. I'm actually not trying to defeat you. I think you make some good points about bias. My problem is that you sometimes seem to me to replace it with the opposite bias. But, to the extent that I am trying to defeat you, I'm also telling you how to beat me. You are engaging with a lot of editors who have been around a long time. They are experienced in working on contentious pages. They know all the tricks of working the system. And you're just not going to get the article changed in a way they view as unfair. On the other hand, I've seen all those people (except Hip) in action. And, they really are all fair-minded and reasonable people. They really are. You can get a consensus to get fair changes through. Of course, there will be some sincere disagreements about what is fair; that's life. Those disagreements can usually be worked around with some deft compromise language. Derex 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Gator1

Gator1: How do you get these vandals blocked? People that I think have some authority tend to sit on their hands (except of course if I don't cross a 'T' correctly lol!) Know of any administrators who take a more proactive role? Big Daddy 01:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalismGator1 12:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Big Daddy 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Please don't insert your own personal viewpoints into articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that my link to the Ann Coulter article would be a pointer to what I'm talking about. Referring to people as "far left" and "liberal" is your POV. Don't label people, discuss their works. And the idea that only people you 'invite' to edit your Talk page can post here is not the way Wikipedia works. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I knew nothing about you or your edit history until I ran across your edits to the Coulter article, and I came here to suggest you not include such edits in the article. But now I see from your Talk page that there are a number of people concerned about your edit history and even though you've only been here a month, there's an RfAr on you. Maybe you should rethink your edits and learn how to work within consensus. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! If there's one thing I've learned in my exciting month at Wikipedia, it's that it's not possible to work "within consensus" when, on a given article, there's ten foaming at the mouth vicious left wing haters in here for every one reasoned conservative. Just go to the gentle Paul Klenk's page for details. ^talk There's not a man in Wikipedia who's bent over backwards more for the sake of building 'consensus' only to get it slapped back in his face. Interestingly enough some of his best work was cleaning up the Coulter page before it was vandalized tonight. How much more ironic is it then, that the first time I ever hear from you is when you criticize me for trying to restore balance to Paul's excellent work. BTW, it's not just me either. Check out what happened when another reasonable user who goes by 64.154.26.251, tried to clean up Coulter's page of obvious bias... Big Daddy 08:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, BigDaddy777. I'm a right-winger, and it is definitely possible to work within consensus here. You need to read up on WP:NPOV. If you don't want to follow the policies, then you need to just leave. But let me promise you that NPOV is a beautiful treaty that does allow for consensus between left-wing, right-wing, and any other positions, and working in this way is very rewarding. But if you don't want to do that, please don't be a troublemaker. Jdavidb 20:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Cliff Notes

For those of you wondering how I respond to my critics, and don't want to wade thru the countless attacks and counter-attacks that pile to the ceiling in a typical arb ruling, here's the shorthand -

I come to an article and uncover their bias.

They don't like it and call it disruption.

Back and forth recriminations ensue.

That's it.

Now what's interesting and certainly ill-advised is how much passion those who want to keep Wikipedia mired in bias by censoring me pour into the 'Back and forth recriminations' part in their statements section. It's as though they don't think the arbs are intelligent enough to see through that to what's really going on. Or perhaps they think they can distract them.

Fortunately, I'm able to cut through the clutter and cut to the chase...

Big Daddy 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) )

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 14:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Email

Hey BD, would you send me an off-site email? I would like to discuss something with you, but without the publicly airing it.. Thanks crotalus@gmail.com Dick Clark 16:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Email sent...Big Daddy 18:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion

"Deleted threatening comments from user WooHooKitty Note: This user has abused posting privliges on this talk page and is now on my instant delete list. Big Daddy 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to Ryan. Where's HER RFC? Stop threatening people, it's beneath you. He can blank his ENTIRE talk page if he wants to, there's no rule about that.Gator1 12:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense deleted from a user - Ryan Freisling who engages in perhaps the most egregious abuse of Wikipedia rules ever to perpetuate POV slime Yuk. Just the fact that she was this close to my Talkpage literally makes my skin crawl...Stay away. Love, Big Daddy

Well I've been accused of sockpuppetry, I guess that's enough to block me. I've seen your talk page , you've reverted paul's statements over and over, no matter what he has to say. In my opinion, you ae the the counterpart to BD and yet no action is ever taken against you (I don't think it should either). You're the perfect example of the double standard. I have no desire to get into a brawl with you though, I've got better things to do today. This business about not being able to blank talk pages is just bogus. That was my point.Gator1 13:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Well I've been accused of sockpuppetry, I guess that's enough to block me." LOL! No kidding.

