User talk:Duke53

Thank You. Just giving background in case an impartial administrator cares to take it up. Did you do the same for the other guy's message?? Hmm .... "Duke53 | Talk" 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean? I did leave the other guy an identical message a minute or two after I left this message on your page. See - [3]--

Konstable 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing against you, I assure you. I'm just wondering why I was directed to leave my message in a different spot than where others are told to leave theirs. I'm getting a bit suspicious of how people are treated differently on Wikipedia. so I did check to see if you left the same message over there. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank You; you have been more help to me than anybody billed as an administrator. "Duke53 | Talk" 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have realised already that your dispute is going nowhere, except maybe insulting an administrator and maybe a couple of other people - which will do you no good apart. So why not just stop? Why not stop making comments against the admin, even if you still think he wronged you, remove

Thank You for your concern, but I believe that I will do this my way. I didn't come here to make new friends or to sit around singing verses of Kumbaya. I really don't care who gets angry ... "Duke53 | Talk" 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 21:05, 3 September 2006 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Confused again.png" (unencyclopedic)

• 07:55, 5 September 2006 Guinnog (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:The truth hurts?.jpg" (only existed to perpetuate a dispute. no encyclopedic value)

• 05:29, 6 September 2006 Eagle 101 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:A point to make.jpg" (disparging image used to troll another use after issue has been settled, see User:Duke53 for the other two instances of deletion.)

The sysops will keep deleting your image. Please stop beating a dead horse as continuously uploading a deleted image may be considered vandalism. Hbdragon88 07:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any fucking thing may be considered vandalism, just as vandalism may be allowed depending on the whim of the bigwigs. Why make rules if they don't have to be followed?

Now I should be allowed to delete your comments from my talk page, right? Or will that be considered vandalism?

Since you seem to be such an expert, I have a question; can a barnstar be deleted? I've read a lot about them, but can't seem to decipher that. I'm starting to believe that Wikipedia obscures details just so they don't have to follow any hard & fast policies. "Duke53 | Talk" 09:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules" [4] The rules tell you how people expect you to behave, and what the usual response to various actions is. The rules are interpreted by humans and there is always room for variations and there are always special cases. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much wasn't talking about guidelines but rather what wikipedia calls its 'policies'; why waste time making them up and publicizing when they don't have to be followed? Guidelines may tell you "how people expect you to behave" but policies tell you how you have to behave. TTFN, "Duke53 | Talk" 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are followed when they make sense. That's most of the time. Sometimes, they don't make sense. Sometimes we can't agree. Having written rules makes it more consistent, but there are always inconsistencies. That's life. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aah ... sometimes the rules don't make sense'? Then what's the point of having them and posting them? The only consistent thing I've noticed here is that the level of horseshit stays pretty high at all times. "Duke53 | Talk" 13:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have the rules because they make sense often enough to be useful. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest then, they are 'suggestions', to be used whenever some bozo feels like invoking them. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use the word "bozo"? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fits. Why do you use the word 'rules' ? TTFN, "Duke53 | Talk" 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fits. There are times that rules should be broken and times when rules should be followed. I wish you luck in your quest to work out which is which. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... pretty much what I've been saying all along; the rules here are set up so that people can use them if and when they choose. What a crock of shit. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, people can follow or ignore rules as they choose, and there can be consequences to doing so. Just like in the real world. How else could you arrange things? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Under "Image vandalism," we have: Uploading provocative images. The image is clearly meant to provoke incivility and hostility, and has and will be deleted. Just giving you a fair warning about the image. Hbdragon88 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be a 'guideline' or a 'policy' ? BTW, thanks for the early warning.

p.s. None of you experts have answered my question about the barnstars (another Wikipedia 'quirk': ignore a question when you don't want to answer it). "Duke53 | Talk" 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then...this could be considered a warning, although it's not an official template warning, so it's a toss-up to wehther you can delete it or not. The community hasn't reached a firm consensus on how user talk pages are handled. Barnstars are meant to be nice gestures to the editor who receives it - it would be up to the editor to remove it or not. The top of the page says that it's an official policy, by the way. Hbdragon88 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that clears things up nicely, like a bucket of mud. Thank You, we have all seen how official policy around here works. "Duke53 | Talk" 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think about what Wikipedia would be like without policies. It would have run straight down into the ground a while ago. The policies are followed by the good contributors that assume good faith. Sure, sometimes the way admins or users follow the policies are questionable, but who cares? Unless they're clearly violating the policies on purpose, who cares? The way you're looking at it is the way a vandal looks at it. The good faith contributors read the policies and say, "That makes sense. I should help Wikipedia by following/enforcing this." while the bad faith contributors say to themselves, "This doesn't make sense. This is bull shit. Wikipedia is a conspiracy/anarchy." It's all just a matter of POV. Just like good faith and bad faith is a POV. It's a really complex issue, but there's really nothing you can do to change it, so it's best to just drop it. Wouldn't you agree?--

^BAM!) 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with that load of claptrap? Ha! Policies ≠ Rules. When the 'rules' are open for interpretation by over 1,000 people then they are no longer 'rules', just suggestions that admins can either follow or ignore. I don't have to 'imagine' what wikipedia would be without rules ... that's how it is now.

As far as comparing me to a vandal: I follow the rules that the powers-that-be posted, a vandal wouldn't. Your logic is flawed in many ways. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"just suggestions that admins can either follow or ignore."

Not really, because the ones that ignore them are usually de-sysoped. And you're right, in the large ammount of people that come here there are ones that are bound to break the rules, just like in society the people that break the laws are considered criminals. Here, the people that break the rules are considered vandals.

"I don't have to 'imagine' what wikipedia would be without rules ... that's how it is now."

If there were no rules, what would

^BAM!) 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Are these 'rules' followed by good admins and ignored by bad admins? Keep on drinking the kool-aid. Make your own judgments about me ... I've already made mine about you. TTFN, Duke53 | Talk 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out

This is from [5]. I also didn't know how to do it for a long time, but it is pretty easy once you figure it out. Cheers. Remember 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I knew that there had to be an easy way to do this but never could find it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to know how to revert in order to remove vandalism, check out this page about popups. The only stipulation is that popups should only be used to revert vandalism, not content disputes or otherwise. Whether that's an official rule or not, I don't know. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to argue but let me just ask a question. From what I understand you are determined to get the piece about Roy leaving Kansas on his bio, which is understandable. However, did you know that people continually delete coach k's ref controversy from his bio, when it got and continues to get far more media attention, and refs were suspended directly as a result of bias. Do you agree that this is a bigger news story and event than the Kansas thing, yet it gets deleted while Williams's leaving Kansas remains up? Let me know, just curious as to your opinions. Thanks

