User talk:Commissioner Gregor

Welcome Commissioner Gregor!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,197,869 users!

Hello, Commissioner Gregor. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't vandalize

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Your request for attention

Hi Commissioner Gregor. This morning you put up a request for admin attention on an article; unfortunately, you made the request on a talk page (of the Admin Noticeboard), rather than the board itself. I'm just letting you know i've transferred it to where i think you meant it to go. You'll now find it here. I suggest you keep an eye on it, to see what's done, & if anyone questions you. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lindsay! Thanks for moving my request to the board itself and having the time to do so. Unfortunately, only two admins have answered and they question whether it was right place to move? One calls himself Bushranger and as the topic mentioned is about weapons and self-defense, I reckon it is possible they simply don't want to have the matter discussed? My main question, also, who are the admins responsible for the threads I mentioned concerning the Zimmerman case? I am asking because there's been very one-sided reverting and depiction as a whole in disfavor of the killed Trayvon Martin and I don't think this sheds a very positive light on Wikipedia as a whole having such obvious lopside in articles as I mentioned... Thanks for taking the time and have a nice weekend! Warm regards, --Commissioner Gregor (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, of the two who commented, only one is an admin (The Bushranger), and he is by mine observation, neutral and fair, certainly not the type to try and close down discussion. In fact, neither he nor Chris were trying to stop discussion, they were simply pointing you (or maybe me) in the correct direction ~ to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is where such problems belong. If you are really concerned about this article, i suggest you follow their suggestion. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not understand this as criticism, but I do not understand some of the procedures 1. You moved it to the Admin's noticeboard and thereby obviously assessed it to be the right place and then you say it's the wrong place afterwards. 2 Should belong to an Administrators field of responsibiliy to occupy with any indications of possible violations and breaches of WP:policies in general regardless of whether these are misplaced in a wrong section? In my humble opinion, the least thing to do would copy & paste it (like you did) in the right section. Contrarily, my request was even archived without any further comment. I don't think this meets the requirements of Admins' duty to occupy with any breach of policies no matter if misplaced or not?--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, i'm not hearing/seeing criticism in your response. Let me answer your points, then give a general comment:

My moving it to where i did was not because that's where i thought it belonged; i was simply putting it where i thought you intended it to go. The talk page of AN was definitely the wrong place, so i hid it there and put it on the noticeboard itself; as i recall, i commented that i had no opinion about the request, i was simply moving it ~ that was completely true.
Dealing with violations and breaches of policy is something that the admins do, in some ways. Your request, however, was about the content of an article, and that is not within the remit of admins as admins, only as editors. Content disputes, which is what you were raising, are dealt with by ordinary editors, like you and me, who work together to achieve consensus or agreement about the content and structure and emphases of articles; if there are real disputes, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard would be the place to go. That is where you were pointed to, by both User:The Bushranger and User:ChrisGualtieri; after they made those comments, there was no need for anyone else to do so, that's why it was archived.

Generally, i would suggest that you read a couple of pages about the way Wikipedia works, if you haven't already, so you can continue to contribute and maybe help make the article you were concerned about stronger. I think you'll find this page about admins useful, and this one about consensus, and maybe this one about disputes. In addition, considering the section below this one, you might like to look at this page about usernames; i understand why User:Mlpearc has suggested you change your name, but i think a case could easily be argued that your name isn't misleading, so you may not need to ~ read the policy, see what you think.

Finally (you're probably glad of that!), i really do hope that you are able to edit and enjoy yourself here. Again, if i can, i will be happy to help or offer advice or whatever. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Admin Noticeboard and its more dramatic Incident board is for important behavioral disputes that are not emergencies. They do not deal with content disputes because the process should be first on the talk page and then DRN. Mlpearc might be worried about the authoritative sounding name, but I've seen some "Lords" and "Kings" in user names, used jokingly though.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Commissioner Gregor", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could be misleading to new users. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, pearc, I'll consider your comment in a timely manner. Greetings and have a good time, --Commissioner Gregor (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Neoliberalism, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Neoliberalism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimmie, I added a critical musical album on neoliberalism, which is a source by itself, so why don't you want the the world to have a listen? Anybody can build his own opinion on this so I don't quite understand your arguing? Nonetheless, have a good time and enjoy yourself. Greg. --Commissioner Gregor (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberalism

Please cite reliable sources. Blogs are not considered RS. Please discuss this in talk:Neoliberalism. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hello. Can you please refile your SPI using the directions at WP:SPI? Thank you. --Rs chen 7754 06:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how to do it and need to get some sleep - can you help me? It's so outrageously unjust...--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioner Gordon?

Are you by chance the same person as User:Commissioner Gordon? --Amble (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Commissioner Gordon (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 06:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked before I get the opportunity to answer the question, in the first place?--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because looking through your contributions, you obviously are the same person. --Rs chen 7754 06:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a subjective point of view that could easily be disproved and does not offer gurantee so you would have been (and still are) obliged to at least grant the victimized user his guaranteed and imprescriptible right to controvert a statement prior to blocking.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must comment that I really ENJOYED deleting all traces of the "victimized user" and his "imprescriptible rights" while "controverting" his useless and inflammatory contributions from the "Trayvon Martin Shooting" article. It felt so good that I might spend the next few days scrubbing the entire Wikipedia of this malignant troll.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]