Well, I have no desire to brawl with anybody but Ryan's actions are so despicable I just don't want her anywhere near my talk page. She bully's people into accepting her twisted look at the world and when she runs into someone who's stronger (like me), she just tries to game the system to have them removed. I hope she doesn't think people are unaware of EXACTLY how she operates and that it's doomed for failuure.. Her ways are transparently obvious to intelligent people and spelled out in explicit fashion in my post below. In the end, people like that ultimately self-destruct because their motives are so fraught with hostility for others. And even for someone who's actions are as deplorable as Ryan's...it's kind of sad, isn't it? Big Daddy 04:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps On the bright side, Ryan's behavior makes Katefan and Hippocrite seem...er...not that bad. lol! :) Big Daddy 04:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

hmm

Very interesting... --kizzle 17:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Who knew paranoia was so...infectious lol!

Note to all RATIONAL People out there: I have NEVER posted under any other name. I've never used any sockpuppets ever at any time.

Sincerely,

Barneygumble...wait, I'm sorry. I mean LEONARD WATSON, no, no... PAGANviking (I wonder which Brain Surgeon figured me to use that name!)...Ok...Ok... I've got it right now... Big Daddy. Yeah, that's it...Big Daddy 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps Before I forget, I'm also #42134.

As you can see from this IPBlockLIst entry -- (13:13, 5 October 2005, David Gerard blocked #42134 (expires 13:13, 6 October 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Barneygumble". The reason given for Barneygumble's block is: "sockpuppetry (Barneygumble, LEONARD WATSON, Paganviking, 64.154.26.251)".)

Apparently '42134' is just another alias for all those other names I've been accused of posting under.

One might wonder, since I've been blocked the last couple days, how it it possible that I could have posted as '421324.'

Magic dust....Big Daddy 14:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia That Was

This is an exciting time to be at Wikipdeia as the liberal hegemony that's controlled what's allowed to be said on many political articles is slowly unraveling before our eyes.

First let me establish that, when it comes to many of the hundreds of thousands of articles found in Wikipedia, there truly is no problem. You have honest intelligent thoughtful people of all political stripes working together to make this ingenious idea of Jimmy Wales one of the most positive expressions of community to emerge from the world wide web.

But then there is the dirty little secret that, when it comes to politics, conservatives in wikipedia are treated like BLACKS were in the south in the late 50's early 60's.

There are unstated Jim Crow laws that are used routinely and vigorously against conservatives to harass trivialize marginalize and otherwise minimize their ability to influence the discourse here.

I was warned that this was the case when I first got involved in Wikipedia. Well, actually I found out for myself when the first political article I checked out, Bill O'Reilly, was found to be riddled with the most brazenly obvious smears, slimes, cheap shots and overt left wing propaganda imaginable. After a few hilarious days of me, not knowing what I was doing and just bumbling around trying to directly eliminate some of the left wing poison in what can only be characterized as an 'unartful' manner, I found out how to edit Wikipedia articles correctly and decided to give it a go.

It was at that time I discovered that Wikipedia was claimed to have a long and dark history of marginalizing Conservative political thinkers. Most of this information I got was obtained from either Metafilter or Free Republic, basically the left and right wings of political discourse online. And, you know when both the left AND right agree about anything, there's bound to be some truth there.

Nonetheless, undeterred by chilling warnings and admonitions about crackpot users and juvenile vandals that ultimately turned out to be quite prescient, I still felt Wikipedia was a noble enough concept to see if I would be able to work together with the community to help affect change.

My primary initial goals were clear, simple and narrow. Go into the articles dealing with conservative American figures and make sure they were treated fairly. I used as a baseline the way their liberal contemporaries were treated. I didn't go in and trash liberals in their articles and, unless it was to provide balance, I wasn't necessarily interested in embellishing the articles of conservatives. I merely wanted to remove the bias. Seems reasonable, right?