Do yourself a favor and go check to see if I ever deleted it. Then you can go to their user pages and ask them your question. ICGAFFL. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jut re-read your comments here. " ... and refs were suspended directly as a result of bias". Could you cite a source that says that for me? Duke53 | ^Talk 07:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't an excuse honestly, I just thought the image didn't look right where it was. I know all about the US conservatives censoring the Anti-Americanism article so that it doesn't make them look bad, in fact they have blocked me on several occasions for reverting their censorship! feel free to leave me a message back on my talk page--Frogsprog 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, it was just that it messed the format up. I've been trying to find a more effective image of flag burning, but someone deleted the one i loaded up --Frogsprog 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've designed quite a few web pages; the first version looked fine and this one is okay. Leave it alone now. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your image instead of the other one because the latter had been on the page for some while and arguably represented the consensus of active editors. Although my personal view is that your image is better, in general it's preferable that such changes undergo a round or two of discussion on the article's Talk page. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on the

I don't recall ever deleting anything on that page and if I did it was unintentional. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this edit [7], but since you say the deletion was unintentional, I will just add the deleted information back in. Cheers. Remember 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I did was to change the status of Redick and Williams from 'graduating seniors', perhaps there was someone else editing at the same time. None of the other changes were done by me. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed a lot of americans are reverting the widely accepted image, they are very stubborn so just keep reverting, they're only trying to make a point --Frogsprog 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so what's your point? do i detect some racism on your part? should we AMERICANS step away from our beliefs just to appease others? Duke53 | ^Talk 13:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no racism, its hostility towards the united states, but basically I think that the image should stay, and I noticed you do also, I'm just encouraging you to continue reverting--Frogsprog 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let it go. He's clearly seen your comment since he had to revert it, and its pretty clear from his removal of it that he doesn't see any point to continuing the conversation. Using vandalism templates on established users has been viewed in the past as harassment. If you really feel that strongly about this issue I would suggest creating a user-conduct

Are you telling me that since he's an admin that he doesn't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us? He's rude and arrogant, and there is no place at Wikipedia for either trait, IMO.Duke53 | ^Talk 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm telling you that warning him for removing items from his talkpage as vandalism isn't productive. That clause of the WP:VAND page routinely causes escalation of situations (there are 2 at this moment on

WP:ANI at least). FWIW, I too tend to feel that people shouldn't remove comments from their talk pages (I've objected to people at Requests for Adminship because of it), but I don't like pushing the issue...and I think I've even done it once or twice with clearly bad faith messages on my talkpage. Syrthiss 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I really dislike it when someone pees on my leg and then tells me that it's raining. Why does Wikipedia tell us to not delete items from our user talk pages but rather to archive them? That guy proudly states on HIS talk page that he deletes rather than archives. Some pigs more equal 'round these parts? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Wikipedia should delete the templates they don't want us to use; simplify the whole process that way.[reply]

View it as you wish. Unless he actually deletes the comments, they are still in the page history and anyone worth their barnstars when investigating a situation will check the history to see if something is being swept under the carpet. Even if he deleted them, other admins can view deleted edits and regular editors can see there are deleted edits. In any case, I made a good faith request and you disagree...and thats fine. Happy editing. Syrthiss 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's puzzling to me why you would make that 'good faith' request ... you don't have a dog in this fight. There seems to be a 'class system' in play here at Wikipedia: admins and peasants; hardly a comfortable situation for we peasants. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Very generous of you to allow me to view it as I wish; Thank You, boss.[reply]

Only because its part of my responsibilities as an administrator to try to assist other editors (whether you believe that or not). I only noticed you leaving comments and him removing them because I still had his talkpage watched from the Mykungfu thread a little further up the page. I have his article watched because WMC and I work in the same field. I don't know why you are making pithy passive agressive comments to me. I haven't threatened you, and in fact was suggesting possible ways to get satisfaction regarding your complaints. Syrthiss 13:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" I don't know why you are making pithy passive agressive comments to me". That's the beauty of Wikipedia: you can defend a fellow admin no matter how he acts; I can comment on it.. It is very kind of you to not threaten me ... I haven't done a friggin' thing to you or him. I reported a 3RR violation; it is the admins' job to take care of that violation, preferably without being a sarcastic puke to the one who made the report. Him (or you) being an admin does not impress me one little bit ... apparently he wanted the position; if he can't be civil while doing the job he ought to get out of it. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment said "Trivia - source? (unc-ch message boards and fan sites don't count) D O O K = S H I T. NPOV?)"

I'm not sure we're dealing with an NPOV dispute. Wikipedia is not making a judgment about Duke by including the nickname Dook; it's only stating that the nickname exists. Hopefully that will clear this matter up once and for all.

As an aside, I believe fan sites, etc COULD be used only to indicate the prevalence of a nickame. I could be wrong, however. It doesn't really matter as I've not included such sources, nor do I plan to. Thanks Dubc0724 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo ... all I have to do is show some websites where Dean Smith is referred to as 'The Schnozz', 'Coach Smif' or 'Drunken Deano' and you'd be good with it? All you showed was where some unc-ch fans spelled DUKE in an ignorant way.

I believe a Google search will quickly reveal that "Dook" is a far more prevalent name for Duke than any of the alleged Dean Smith nicknames you listed. I understand that Duke fans don't like the nickname, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hopefully we can drop this, finally? Dubc0724 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care in the least what you believe about Google searches. I asked a question: would it be good enough for 'sources' to cite web pages where smith is called those names? That is what you did, so your past history tells me 'YES'. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given that there were enough of them to prove that the nicknames were actually prevalent. That's what the Google search would indicate. It's not a difficult concept. Dubc0724 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many is 'enough'? Just want to get your ground rules straight. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Carowhina", "Dook", "Bronx Bombers", or "Steel Curtain" and then Google "Drunken Deano" or "Coach Smif" and see the difference in the number of pages that come up. Is Google the definitive answer, the end-all, be-all? Of course not. But it gives us an idea of how widely used (or obscure) something might be. Again, just because you object to "Dook" doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who use the term. Dubc0724 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Widely used', my ass, give me a number. Do you have hard time understanding the questions? You seem to be attempting to leave yourself an 'out' here; I don't want there to be a dispute later. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being ridiculous. We both know it's subjective. Below are the results of a quick Google search:

• Carowhina - 1,930
• Dook (only searching for pages containing both Duke and Dook) - 42,200
• Bronx Bombers - 424,000
• Drunken Deano - 5
• The Schnozz - 733
• Coach Smif - 4 (2 of which are Wikipedia pages where you typed those words!)

