User talk:완젬스

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

Quick Reference

--Amadscientist (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

list of warning templates

creating my talk page

proof i can edit woo hoo! [1]

American Jobs Act

Please talk about the article on it's talk page, not on my user talk page. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit filter

Thank you for reporting the false positive. The edit can be made now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sole Soul (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A barn star for you!

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
For helping identify the exact policy in regards to when a primary source may still not be used EVEN with a secondary source! Bravo.

--Amadscientist (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


I had asked whether you would agree to a Tinychat on my talk page; please let me know there. I also wondered whether you intend to update your !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration to match your comments there. I look forward to your reply. Dualus (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mind keeping a log of your chat

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding Dualus to be an untrustworthy and manipulative individual, and I find it troubling that he now wants to have off-Wiki discussions. Assuming you're going to have a discussion of articles and related happenings on WP, would you mind keeping a log of your chat session and possibly making that available to users interested in seeing it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad I waited a few days to reply. Since he's blocked now, I think sharing the chat logs would only rub salt into the wound. He gained my friendship and trust, and he invited me to join Second Life which he devotes a fair amount of time to. One of our chats was mostly about innocuous things, and it would seem weird/creepy to share any chat logs. He did get me to change my vote on the 99% declaration AFD however, since we chatted about that a lot, as well as various other OWS issues. 완젬스 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion debate closure

I note you marked the 99 Percent Declaration deletion debate closed as no consensus.[2] Thank you. Normally administrators close deletion debates. Dualus (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I was just trying to add the link to the top of the talk page. I have never closed any deletion debates, I simply put a placeholder where it needs to be (and will change the result to whatever the closing admin decides). There's a huge difference between the two things you're confusing. 완젬스 (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you get my email?

I hope to communicate with you soon. Dualus (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you insist in communicating in a way that can't be tracked or verified? What's wrong with Article Talk and User Talk pages? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If you have a specific reason for objecting to this communication, please let me know. Are you trying to document my personal correspondence? Dualus (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you. Dualus (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Essay invitation

I am inviting you to help contribute to a new essay article, WP:PAROOAH Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This essay is about no synthesis. Please feel free to add contributions, edit the article for errors and discuss the [edit: changed to not sound like I mean the essay article as policy) Wikipedia policies and guidelines for Original Research, on the talk page and how we can improve my essay! You may familiarize yourself with essays here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I'd love to check it out! :D 완젬스 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


in Regards to the OWS talk page: I appreciate any efforts to keep order on talk pages, but I was replying directly to Kelly. I've been editing on WP for awhile and I know that the extra indent there is perfectly acceptable structure. Respectfully, -A98.. (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You did it again. I don't know if that 2nd time was a mistake (perhaps in an attempt to re-position your reply to me accordingly?) but I've already asked you not to do this. Incidentally I don't know why you're defending User:Kelly's aspersions against OWS, she is a notoriously conservative activist-minded editor -- see the Palin article for starters. -A98.. (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up so bad. I was on telephone and thought I was fixing my mistake from earlier (trying to move the posts around) but I didn't know you were trying to move them back, but I left it as is now. I've also replied on your talk page. 완젬스 (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks. no prob. -A98.. (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


This occurred in your absence. BeCritical 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And do get a username won't you? BeCritical 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


I am notifying you that I have requested for you to be blocked from editing Occupy Wall Street on grounds of pov pushing and disruptive edits. I put the request here: --Jacksoncw (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, and I'm sorry for making you think that way about me. I hope we can work towards a favorable outcome, and I never knew how serious this became to you, so I will treat the issue seriously until we both feel the issue of bias is amicably resolved. 완젬스 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC).
We can continue this on my talk page.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • After posting below, I decided to check other threads here. Others may be interested to know about the uneventful Admin notice referred to above which has been archived at [3]. Seems like nothing came of it, officially. Cheers. -A98 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Jacksoncw shouldn't be editing the OWS article

..because of his personal views like this one, from his talk page in the aforementioned continuation:

I am against you and your bias in the article because I see the Occupy movements as a disordered gaggle of idiots, protesting nationwide to have their “demands” met, yet with no idea of how to run their own pathetic encampments, let alone a nation. They are anarchists begging for more government freebies, they are anti-capitalists with no ability to explain how a viable economy would work if their ideas were to be put into practice, and they are so-called radicals that just want to uphold the statist quo. The Occupy movement, a personification of the left’s incomprehensible ideology, is non-coincidentally a mess; their camps are miniature black holes of Kolkata reeking of the very Marxist ideology they have scraped off the trash-heap of history. These filthy tent villages are poignant microcosms, portals into the future, if you will, of what the country would look like as a whole if the left got its way. If you want to be aggressively bias in this article, I will play your game. - Jacksoncw 11/20/2011 [4]