Not when you're dealing with what editor JamesMLane acknowledged was a 'liberal cabal.'[2]

Again, I should point out, it's like being a 'Negro' in the south in the 50's. There are a handful of conservatives in here who don't work on the political columns. And they, like those who opposed Martin Luther King's march for freedom because 'he was a troublemaker' who would just makes things 'worse for us Negroes' have tried to clamp down on me through generally mild but nonetheless insipid attacks.

The conservatives that actually were willing to wade into the political columns are met with almost instant hostility, animus and resistance.

It's important to note that even the most gentle and kindest of conservative users are bullied, attacked, multiply reverted without explanation and generally stymied in their ability to influence articles (with some outstanding exceptions along the way but way too far and few between.)

So, whether you're a nice house 'Negro' or an uppity 'Negro', the liberal cabal in Wik will come after you. A great example is user ultramarine who simply wanted to list on the pages of the article on Communism some of the atrocities of the USSR. He was met with stiff resistance, told that in order to do that, for balance, they'd have to add the 'atrocities engaged in by the USA.'

I know...unbelievable, huh?

Ultramarine was even rebuffed in his attempts to paint Fidel Castro in less than a flattering light and now is in 'arbitration' which is the end game mechanism by which liberal editors hope to silence or at least trivialize conservatives permanently. Ultramarine calls his accusers the 'commie clique.' So, if you were wondering where all those communists went after the break up of the USSR, ultramarine may be able to hook you up.

Or take the user keetoowah. His crime? Trying to remove a quote from the Air America page that preposterously suggested they were doing well in the ratings. His punishment. You guessed it! Good old arbitration. And guess who helped bring the case against keetoowah? Why, what a coincidence! Our good friend elemosynnary.

In case after case, instance after instance, you find a wide-ranging group of supposedly 'fair' liberals (with the same names popping up over and over) acting in consort with admins sysops and other Wikipedia leaders (sometimes volitionally; sometimes by default) to stalk, assault and ultimately silence conservatives. Scrutinize the list of users, past and present who have been put up for arbitration. You'll discover it almost follows a template for conservative assault.

Almost as quickly as I got here, that process began to be used against me.

The usual MO is to revert a conservative's edits without any comment. In so doing, the liberals hope to trick the conservative into getting mad and reverting their edit back for fairness sake. But if they do so 3 times, the liberals can site them for an editing violation. If the conservative then rightfully complains, he is immediately accused of not 'assuming good faith' or making 'personal attacks.' One such reprehensibly-acting editor, the interestingly named Hippocrite, has virtually mastered this art of driving conservative after conservative from Wikipedai either by attrition or by using the process to intimidate them into kowtowing silence and or humbled castration.

Again, go check out who's currently under arbitration right now. You'll find this same pattern. In case after case (with some exceptions) it's conservatives who DARED to stand up to the liberal hegemony.

The liberal cabal in wikipedia maintains and consolidates it's power 3 ways -

1) As described above, they set up bait and game the system so that conservatives are found to be in violation of some set of rules that the liberal cabal routinely violate with impunity. This way, they can slap themselves on the back John Gotti style and wash their hands Pontius Pilate style as they congratulate themselves for punishing another 'evildoer.' The basic boilerplate mantra is "Don't misunderstand us, we're not against you because you're a conservative...oh no...it's just the way you're going about it." Yeah...right.

2) They browbeat, cajole, attack, snap at and otherwise let it be known that no uppity 'Negroes' will have a place in the Wikipedia universe of authority. They demand 'collaborative' effort which means 'include the material WE say is important' or wax eloquently about 'community cohesion' which translates as, to be part of our community either be like us or shut up. This succeeds in producing a Stepford collection of neutered conservatives hiding out in the obscure recesses of Wikipedia editing articles on topics like Steely Dan's early roots or US commemorative stamp first day covers from the 1930's.

3) The default method. This is the most deadly and effective. Most conservatives, reading a few columns about conservative figures and seeing how BRAZENLY BIASED they are, then peeking under the hood to look at the talk pages and discovering how VICIOUSLY hostile conservative ideas are treated, simply decide...they just aren't gonna waste their time. And that reality is what I think puts the biggest smile on the liberal cabal that perpetuates this ideological apartheid. Because, then they think they can honestly say 'Hey! We have an open doors policy. Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia. We can't help it if conservatives (Negroes) are too afraid or too dumb to join us.'