So no, there's no set number cut-off, but any reasonable person can see the difference. Are you about done? Dubc0724 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A

Just wanted to make sure you saw this, and thought I would ask if you might be a part. If not, I understand and will re-write it leaving you off. Thanks. DukeEGR93 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Duke,

My name is

You told me (on my talk page) to leave you a message there, but I couldn't determine the proper place.. I uploaded an image which was in many newspapers around the world. One guy is complaining about it. I first saw the image when it was E-Mailed to me in a letter asking for money to support hospitals in the Middle East. I have uploaded it again with an explanation of its history. It is widely used on many websites the world over.Duke53 | ^Talk 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you have already deleted it. I find it interesting that the complainant had no issues with using the first panel, just the ones that showed that idiot catch on fire. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image, as it was, was not in accordance to Wikipedia Policy so deletion was the proper course of action to take. Editors need to work together to enforce these policies and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. Editing-warring over a copyrighted, non-licence-tagged image does not work towards these goals.

AMA) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

... "Even though there is only one example given" That is exactly my point ... until other criticisms are added let the description reflect the truth rather than something that may or may not occur in the future. So far the critics have come up with exactly 'one' item to criticize. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being vague has it's time and place, but an encyclopedia isn't that time or place. If you read the article you could see that only one feature of OS X is being criticized; saying 'some' isn't being vague, it's a distortion of the truth. Big difference. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If and when other criticisms come to light then the article can be changed; as for now, it simply is not factual. Wikipedia should strive to be better than that. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I work on a Mac, and I know there are lots of criticisms for Mac OS X, but googling criticism + "Mac OS X" and criticize Mac OS X, but couldn't find anything outside of chat fourms. I know that one criticism is that Mac can't run as many games, but then again that's a corporate and supply/demand thing. My advice would be to ask on the talk page and come to a solution there. If you like, I can also get involved, just ask me. -

Desk) 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Again you have made my point for me: if the 'Macbashers' would add other criticisms then the article as written would be okay. Let them find (sourced) criticisms and then add those to the article. It is BS to allow anyone to call something 'some' when in actuality all they have been able to come up with is 'one'. p.s. I did ask for a mediator and am shocked that you would puposely leave an article 'vague' when it is anything but (as written). Duke53 | ^Talk 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have come to a agreement to just delete the whole section instead of arguing "one" vs "some". I've never heard anything bad about the dock anyways (I think it was a great addition). Do you require anymore advice or help, or are you good then? -

I wasn't part of that (or any) decision; my whole argument was / is the characterization of one feature as 'some'. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. The Dock was a stupid feature to attack as it can be re-configured by the user in seconds and in many different ways.[reply]

If you are no longer requiring assistance, I'd encourage you to fill in the

Desk) 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Will do. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duke. Thanks for taking some initiative on trying to clarify things on the LDS Church. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I did revert some of your changes, and am considering more. The church did move because of persecution. In fact they were kicked out of most places by either the government or the surrounding non-Mormon locals. Although Joseph Smith was in hiding much of the time or in counties where he was immune from extradition for "so-called" crimes, that was never an issue in the churches abandonment of a settlement.

Also, on your addendum on baptism for the dead, you are correct that there is controversy particularly amongst the inclusion of Hollocaust victims, your statements are too vague. Also the Baptism for the dead article has a ton of detailed information on it, and since the topic is covered elsewhere in such detail, it is not deemed critical to the main article. We are discussing ways to include such controversial topics, so feel free to help.

Lastly I do not want to discourage you from participation, and hope you can contribute to this and other articles to help make them more complete without violating POV. Bytebear 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about discouraging me from participation; do not expect me to go along with edits that are POV. The POV being pushed here is strictly the POV of the LDS church ... we all know that early church leaders were arrested for various cirmes; that would be a good reason to move out of those jurisdictions. I will not sit by idly and allow the LDS church's POV to be used in these articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) p.s If the baptism stuff is covered elsewhere I propose that the whole section be deleted.[reply]

See my response on my talk page. Bytebear 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Citing sources. I don't have a problem with making this more neutral, and I was not trying to push a POV. My concern with the information being added is that it is not referenced, so I can't verify if it is accurate or not. This problem is all over the article, as most of the editors seem reluctant to add where the info comes from, but I have been trying to fix that. To discuss this further, we should probably bring this to the article's talk page so everyone can get involved. --Lethargy 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I added was just as verified as the sections I amended ... that was my whole point of the changes. Do not expect others to cite sources when the paragraph itself has no cites, but is simply LDS POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not expect others to cite sources when the paragraph itself has no cites. I was actually the one who tagged the paragraph with {{

facts

}} in the first place. If I may explain my actions: I have tagged most of the article as needing sources, and I have been trying (probably not hard enough) to stop the flow of further unverified information until sources are provided for what we already have, rather than trying to hit a moving target. Also, I do not expect people to cite sources in an already uncited paragraph, that is why I tagged the paragraph for sources. I hope they will cite sources, as I said in my edit summary: removed "other things" and "other events" becasue they are too vague and unsourced. As for "fear of being found guilty of breaking laws" idunno. In other words: I am unfamiliar with this topic, please provide sources.

When I added my first edits to the article there were NO ^{[citation needed]} tags whatsoever ... seems odd that they weren't deemed necessary to have then, but are so important now. A POV was being pushed and that is not the Wikipedia way; either it is all verified or none of it has to be, IMO. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, the {{

facts}} tag was there

and still is, there wasn't one in the lead, but in the Movement of Church headquarters section there was (look at the end of the paragraph).

There should be a ^[citation needed] tag for each individual statement being questioned; the way it is now does not necessarily ask for a citation concerning the 'persecution' statement. It is ambiguous, at best, about what exactly needs verification. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be messy in places where there are a lot of things to verify, but it would avoid the confusion. I probably shouldn't have used the {{

facts}} in the article, but I'll try to be more specific with the tags. --Lethargy 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

After reading some more about this subject I feel that an expanded section on it should be added to the page. I didn't realize how controversal it had become, epecially when it concerns Holocaust victims. Since it is an official policy of the church I feel that it should be included on this page; a separate article seems to lessen the severity of this practice. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have been discussing it on the talk page. My preference is to remove it from the section it is in, and maybe include it in another section on other beliefs and practices. Mainly because the section it is included in is organized based on the Second Artile of Faith of the LDS Church, of which baptism for the dead doesn't really apply. Bytebear 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a discussion concerning Baptism of the Dead at that talk page. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was one, but I will start one. I also added a quick historical paragraph about temples where the baptisms take place, so I think if we beef up the temple section we can add more info on the subject. Bytebear 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of

- Jimbo Wales[8]

I have not made an attack against anyone, simply an observation of what some people will use for 'sources'. You do what you have to do, I will do the same. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. This isn't North Korea, we should have some freedoms.[reply]

