User talk:CrazyAces489

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

Why get involved?[edit]

You have every right to vote for deletion any article you wish, but I wonder why waste the time. I have never voted to delete one of your articles, and never have nominated any one of them for deletion. Though I am proud to call TheGracefulSlick a friend, and have gladly defended him when he was under attack, I have never done anything detrimental to your cause and have tried to talk him out of being involved with your issues. I feel that he and I should focus on music--and you should focus on sports. We all cover obscure figures, so I am of the opinion that none of us should be notability hawks or deletionsits. My personal opinion is that both you and he should just focus on the topics of your disciplines and not get involved in all of this Wiki-fundamentalism and Wiki-witchtrial stuff. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that he should be away from me and vice versa why not support the interaction ban at [1]. It would totally keep me away from any articles that the both of you are at and vice versa. He has no interest in sports, martial arts or black figures but constantly comes to my specific articles. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to talk to him. I think his whole thing is that he'd like to see you take more time and care with your edits. Clearly from hearing you speak in the discussions, you are very intelligent and articulate, and have great command of facts--qualities that he feels could be well-used in your articles. Personally, I don't make a habit of interjecting in other editors' affairs unless it is regarding an article that I am working on--i.e. when I have a respectful disagreement about content in an article I am working on (I can become then a fierce debater--but I always try to keep things non-personal and civil, even then). By the way, I respect your passion for black empowerment. I think that many well-meaning white people have a blind spot about race--even well meaning liberals. I don't think that most whites appreciate the degree to which practically every single black person in this country is constantly subjected to racism, slights, and humiliations, whether overt, covert, personal, or systematic on a daily basis. I realize that black people have to live the daily curse of having people look at them strangely, cops stopping them, even when they may be educated and affluent, people not wanting to hire them, along with all of the other economic inequalities. I can say emphatically that TheGracefulSlick is not a racist and hates racism--he was passionately angered about the Freddie Gray incident. But, like so many of us white folk--he just has to have more quality interactions with black people and see the black perspective more, that's all. I do think that you and he are caught up in a vicious cycle of angry emotions, where you each cannot see the goodness in the other person. There seems to be no way to untangle the knot of misunderstanding that has strangled and poisoned both of your interactions with each other. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of AFD[edit]

The article Aaron Cohen (judoka) is being discussed for deletion. Thank you.ALongStay (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for disruptive editing while purportedly "retired", and for repeatedly abusing my good faith in previously undoing your indefinite block despite many problems. Logging out to avoid scrutiny is not OK. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 07:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term abuse. You're not "retired", you're persistently evading your block and apparently no appeals or extension of good faith and second chances to you will make any difference. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 20:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, CrazyAces489. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)