And all of this was going along swimmingly well until, in their fury, hatred and zeal to not only minimize my influence, but PUNISH me (remember, I'm the uppity Negro) they got carried away and made a HUGE blunder.

And that is how the liberal hegemony at Wikipedia began to unravel and start it's downward descent.

It is the stated written policy of Wikipedia liberal admins that the best way to rid the ranks of conservatives is to simply "Give them enough rope and let them hang themselves." This edict was first declared by liberal admin Kate fan and is still posted on her talk page in referencing me. Liberal admin Hippocrite calls it 'conservaburnout' but it's really more like 'we'll slash and burn out' all the uppity conservatives.

One of the more unconscionable 'enforcers' of this practice is liberal admin fvw. He's known to come into articles he's had little experience with or knowledge about and just wholesale blocking conservative editors with no basis other than his own 'judgement call.'

But fvw recently made a cataclysmic mistake. He thought he found in me an 'uppity Negro' who had provided just enough rope to hang himself with.

But instead, as a result of a COLOSSAL blunder was found to be grasping at straws. He blocked me and TWO other conservative editors on a false charge and admittedly with no evidence.

And this GROSS miscalculation of error occurred right SMACK DAB in the middle of one of those arbitration hearings I mentioned earlier.

So, instead of lynching me as had been the longtime method used for ridding Wik of uppity conservatives, this liberal sysop got tripped up on his own rope. As it is written "The trap the evil set for the righteous wound up stumbling themselves."

After that there was excuses, justifications, and recriminations back and forth. But the IRREVERSIBLE damage had been done.

The cabal had overplayed their hand. They were EXPOSED.

Everything they did going forward in trying to explain how I violated this or that rule, didn't cross my 'T' here or dot my 'I' there was drowned out by this one egregious act, by a sysop no less, of enormous and LONG LASTING consequence.

It stalled the arbitration process dead in it's tracks. No longer did their charges bear any weight. Their claims at how 'fair' the process was could no longer hold water. All the piling on which continues unabated - the nitpicking allegations of supposed rules violations and sensationalistic charges that I actually was willing to post what I witnessed at Wikipedia now just...seem...so... hollow.

If we're told going in that this was one big 'nice' community and found out instead that this 'nice' community consisted of vindictive spiteful malicious behavior from users like Ryan Freislng, elemosynnary and woowookitty. And if we are told, not to worry, that the admins would keep everything in order and found the admins were people like the duplicitous-acting Katefan and unconscionably-behaving Hippocrite, why would anyone, but the most gullible, think the arbitration process would be anything less than just one more opportunity for the liberal cabal to celebrate their ability to railroad yet another conservative?

Once reasonable people saw with THEIR VERY OWN EYES what happens, without cause, due process or any evidence to an 'uppity' Negro conservative who engenders the disfavor of the liberal political establishment at Wikpedia, the gig was up. There was NO turning back. All the spin, all the attacks, all the lies got exposed by one single act. And the more they try to cover their tracks, the more the whole world is let in on 'the dirty little secret.'

In the zeal to punish me, they overstepped the parameters of the very rules they heretofore had manipulated so marvelously to rid themselves of conservatives. This time the hidden snare the proud set out for me; trapped them along the very same path.

More to follow....

Copyright 2005 Big Daddy

Copyright?

Just a note BigDaddy, but if you want to uphold that copyright you can't post it in a Wikipedia page. Doing so means you are licencing it under the GDFL GNU FDL, just as it would if you posted it elsewhere. --Sanguinus 19:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Big Daddy 19:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, BigDaddy, Sanguinus is mistaken. You do hold the copyright, in the original version you posted. It is not incompatible with GFDL; read the license and find out. It's a very interesting license. When you post any of your own original work here, you do also license it under GFDL, which gives others the right to edit it, etc.

I'm sure Sanguinus meant well, but I have found that many people are WP are very willing to tell you what the "rules" of WP are. When they do, always check the rules for yourself, in their own words and in the context of the other applicable rules. Many well-meaning, perfectly wonderful people at FR simply don't know what they're talking about.

I will return with more info, quoted from the license and some boilerplate GFDL requests. paul klenk ^talk 22:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission:

We can only use your material if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely—and even potentially use them commercially—as long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely.