Oh, (and this may surprise some folks), 'Jimbo' may not be right about everything. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMC, I came back and read this again; who exactly decided that it is an attack? If it's just you that made the decision then it's an opinion; you know what they say about opinions. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. You might want to check out the page history on his user page ... seems like some folks can pitch but not catch. I never once whined to anybody about his page.[reply]

When I passive-aggressively accuse you of being an antisemite, you can "whine" to anyone you see fit. But until that happens, you'll just be talking out of your ass as usual. I will say this: you've proven to be a zealous and loyal supporter of your school. I'll give you points for that, however poor your judgment. As for me, I think it's time to take a nice (maybe permanent?) break from Wikipedia. Enjoy. Dubc0724 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally we agree on something: I also think that it's time for you to take a permanent break from Wikipedia; don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classy. Dubc0724 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, the problem with the comment is that it suggests - subtly yes, but still suggests - that Dubc is a racist. I'm asking you again: please remove the comment from your userpage. I've looked at his User page history, and yes, there is evidence of incivility there, but the thing is, it's gone. You're the only one left in this dispute with violations of

I have edited my observation as much as I am willing (or going) to; the 'thing' about Wikipedia is that nothing is ever really 'gone'. Unfortunately he wanted to partake in a game and when it didn't go the way he intended, he cried 'foul' ... that's not the way it works. His bad for not realizing that he wasn't setting the rules for the game. I don't feel that I am in violation of anything (you pretty much admitted that yourself; a subtle suggestion does not equal a violation). Sorry that your time was wasted. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately he wanted to partake in a game and when it didn't go the way he intended, he cried 'foul'" Well, that's hardly true. Let's set this straight once & for all: (1)The Vanguard thing was an honest mistake, and you know it. I've explained it here (it was deleted, of course), on the original article's talk page and on the article's DELETION page. You're the only person who's made an issue of it. Your attempt to accuse me of being a racist can only be explained as irrational, slavish support of all things Duke. (2)Whatever incivility I've displayed (bred of frustration with your edits & attitude in general) is hardly on par with the incivility you've shown me & others. Yes, I've gotten snippy & impatient. My bad, I'll do better. But your Vanguard accusation on your user page was just plain bad taste, and you know it. (I guess I could display equally poor taste by putting something on my user page asking you if

Crystal Gail Mangum was white -- or if the story involved the Carolina lacrosse team -- would you still attack her character so vigorously on Wikipedia? But I won't do that.) Sorry you've embarrassed yourself again. Now, can you just comply with the warnings and let it go? Dubc0724 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't ever presume to tell me what I 'know'; you put crap up on your page, I retaliated. You decided to 'remove' yours, I haven't made that decision. (I did edit it) You don't get to make the decision for me. Sorry. Post whatever you wish; I will respond in the manner which I deem is appropriate. Live with it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what user page "crap" are you referring to? Dubc0724 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Thanks. I know I lost my cool. Sorry about that And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page, and I won't bring it up again. We'll just let Wikipedia run its course. Again, sorry for probably making the situation worse by arguing. Thanks for trying to help". Dubc0724 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Duke, are you confused? I posted the above message on my user talk page well after you posted the Vanguard crap on your user page. I thought you were supposed to be showing me what I posted on my user page that led you to "retaliate" (your words) by posting the misleading Vanguard information on your user page? Dubc0724 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Thanks. I know I lost my cool. Sorry about that And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page, and I won't bring it up again. We'll just let Wikipedia run its course. Again, sorry for probably making the situation worse by arguing. Thanks for trying to help". Dubc0724 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I get it, I get it. I meant that I was done with trying to get you to remove the nonsense from your user space. However, I will still respond to statements made about me, as I have done. (By the way, I'm still waiting to see what it was that I did that supposedly provoked all this...?) Dubc0724 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________

And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page

_____________________________________________________________________________

I guess we're done here. Dubc0724 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but an unfounded suggestion of racism is a violation of

And who, exactly, are you? The last change to my edit there was done by a sockpuppet, I believe, or a guy who keeps getting impersonated by others. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying you made this edit, which is the one I removed? Johntex\^talk 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying anything ... I never denied anything; that was in response to something from a sockpuppet named Abe.Froman. I meant it. Are you some kind of inquisitor around Wikipedia. Do I have to answer this line of questioning? Duke53 | ^Talk 06:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Duke, go to your library or bookstore and get Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. It is a very good bio on Joseph Smith. I am sure you will think it is too pro-Mormon, but it has gotten excellent reviews from the academic community. See for yourself [9] Bytebear 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it claim that Joseph Smith killed two men before being killed? I had never heard that before. I'm wondering if any of those articles have an citations associated with them. Thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Joseph had a small pepper-box pistol (which his associates brought into jail for him), with which he fired at the mob several times through the closed door and was able to kill two members of the mob. This is a quote from the

Joseph Smith, Jr. article here at Wikipedia. I already asked for a citation there, too. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw you asked for a citation. That's what I was going to do, too. I'm guessing that is bogus. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered reading that he had killed some people before dying. If nobody comes up with a citation after a while, I think we should just remove the claim. Thanks for catching that. I hadn't read that article, so I hadn't noticed it before. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm getting into this a bit I have noticed more than a few claims on one page that are directly contradicted on 'associated' pages ... I will continue to ask for sources. I expect that many of those will be sources that I cannot easily verify. C'est la vie. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of it all is that you don't need to verify ... you just need to point something out, and let others verify. ;^) It is up to the people making the claim to substantiate their material. I think what happens often is that somebody starts typing and every so often inserts something that they believe as opposed to something they know. It is very hard to write verifiable NPOV text. In fact, I'm guessing it is impossible, but we still keep trying. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Joseph Smith article is the most frequently vandalized, by my casual count, of the LDS related articles here. I have reverted the "two men killed" claim half a dozen times in the last year. I know of no documentation, not even a tall tale, but someone(s) insists on placing it there. I would also urge that it be removed. WBardwin 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrp103 (Bill Pringle), I'm not sure that 7+ hours is long enough to keep a ^{[citation needed]} request up on a page (Smith page and LDS page); I usually give it three or four days to be verified before pulling a statement. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case it is clear that the claim was unsubstantiated, and has been removed multiple times. I've read multiple accounts of the event and have never come across any claim that he injured anyone, let alone killed anybody. If somebody wants to add it back in, then we can slap a {{fact}} tag and make them cite a reference. Unfortunately, a lot of people make random changes to LDS pages just to be funny. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read a blurb somewhere in the last day or two that said two men were hit, but it didn't say that they died; I will look to see if I can find it again. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..

