Talk page protection
I have no interest in the article really (and would probably vote to redirect it to the campaign page as just an small footnote of history) but his comments to me in response were enough. It's clear he didn't care what the article said so much as insult one particular user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys - It's me, the anonymous user on JTP again. (As I explained earlier I have a loptop that starts to run slow after it's been on for while so I have to reboot, which causes my IP to change. I don't like logging in to multiple sites at each reboot, hence my consistent changes in my IP. It's really not a conspiracy.) I've gotta jet shortly, but just want to let you know something.
I actually am a newbie editor. I've been reading articles on wikipedia for some time now, but until very recently (JtP's emergence) haven't had any desire for personally editing stuff. The almost complete absence of any reference in the article to Sam W's more nefarious aspects surprized me, esp. after it became common & accepterd knowledge in the media. After a while it provoked me into wanting it mentioned, so attempted a few edits, and also brought out a good deal of humor which spilled over (obviously) into my commentary.
At no time WHATSOEVER was I interested in anything like vandalizing the work people do for wikipedia. I did not know until after I found the Discuss page locked, what "trolling" is, (and indeed had to refresh my memory on "specious"). That said, it became tremendously frustrating to read the stifled editorial attempts by others to correct or contribute, and when my legit contibutions were stifled in the manner I recently decribed, the absurd humor of it all came out in full force. Behind the humor early on is a logical, contributing person who appreciates it when people like Dman & the rest (who gave fair, rational criticisms of me) are adding to the pool of intelligent thought in the world. In my humble opinion, what I and others have complained about with "Collect" is justified and deserves rational consideration.
Please, someone, work with me — help me understand with English text why CDS doesn't belong (yet PDS does?), or show me where this was previously discussed in the Talk page.
All I see are two comments on why there isn't a CDS article, but I see no discussion of why there shouldn't be an entry in Variants. It is a documented variant, so what's the problem? Thanks.
—EqualRights (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)