One more important thing: Although I do not know all the details, I can tell you that posting under a handle (as you do) and posting under your real name (as I do) does make a difference in how long you hold the copyright. From what I remember, a pseudonymous author loses the rights when he dies; an author such as myself holds them for a time after he dies, according to regular copyright law. paul klenk ^talk 22:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, GFDL is just short for GNU FDL. It is the same license. paul klenk ^talk

Fair enough, but what I actually said was uphold the copyright as opposed to me claiming he didn't have one at all. If you're going to try and stop people using it elsewhere, don't post it in a Wikipedia page - that was my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. --Sanguinus 23:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your point is taken, Sanguinus. Thanks for the clarification. But as long as he bases his claim of copyright on the text as originally posted, he can uphold that copyright as long as he wishes. I appreciate your taking the time to read my comments. paul klenk ^talk 23:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Many well-meaning, perfectly wonderful people at FR simply don't know what they're talking about." LOL!! My friends, that is Paul Klenk at his finest. Well done... Big Daddy 22:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

15 Clicks To Pure Delight

BD, click on the first item in this menu row (en). The menu will follow you from page to page. Keep clicking on the link the arrow points to. Have fun.

paul klenk ^talk

→ en · de · fr · ja · pl · it · sv · nl · pt · es · zh · nn · no · fi · ru · da

That is pretty sweet...Big Daddy 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. The Chinese page is great, but the Finnish one just blows my mind. I think it's my favorite. Their language is so startling to look at. paul klenk ^talk 23:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As a native Finnish speaker, I'm flattered that you call our language "startling". — JIP | Talk 07:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Procedure for Removing Unwanted Unsolicited Posts on TalkPage

Delete the ENTIRE post, remove the signature too, and sign your comment yourself, for instance: "Deleted comment from [[User:Example|Example]] ~~~~". --cesarb 02:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for changing other people's comments into personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. This page will remain protected for the duration of the block. --cesarb 02:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked on email request. Note that, while not being deceptive, this was also a personal attack, which is also a reason for blocking. --cesarb 03:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, I respect your evenhandedness. I'm really shocked beyond words as it is THE VERY FIRST TIME I think I've been treated fairly by an editor on Wikipedia.

I agree that there will be no more altering of messages. And your suggestion works just fine.

To me it was harmless fun that in no way affected the credibility of Wikipedia's ENCLYCLOPEDIC output which is my main concern.

I am currently being Nelson Mandela'd by the actions of a sysop who's FALSELY accused me of sockpuppeting. So when you, someone I have never had a minute's contact with, came in and just started ordering me around, I took offense.

I'm like that sometimes :)

But, you did respond to reason. I would prefer that these marauding liberal troublemakers completely quit posting on my page as I've requested of them.

My willingness to alter their statements was, what I felt, my ONLY way of holding them accountable. That meant, THEY'D have to come in and erase the entire message instead of DUMPING anything they want on me and forcing me to clean up the trash.

But your suggestion works out fine. Thanks again and Take care... 04:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

entire post DELETED from Windsagio Big Daddy 06:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (NOTE:This is his 7th or 8th post where he's come in and claimed to be just 'trying to help.') One would think he would have gotten the message by now to wit Thanks anyway, but I'm cool. Big Daddy 06:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I've gotten a lot of offers from people 'only trying to help' since I've been here. These offers came from Woohoo Kitty, Derex, Kizzle, etc. I knew it in my gut instantly, but it's pretty obvious to everyone now, the only thing they were really tying 'to help' is.... me out the door. lol! Big Daddy 06:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Another DELETED post. This time from Derex. What is this? 11 or 12 from him. Lost count. I know he does the same thing on Gator1's page. But he's much more a saint than I so he keeps them up. Ps Check the edit history and see what you think. Personally....this dude's starting to scare me a little bit.Big Daddy 17:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

another threating post from user woohooKitty DELETED. Big Daddy 06:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps You really should check the edit history and read the post from woohookitty I just deleted. Paraphrasing, it goes something like this - Oh no, you don't understand, I'm REALLY AM trying to help. But if you delete this, I'll ADD IT TO THE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU! LOL!!!!! (Think, I'm making this stuff up? Check it out for yourself!) Big Daddy 06:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