-reposted by A98.. (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Do you know how I get to be a user with editing rights on here? BeCritical 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but I'll check it out for you in a day or two. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't OWS have a wiki set up somewhere? I was just interested in it. If that's not it, I'd like to find it. Thanks (: BeCritical 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The best place is facebook because that's where all the important power-brokers are. Why would you want to be part of a wiki for OWS if the facebook people ignore it? I heard about the Macy's bomb story the day before it happened, as well as get play-by-play stuff right when it's in the planning stages just from the facebook walls. It's all simple & organic, couldn't be easier to participate or follow along. 완젬스 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Guess wikis are just a thing of the past. BeCritical 15:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Not at all, it's just the main guys with any power & influence use facebook because their lazy and have a monopoly sorta. These last two months, I have learned that OWS is far from "leaderless" and it's becoming all about in-fighting, bickering, and blame games. I think that happens on facebook because facebook is not a wiki. Imagine if the movement truly was leaderless and used a wiki format? I think that would be awesome, but it's just not what happened. The people on facebook with the power to delete posts are so hypocritical and deleted some of my positive feedback for the movement, which would get you banned here on Wikipedia, lol. 완젬스 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
How the heck do they justify using a big corporation like facebook to network the occupy movement? Seriously people. Anyway, don't be too upset they're fighting, all movements need spokespeople. BeCritical 02:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Haha, that's the funny thing. I asked them about this and they said because it's the most efficient way to keep "control" over the protesters down on the ground, because you can keep tabs on them, make sure they're promoting OWS on facebook enough, and also because of the network effect because basically 100% of people have facebook, and if we tried to base our platform on something other than facebook, half would be too lazy to switch or would forget their passwords or whatever. Basically you can blame it all on laziness! 완젬스 (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL, well I'm glad your not an RS, I can see the headlines... It does show that all human endeavor has basic necessities, among them both creativity/energy and discipline, externally and internally. Forget the necessity of that balance on penalty of failure. It's too bad, there should be an open source software specifically designed for protest movements. There are open source forum softwares which could be adapted. BeCritical 02:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora (social network) BeCritical 04:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Get a real username, ya bum!

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 완젬스. You have new messages at Factchecker atyourservice's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If I got a username, I would spend too much of my life here. I used to be a Wikipedian, but now I like to "vanish" every time I walk away from an article, that way I sneak away from wiki-drama in case it tries to follow me, lol. It's so much more peaceful, and less stress, when you're just a "new guy" again. I would never go back to the status quo, there's honestly no reason for it. Plus, I think you should give up your account and become an anon like me ;-) Cheers, 완젬스 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Well deserved, may you have a happy editing career. Magister Scientatalk 05:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I like it :-) 완젬스 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS criticism section dispute resolution

I have requested dispute resolution here, and named you as one of the parties involved in the dispute. BeCritical 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OWS Consensus

See here for a discussion , here for dispute resolution , here for a discussion again , here for NPOV notice board. And read here for a different topic discussed on OWS where the consensus felt one way but the article went another way.Racingstripes (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration in the process when the process is ignored. I don't blame you for your lack of faith when it appears your efforts were in vain. The difference this time is that I'm trying to build consensus organically by sending out a trial balloon. 완젬스 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NDAA 2012 link request

Here you go: [5]. Please take time to improve the article whenever you are free to do so and have the inclination. All best, -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you got one of the DRn notices from Becritical

Dude is nothing like what he was three months ago. He used to be able to actually explain his reasoning,'s all instant DRN if he doesn't get his way and he seems to really not understand the difference between an essay like we were writing and a real policy and guide line. Even after a mediator explained it to him at the DRN he still just keeps parroting his words about it over and over like it will suddenly become a policy if he just keeps repeating it. I guess his name is really what he's about. I thought it was just a cute name....but no...he does have an agenda it seems.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Crime/Security Concerns/Security

I've brought the discussion back here again.Racingstripes (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


The video BeCritical 18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew old people could be passionate. Can you imagine what he must have been like in his twenties? 완젬스 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL. BeCritical 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation


Dear Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar and the nice message. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Horrendus judgement call

Poor choice of words. Have a look at the edit summary. It's nails it good. - The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And since "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You now have that obligation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Trust me, that doesn't work. BeCriticial is extremely tenacious and will escalate the issue to WP:DRN if he doesn't get consensus the first go-round. I've edit-sparred with him before and lost (but am not bound to the outcome of WP:Mediation, so he has no legitimacy if he "wins" at that battleground). You have to be eloquent, cogent, and fast turnaround in replying to all edits. 완젬스 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


horrible smear job I now have added WaPo to my ignore list! X(

Shouldn't be a big deal

There are studies OWS cited, we just need to find them. The ball's in their court now. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it ended up being a big deal, but I figured out how to use two of the sources while staying clear of synth.

A CBO report released in October, 2011, the Economist and Washington Post said, confirmed the validity of the meme. The Post also said the slogan was formulated using earlier studies reaching conclusions similar to the CBO's report.

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I don't give a flying "firetruck" if you wish to edit my statement. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I endorse this barnstar award, it gave me a chuckle too.--Milowenthasspoken 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OWS barnstar

I made one last week. It's in discussion to be listed on the project barnstar listing page. {{WP OWS barnstar}} produces:

OWS Barnstar.svg The WikiProject Occupy Wall Street Barnstar

--Amadscientist (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article.

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)