I am in the process of getting help in mediating the matter. People are arrested often for kidnapping children after killing family members. Do not come here with smarmy advice; I will find sources where I find them. You CANNOT and WILL NOT dictate to me what sources I may use. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twice I've written articles defending the word "Kidnapping" and twice it has ether been rejected or sent to the ether. The first time,yesterday, I entered the edit on the discussion page along with my name, went to the history section and it was there with my name. When I went back a few hours later, my edit was no longer in the discussion page nor in the history. The second time. Wrote the edit again on the discussion page, but when I entered it a message said it would be merged with another persons edit. Well it wasn't. It disappeared. How does a person make this thing work? Should I write my edit in Word, & cut and paste it every hour to the dicussion page? Tinosa | ^Talk 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that you hit the 'save page' button after you have made your edit. It's the only thing I can think of. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{

What with?

Bryant 06:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I am trying to get a dispute resolved and seem to keep messing it up. Perhaps you can guide me through the process? Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you handle it Dan, I was just removing the template, so it stops reporting in the channel :) —

Review 08:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there some confusion over who is going to help me with this situation? Duke53 | Talk 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to

You may want to go check to see who made the 'stupid' comment (and when). I parroted back your words about' limited understanding'. Please do not post here again as I am getting help from the admins to settle this once and for all. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for assuming I cared about the Duke-Carolina stupidity. Personally I don't think any of those stupid names belong in Wikipedia. Sonria 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry; then can I assume that you put the 'speedy deletion' tag on the other two items as well? Duke53 | ^Talk 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • •

Calling me a troll is not a personal attack?  :) I think that I understand things better than you do. Feel free to make all the suggestions you want; I will feel free to ignore them. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡

Weasel words. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, calling someone a troll on WIKI because their behavior is that of a troll is acceptable". "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom" Yeah, you know the policies. The bold quote is from Wikipedia's official policies. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I understand how it can sometimes be frustrating dealing with new users, and IP, who sometimes add content which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. I noticed this example[10], which you quite rightly removed. However, please

Daniel, I thought that you were the person who was going to help in a dispute over the use of the word 'kidnap' in an article concerning a massacre where the children weren't slaughtered, but rather spirited away. The whole situation with a few editors has spiralled down hill (see just above your post). Please help. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The edit change had the edit sumary "Comment removed by admnin..." You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff. Johntex\^talk 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought that particular thread up as 'evidence' then you should want an exact record of what took place, if you want it judged fairly. Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Hmm... Duke53 | ^Talk 06:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? I can't find a rule that tells me that; I did find one that says that admins shouldn't use their position to bully others. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you want it for evidence, then you can use a diff - you don't need to revert the change. Johntex\^talk 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a problem answering when I ask questions of you. I will ask them again. Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? Duke53 | ^Talk 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you just what I said "You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff." You knew you were reverting an administrative action and you did it anyway. That wasn't a good thing to do. Shouting isn't going to change anything. Johntex\^talk 15:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sitting here wondering why an admin won't answer direct questions when asked. Is bolding something shouting? I consider you deleting his comment 'not a good thing' to do. I consider your commenting 'don't revert me like that' 'not a good thing to do'. You're right, I knew what I was doing; I also couldn't find a rule telling me that I couldn't do it. Now I'm asking an admin (you) to show me that rule. I know what you are telling me; why won't you give me the answers to what I've actually asked?Duke53 | ^Talk 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, policy encourages administrators to use discretion in defusing situations. Interfereing with an administrator is against policy. If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting. If discussion fails to satisfy your concern, then you can report me. You should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity. Johntex\^talk 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting".. I believe that your idea of 'talking' is quite different than mine; I have asked you numerous questions to which you have never given a straight answer. Your idea of 'talking' is simply for me to 'listen' to you and not expect any answers; I don't feel that admins should act in that manner. You ignore my questions but continue to be evasive; why? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to what you should have done prior to reverting. You should have discussed. You did not do so. You reverted. That was wrong. I've explained why it was wrong, and I've warned you not to do it again. I will spell it out for you again - Never revert an action taken by an administrator if they label it an administrative action. Don't try to distract from the issue, which is that you should not have reverted my change. Johntex\^talk 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote the rule to me. You keep saying 'should', but haven't shown me why I can't. I am not 'distracting' from anything; I asked you questions before ... you simply ignored them. Your actions here are highly suspicious for an admin. Being an admin doesn't give you the right to be a dictator or misuse the admin power. The 'situation' that you were trying to 'diffuse' was pretty much laughable; you were attempting to put a slant on something. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed someone else's comments, not yours. You had no reason or right to restore them. You are being argumentative and you keep wanting to distract from the issue at hand, which is that you were wrong to remove my change. This conversation is not going anywhere so I'm taking a break from it. As I said, if you feel I've acted inappropriately, file a complaint. From my perspective, this converation is over. You may have the last word if you want. Just be aware that you have been warned and that if you do such a thing again, I will block you. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, Not everything that makes sense is written down. If you don't understand something Johntext says, please say so, and ask for an explaination. Wikipedia isn't about some set of rules that say exactly what you can and can't do in all circumstances. Some things are against the spirit of wikipedia even if there isn't a written rule saying so. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Aveling, I waited to answer you because I think that you may have inadvertantly stumbled upon Wikipedia's biggest flaw: "Wikipedia isn't about some set of rules that say exactly what you can and can't do in all circumstances". That is why it will never be a credible source to many people; I have asked over and over to have a rule pointed out to me and have been ignored. If each admin is allowed to do as he / she pleases with no accountability for their actions then it is anarchy, with 1,000+ petty tyrants doing exactly what they want, when they want. WP is destined for failure under such a system. Ignoring questions about the system doesn't strengthen the system. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For common situations, there are rules. For less common situations, there are often precedents. If something has happened before, it's more likely that it will be dealt with in the same way if it happens again. Sometimes there are situations which haven't happened before. Then, people do their best to guess what a sensible thing to do would be. Sometimes, other people don't agree. Often there's some truth on both sides of an argument, and a compromise can be found, or one side realises the other side is right. Sometimes a compromise is better than either starting position, sometimes it's not. And sometimes both sides of an argument refuse to compromise. That's when fights start, and when people start making appeals to authority, to try to get support for their position.