News from 64.154.26.151

Hey Big Daddy. I wrote user:67124etc a note, because I want to start on the Ann Coulter article again, and I don't want that user:fvw to hassle me. Did you hear Fvw violated the 3RR himself after refusing to reprimand Elee for doing it and falsely convicting the three of us for the same thing? Now one of the guys I share the network with is incredulous Fvw basically used wikipedia to invade his privacy. The guy is all over the map. Let me know if you're agreeable to my plan (or if you think it's necessary) which is at this link. --> To 67.124.etc 216.119.139.73 07:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC) a.k.a network user of 64.154.26.151

P.S. We all owe you a debt of thanks for standing up to what you see to be the KGB censorship arm which has apparently moved to Wikipedia. I've never wanted to reveal my political affiliation to avoid ad hominem attacks, but from what I've been through in the past few days, I'm willing to be an honorary conservative on your side for the time being. 216.119.139.73 07:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks man. You deserve any title you want in my book for what you've been through. I should tell you that I am STILL blocked. That Fvw dude has now extended what was supposed to be a one day block (well, it wasn't supposed to be ANY block since we all were innocent) into a 2 and now 3 day block.) So I don't know when I'll be able to get back in and remove all the pov. Take care and stay in touch! Big Daddy 07:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it really possible that you're this psychotic?

• Or are you just a strawman/sockpuppet? You seem rather strawmanish, but then, so do real conservatives.. who knows.. either way you know way too much for a relativly new user, so I'm going to vote for some kind of sockpuppet, whether you're a regular sockpuppet or a strawman is between you and your handler--Strawmen!yippie! 12:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's insane, when will you psycho liberal KGB stooges stop your psycho liberal attempts to discredit us on the wiki, your comments are slander and you should be blocked as a sockpuppet of stalin--Socky Mc' Puppet (not a strawman) 12:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I do love the smell of liberal desperation in the morning...Big Daddy 14:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A Contest

I challenge anyone to come up with a more apt way of capturing the absolute essence of what all these little annoying people trying to tell me what to do are all about than the following (courtesy of the GREAT Gator1)

"Experience in Wikipedia is as important in REAL life as experience in dungeons and dragons."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Big Daddy 16:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps I especially love it when they go around saying it's not my politics they don't like, but my lack of 'social skills'. Being lectured to by these party animals about social skills is like being lectured to by Rafael Palmeiro about...playing by the rules.Big Daddy 16:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Like that huh? I aim to please. I'm full of them/it. :)Gator1 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted

long vicious personal attack including the reproduction of private email conversations from a whiny weenie. DELETED. Ps This weenie vandal re-posted this FOUR TIMES and counting. Plus he deleted MY vacation notice. That's getting into RyanFreisling territory. Even worse, as Ryan only deleted stuff I wrote on the Karl Rove talk page Even the despicably-acting Ryan never deleted my words from my OWN talkpage.

Paul/Gator, ir you get a chance DELETE any and everything this weenie posts. I never thought I'd ever see someone that makes RyanFreisling's behavior seem tame by comparison, but I now stand corrected. This weenie has set a NEW LOW at wikipedia. Big Daddy 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vacation Notice

I'll be gone for a couple days...until Friday. Got a business trip (for you liberal Wikipedians, that's what people with a real life do from time to time.) If you're in Boston, think of Big Daddy as I'll be close. Gator and Paul, if you're so inclined, feel free to DELETE the usual junk from the usual suspects. You two are the ONLY ones that have my authorization to do so. If you have a question, delete and email me the contents. I do read each and every post primarily because I have an insatiable appetite for...laughter! Much love to all my peeps...Big Daddy 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll

This is a note I left on Kizzle's Talk page about a week ago: "Because of your abuse of the privilege of posting on my talk page, all future posts are on my delete immediately list." Big Daddy 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Here was his response two minutes later. "I won't post any more on your page if it offends you." --kizzle 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Since that promise he has come in here and posted just about 2 DOZEN different times. (Check the history since October 2.) ALL...DELETED. Big Daddy 02:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle is also the one who proposed the following act of Wikipedia Vandalism which was posted on the Ann Coulter page by another user.

"I propose that...people should avoid any dialog with (Big Daddy) and simply blind revert any edits he makes to controversial article pages --kizzle 02:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)"

Newest vandalism

User page has been vandalised (I reversed mine...but I realy did deserve it for being a sockpuppet...all conservatives are all the same aren't we...we couldn't POSSIBLY be different people...), but I will not revert it. I want to see how long it takes ALL of the people who are watching this page to step up and do the right thing, even if it's on a page that belong to someone you personally dislike. This should be interesting.Gator1 13:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Doc glasgow. I'm impressed. I will eat some crow now, excuse me. LOL. Thanks again, that was very cool of you.Gator1 13:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, We've all had our pound of flesh

Let's try to be grown ups here. I'll start by calling a truce and moving forward. (But if you want to read some really funky stuff, check out my history page! :) Big Daddy 08:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope you are serious. I haven't found any edits (yet) which I could complain of, but lots of bad talk. Wikipedia presumes calm discussion of the merits of information and its source and how to usefully organize it. Fred Bauder 14:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Well, I only read the first sentence of your letter. I'm not partial to reading extended rants with lots of all caps. Of course if you didn't see it, I'll remove it from evidence. At the time, I assumed you had since you seemed to keeping very much on top of things and had made several edits and I had made two edits in that section. But, I'll take your word on it, straight up. Derex @ 12:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

TRUCE

All right, I'm officially calling for a truce. I'm going to unilaterally stop my half of the back and forth recriminations that have been going on.

Let's see if we can work together going forward.

I have a wedding today so I won't be around much.

You liberals know what a wedding is right? It's when a man and a woman unite before God and....

Ok...Ok...just joking. Please... cut me some slack for once in your lives!

Hopefully, I'll be back tomorrow, but having now re-watched Wedding Crashers for the 37th time, and pretty much memorized all the routines, I hopefully won't be back till late next week!

Kidding...Kidding again. See, it's OK to have fun now and then. Honestly. I hope everyone has a great weekend and learns to laugh more than ever.

Your pal and new best friend,

Big Daddy

The Real Sockpuppet

Cut the crap BigDaddy, I am not a sockpuppet. It is clear indeed that you are the sockpuppet. My first edit can be found here dated Aug 12th, while your first edit was in Sept or so. Stop pretending you are a real person and not the perl script I wrote a few months ago with the express purpose of finding out what a modern day witch hunt would be like.--Viper Daimao 18:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I now know what it's like to be a perl script and you know now what it's like to be ME in Wikipedia. Quite frankly, I think you got the short end of the deal! :) Big Daddy 18:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Charges of violation of the 3 revert rule

From the policy page: "Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct."

So accusing a "group" of violating the 3RR is incorrect. The violation wasn't claimed in the talk page but it was claimed in edit summaries today. --Woohookitty 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

While they were revert warring and thus arguably in violation of Wikipedia policies a tag team does not break the 3RR rule by reverting 4 times, while you did break it by reverting 4 times (the first edit is one you have made previously so it counts as a revert). Basically when you run into this situation you need to enter into dialogue with the other editors and if that is unproductive use the dispute resolution process. Trying to control the content of an article by edit warring will not work out (although as you gain more experience you will note certain people who try). Fred Bauder 21:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

'ello!

hi--Q1werty was here 22:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you guys want to laugh your A$$ off, check out 'Q1wertys contribution page! LOL!!! 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Truce"

Yes, you called your truce than immediately took comments I made on this page and moved them to my page. Doesn't sound like a truce to me. --Woohookitty 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Your timing is wrong. I'm not EXACTLY sure what you are referring to but I ceased making personal attacks with the call of my truce. It's interesting that you would scour my posts to try and come up with some...possible...way of accusing me of breaking that truce when there's just been a non-stop flurry of abuse spewed at me after I declared it. Big Daddy 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

'ello!

hi--Q2werty was here 23:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's what happens AFTER you declare a truce with liberals in Wikipedia: From user:Derex

:no, i was serious. now, i've had it. you need to go. you need to go yesterday. you have no place here. you have forfeited that many times over. you are abusive & disingenuous, a trickster & a sham. shove it. am i being clear? Derex @ 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Disruption

Making reasonable, intelligent, clearly defined edits is 'disrupting Wikipedia'? Hmmm....Big Daddy 22:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are edit warring, yes Fred Bauder 00:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)