Over time, you can expect more rules to be added. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got. It works well for most people, most of the time. I'm sorry it seems to have let you down on this occasion. I think the problem is that there isn't any explicit rule covering when changing other people's comments is good, and when it's bad, because it is so subjective. And it seems that most people disagreed with you, which makes you wrong. Fair or unfair, I can't think of a better way to handle situations that the rules don't cover. And I can't think of a way to write a rule that covers everything about when deleting comments is good and when it's bad. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And it seems that most people disagreed with you, which makes you wrong". Exactly two people had a problem with it, unless there is a 'silent' majority I haven't been told about. One of them used his admin powers in a bullying manner. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong. Maybe the silent majority agrees with you. I assume we're talking about this diff? If so, it's hard for me to understand why either of you seems to care so much about whether the sentance is in or out. He's right when he says it's taunting. It would have been better if it hadn't been added, but I'm sure Dubc0724 had his reasons for putting it in. I wouldn't have removed it myself, even though I can think of good reasons to do so. One thing I don't see is why did you put it back? What did you want to achieve? And the other thing I don't understand is why did you get so upset at Johntex? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time he was deleting the sentence he was instigating an investigation as to my 'behavior' in that thread (for not being civil); my guess is that he deleted it as a warning to the other guy to not put himself in a bad light. It would seem to me that the entire record should be visible if someone is going to have it officially investigated. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted the change, were you aware that you can create links to particular diffs in the history? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I bother? I wanted the thread to appear exactly as it occurred; others (apparently) did not. Remember, that admin was complaining to other admins about that thread; there was no good reason to change it. I wasn't trying to hide a thing. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might bother because it's the decent thing to do and you want to do the right thing by people, even people you maybe don't like? It's not a lot of bother to take a diff between two versions and turn it into a link, eg: [11] Or you can link to a specific version, eg: [12] Given that Dubc0724 has said he regrets making the edit, I think that the whole issue should be allowed to die. Even if someone gets mad at you, that does not justify your getting mad at them. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who got mad was JohnTex; interesting that he's the only one who hasn't chimed in or responded to you, isn't it ? He simply ignored my questions and now appears to be ignoring this. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he's chosen to respond to you please notice that he still is not addressing why he doesn't (or didn't) have to answer my questions. His attitude still seems to be that admins can do as they please, when they please. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure he deleted my comment because I was being, I admit, a jackass and wanting to see whatever source it was that was being argued about at the time. I think he probably did what he thought was best, but I'll agree that having left it in wouldn't have been the end of the world. Lots of other sarcastic comments get left in, so maybe it was just a judgment call. I'm sure it's hard to come up with hard-and-fast rules. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for "taunting", and I'd retract if I could. My two cents... Dubc0724 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should go to whoever's page and leave a message saying that you regret adding the comment. That would be even better than retracting. Ben Aveling 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should pay more attention, I just suggested that you go and do what you've already done! Sorry about that. On the bright side, it does allow me to demonstrate an alternate way of retracting a statement.  :-) All the best, Ben Aveling 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Duke never asked me why I removed the comment, but the reason is very simple. I had previously deleted an off-topic, unhelpful statement made by Duke53. Later, when Dubc0724 made an off-topic unhelpful statement by Dubc0724, I deleted it as well. Neither comment was helpful, and I treated them both the same way. Article Talk pages are meant for discussing the content of the article. Off-topic posts can be removed. Inflamatory posts can be removed. It is within the role of administrators to attempt to diffuse situations. Duke53 wants to keep fanning the flames of this situation, which is unfortunate. Johntex\^talk 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? I simply said that it was your opinion that enough time had elapsed to respond to the citation notice. I disagree and believe that editorial courtesy allows time for all editors to see posted concerns, research information, and respond. If you choose to cut that time short, editors should revert/restore material for others to review. The imposition of any time limit on responses to templates and notices on Wikipedia is generally a matter of personal opinion and impatience. So - after observing your comments and edits on a number of pages on my watchlist - I would encourage you to be more patient with other editor's time constraints. Hope to see constructive work. Best wishes. WBardwin 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part about those of you with 'real lives'? Within the last two weeks there have been items in Mormon related articles taken down after ^{[citation needed]} tags were up less than 8 hours; these tags were up at least 3 days. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps if you informed yourself of the relevant issues, and researched a little you would have a better chance of getting your comments listened to - all i have seen is claims without response to the points raised by others - but instead new claims - generally on wikipedia we take other editors assertion that something is in the reference below in good faith - there is a difference when something is added to an article with no assertion of where it came from but some random bloviating individual - who deserves as much attention as b o'r 71.53.131.25 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you registered and wrote something halfway sensible here I would pay the slightest bit of attention to the crap you just wrote. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the image on your userpage has no licensing information, which qualifies it for

You have been listed as an invloved party in a recently opened Mediation Cabal case ("UNC Carolina nicknames and links"). I will begin reviewing the case. Please write a comment representative of your view or a compromise offer. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tire of your inappropriate use of warnings such as the following left on my talk page:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blank

I suggest that you stop characterizing others' thoughts and actions as 'stupid'; you may find yourself banned. I understand very well what you are doing (hint: we see your history also) to anyone who doesn't share your views. I tire of your weak attempts at indignant self righteousness. Bottom line: You insult me, I leave a warning. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I use templates that Wikipedia offers at Wikipedia: templates; if they don't want us to use them why do they have them there? 2) Anybody who is interested in seeing these attacks can see them; they are right out in the open. What half point don't I have ? He attacked me (this is the first I heard of 'degrees' of attacks being okay); an attack is an attack. 3) As I said I use templates that Wikipedia offers at Wikipedia: templates Duke53 | Talk 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duke, I think the above was addressed to me?

In response to your first and third points, there are times the templates are appropriate, and there are other times when they are not appropriate.

By half right I meant that Storm Rider chose his words badly, but that there was some truth in what he was saying. To pick just one example, he said "I think you even see the stupidity of this position and yet you stick to it without any ability to defend yourself", which was a bad thing to say because it implies that you know that what you are doing is wrong, and I'm sure that's not true, and I think he would agree. I think that what he was trying to say was something like "You are insisting that you are right instead of explaining why you are right." And if you want to persuade someone that you are right and they are wrong, then you have to show them something they don't already know. Otherwise, they won't change their minds. I have to go. Talk to you again later. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly does one know when the templates are appropriate? This is another case of WP's "yeah, there are rules, but we don't always follow them" mumbo-jumbo. Are you saying that it was stupidity to want to call an OBVIOUS case of kidnapping a kidnapping? All I know is that he called me names and cast aspersions on me; I did not retaliate. If he attacks me I will leave a warning or file a complaint each and every time. WP says I can do that; please don't tell me a policy and then expect me to NOT follow it. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is I ask myself: "Is anyone likely to get upset or be insulted by what I'm thinking of doing? Is anyone likely to revert me, or get annoyed at me?" And if they are, then I don't do it. If what I'm thinking of doing is important, then someone else will do it anyway. If it's not important, then it's not worth having a fight about it.

If you feel something needs doing, but you think that there's a chance that maybe people could get upset, then come and ask me. If I agree that it's important that it be done, I'll do it. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you feel something needs doing, but you think that there's a chance that maybe people could get upset, then come and ask me". Not very likely; are you even an admin? If not, why did you get involved? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved because I thought maybe I could help. I don't need to be an admin to do that. You spend a lot of time arguing with people, and other people spend a lot of time arguing with you. That doesn't help you, them, or wikipedia. I can't delete/undelete/block/unblock anyone or anything, but sometimes I can try to argue a case for you, and sometimes I can try to explain to you why someone else might not agree with you in a particular situation. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you missed seeing my post here. No need for you to be involved any longer, as I find it to be no help whatsoever. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post. I'm sorry you feel that way. I will no longer attempt to help you, if that is what you wish. If I feel that you are being unfair to other users, I may still leave you a message saying so. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben is not an admin (yet), but the admins you've discussed issues with in the past have said the same basic things. He's done a good job of trying to help, you should thank him (I know I do), rather than asking why he got involved. Many times a third party can help with solve problems - and folks who want to become administrators often help out with these chores on wikipedia, as ben seems to be doing (and should be thanked for his help). Admin or not, third party help is encouraged in the

Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution policy. As an admin, I'd encourage you to keep working with Ben as he genuinely seems to want you succeed at Wikipedia. He could be a good friend and asset to you should you follow his advince and find success at Wikipedia. Hope this helps, and happy editing. -Visorstuff 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

To find a diff, click "history" on the top of a page. Identify the edit that the user made that you want to give to another. See for example, the talk page history for Mountain Meadows massacre. There are two links at the front of every line (cur) (last). (cur) gives the changes between the version on that line and the current version. (last) gives the changes between the version on that line and the line immediately below it (the last version before that change was made). If you right click "(last)" you should get a pop-up menu. Find "Copy link location" or "Copy shortcut" (depending on your browser). Then paste it in the edit window where you need it. For example by copying and pasting the last for (last) links I get the following

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85978695&oldid=85781563
  • is the diff to my earlier edit today,
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85979890&oldid=85978695
  • this is your response,
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85986616&oldid=85979890
  • this is Storm Rider's response, and
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85998286&oldid=85986616
  • my last response.

Normally you would identify these with [ single brackets - so the code would be like:

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85978695&oldid=85781563 Troedel commented]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85979890&oldid=85978695 I responded]
* etc.

which would produce:

• Troedel commented
• I responded
• etc.

Good luck - let me know if you need help with the mechanics of stuff. --Trödel 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You; I tried it and will see if that satisfies the requirement. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence here doesn't look all that strong to me, so I'm reluctant to do a CheckUser; perhaps you could try this request on WP:RFCU. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir here; did you post this at the user page of the one who actually requested the usercheck? I knew that it wasn't me doing the vandalism, that's probably why "The evidence here doesn't look all that strong". It was another attempt at an attack upon me. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know whether or not I can request a usercheck at WP:RFCU on myself in this incident? I would like to prove that I wasn't the one who vandalized that page; I don't believe that the user making the allegation will request it there. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could, but those kinds of requests are rarely accepted. Unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, we

"Unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, we

assume good faith". Yeah, okay ... where is the 'good faith' in his false, baseless accusation? I am not assuming anything in this case; he accused me of something that I did not do. No assumption necessary here, it is fact. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Duke, assume good faith in this case means assuming that he had a good reason to make that assumption, even if the assumption was wrong. If he made a mistake, he made a mistake. Life goes on. No big deal. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you not responding to anything on my talk page since all you have done is apologize for his behavior. He had no 'good reason' except for his wanting it to have been me. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Lethargy 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it continues. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would be mistaken. If you have a personal problem I expect you to report me to those who can doing something about it. I view you above edit as an abuse of warnings, a personal attack, and vandalism of my personal page. You have stated in a whining manner, "(except for one editor who I will never answer about anything; he lost any credibility he might have ever had by making up false accusations against me). Duke53 | Talk 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)"

You are also desirous of edit wars as evidenced by you latest edit to the Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre page:

By now we should realize that neither side is going to stop reverting over the 'kidnap' / 'no kidnap' issue; if the 'no kidnap' faction is so certain that they are correct, why haven't they asked for outside intervention in deciding this issue? I attempted twice to get outside help, but apparently did it incorrectly; nobody from outside came to help. I will continue to revert until this issue is resolved once and for all. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

axe

grind

Copied from

Mountain Meadows massacre

talk page.

===To all other editors===

It is very difficult to assume good faith when somebody writes the following (from WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement talk page):

"Fish, I saw you removed your name from the LDS community group; that is unfortunate. It is true that article topics founded in relgion are quarrelsome; LDS/Mormon related articles are particularly so. However, to be successful you can not take things personally. I know that we have a gadflys [sic] (read obnoxious anti-Mormons with no objective in producing excellent articles, but only in grinding down their pathetic little axes), if I had my way editors of that ilk would be allowed to work with a coach for a period of time and then their case reviewed. If they continued in their POV editorializing, they would then be banned forever. They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive. It is one of the significant downfalls of producing a public encyclopedia; one must just accept it comes with the territory. Take a breather, reconsider your decision and then come back. I hope you will find the wisdom in doing so. Peace. Storm Rider (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

(emphasis above is mine) Now, wouldn't almost anybody view this as a personal attack? I'm wondering what the rest of you folks think. p.s. Time stamps don't lie. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 05:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Duke53 | ^Talk 05:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition of the temple garments picture to Church etiquette as it had no relevance whatsoever to the article itself. The only mention of clothing in the article was about Sunday dress, and since people don't go to church in only their underwear (even in that craaazy Mormon church), a photo of two models in their underwear is wildy out of place.

You have added that photo to several articles now as the only substantive edit to the articles that you have made. This is rather questionable behavior, especially for articles such as

I placed the image in articles where it has relevance (I placed it on my talk page so it doesn't get 'lost'). It is vandalism to remove content simply for the purpose of removing it. Wikipedia does not allow censorship ... do not remove content simply because you don't agree with its publication. The 'intention' of the editors who have removed it has been suspect. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. What is your purpose in adding the photo to these articles? And I strongly dispute the relevance of the photo to

assume good faith when you accuse others of censorship and removing the photo "simply for the purpose of removing it." The image does not belong on non-relevant articles, and when you add them, it is the opposite of vandalism to remove them. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I would suggest that you view the page history of the pages where the image has been posted; editors are removing it against Wikipedia policy, making it vandalism. I will continue to post it where I feel it has relevance. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind suggestion; I have indeed viewed the page histories. It is not evident that the removals were against Wikipedia policy; the editors may have simply been bold in addressing what they perceived as a weakness in the article (to wit, a photo of dubious relevance added for apparently POV reasons). Reverting an edit that you made is not automatically vandalism. And you still haven't answered my question about your intentions with regard to placing the photo in the articles. In the past, you have complained about others not answering your questions, so I thought you'd be forthright in responding to mine. The relevance of an article is a justification, but not a motivating reason for adding the photo. Care to share what your motivation is? If not, I and other editors who encounter your talk page can, of course, draw our own conclusions about your motivations, but I thought you might want a chance to speak for yourself. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If not, I and other editors who encounter your talk page can, of course, draw our own conclusions about your motivations" assume good faith Duke53 | ^Talk 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that is precisely why I have extended an invitation to you to share your true intentions. I am assuming that you may have a honest and Wikipedia-compatible motivation for populating Wikipedia with photos of people wearing LDS undergarments, but since I am baffled as to what that could possibly be, and because you are currently engaged in an edit war over these articles, I have inquired of you. And if, in the end, I or others draw conclusions that you are acting in bad faith, it will not be inconsistent with the

WP:AGF

policy, which states:

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.

(Emphasis mine.) Evasiveness and a history of antagonistic editing are not listed in those actions, but the guideline doesn't purport to exhaustively list all actions inconsistent with good faith. It is a matter of individual editors' judgment to consider when the evidence suggests a user may not be acting in good faith. In the instant case, I would not regard your adding the photo to Temple garment to be done in bad faith, but when it spreads to irrelevant articles then the evidence suggests POV-pushing instead of good faith editing. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" ... vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying". If you have any proof of this (otherwise this could be considered a personal attack, without foundation), please report me for them. Rumor and innuendo just doesn't cut it. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Indenting mostly reset.) That's a red herring. I was not accusing you of either sockpuppetry or lying. I was merely quoting the relevant policy section, noting that the list of examples of "evidence to the contrary" is not exclusive. Anyhow, I guess you're not going to answer my question. Let the reader judge between me and thee, so to speak. I think this conversation reveals what you are unwilling to say anyway. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"what is your purpose in adding the photo to these articles"? To illustrate what is being mentioned in the articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's unconvincing; neither Clothing nor Church etiquette make any mention of Mormon undergarments, so you could not have been seeking to illustrate them. The mention of religious clothing in Clothing talks only about Jainism as a specific example, so as an illustration of a Jain's religious garment you could hardly have picked a worse photo. Would you like to try a more convincing answer? alanyst ^/talk/ 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to convince you of anything, because I don't have to convince you of anything; you came here and asked a question. Perhaps the article does need to be expanded, I will look into doing that this evening. Here is the part that caught my eye:" Religious clothing might be considered a special case of occupational clothing. Sometimes it is worn only during the performance of religious ceremonies. However, it may also be worn everyday as a marker for special religious status". Are you saying that the temple garment doesn't signify some special LDS status? Duke53 | ^Talk 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I'm saying that? 'Cause I'm not saying that. Why are you putting words in my mouth? By asking that, I don't mean to put words in your mouth about putting words in my mouth. I'm just sayin'. Or not. ;-)

Anyhow, to be serious, since the garments are underclothing, they aren't really a good example of a "marker for special religious status." Do they have special religious significance to the wearer? Yes. Do they mark a special religious status? Not really, because being normally invisible to others, they fail to convey any sort of information about the wearer to anyone else. I argue that a photo of a

Undergarment article or the Temple garment

article.

But we digress. The substance of this conversation is that you are unwilling to forthrightly explain why you're trying to get the photo added to so many articles. As I've said, I think it will now be apparent to people reading this conversation what your motivations really are. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prattle on all you'd like: keep calling me a liar, that is something I am getting used to around here. I added the image to articles that mention religious clothing; I wll continue to add it to articles that I think warrant the addition. Again, if you want to make formal complaints against me, please do; I would enjoy seeing your argument. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. I didn't attempt to put words in your mouth (nice try). The wearing of this garment is very important to the leaders of the LDS church; I knew it, but wanted you to admit it, just for clarification.[reply]

Regardless, images only belong in article where they are relevent and will be removed from others where they do not apply. If you continue to inser the image in articles where it isn't relevent, you can expect a block. pschemp | talk 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for my page, show me where it is irrelevant; each article mentions religious clothing or undergarments ... this qualifies the image. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm sorry, it is relevent to

Undergarments but not to Clothing since undergarments are a subset of clothing. Church etiquette is not specific to any church and thus it is irrelevent there too. pschemp | talk 22:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No, Im sorry ... perhaps you missed this section of the article:

The cleanliness of religious dresses in Eastern Religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism is of paramount importance, which indicates purity.

Perhaps the section needs to be expanded to show how significant the Temple garment is to the LDS; It signifies special status to them. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clothing article is a general overview, mostly related to outerwear. Such detail is not appropriate. At most a sentence and link to the Temple garments artilce may be warranted if the other editors on the page agree, but I think even that is tool much detail for such an unimportant thing. pschemp | talk 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to contribute to articles discussing LDS Church doctrine and practices. However, the inclusion of photographs of the temple garment is unnecessary. I recognize that I deleted your pictures without any discussion or permission. You must understand the sacredness of the garment to members of the LDS Church. After sending an e-mail to the wikipedia editors regarding the placement of the photograph on the clothing article, it was promptly removed by them. As you can see, nothing was done to alter any articles other than removing the photograph. Please do not include that picture in any articles. It is a sacred subject to members of the LDS church. Please grant us this favor by not denigrating something of great worth. An article discussing the garment, so long as done with correct authority is different. Df008 05:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow censorship. I have already asked that the image be restored to the appropriate pages and then be blocked from any further vandalism. You may very well consider this image sacred, but you most likely are in the minority in feeling that way; Muslims have to tolerate pictures here that they do not like as well. I am not inclined to drop this, all I hear from editors here is policy, policy, policy; the image is perfectly fine according to Wikipedia's policy so you will just have to live with it. I suggest that you not visit those pages if it distresses you that much. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I disagree with User:Df008. LDS editors can continue to regard the temple garment as sacred and yet need to tolerate it being displayed in a neutral manner on Wikipedia in appropriate places. When it is used inappropriately (as defined by Wikipedia policy and guidelines as well as the context in which they are used), objections ought to be raised, but LDS editors cannot expect Wikipedia to hew to their notion of what is sacred and what is not, just as they cannot be forced in turn to respect another editor's differing view of what is sacred. (Though if they voluntarily choose to be respectful of others' beliefs, that's the ideal world, I think.)

If things were different, it might have been good to civilly discuss what precisely about the photo makes LDS people uncomfortable about it being displayed on WP and to see if there's a way to preserve the factual content and informational value of the illustration while portraying it in a way that is less likely to provoke negative reactions and edit wars. That would have been nice, wouldn't it? Alas, we live in a polarized world where one extreme acts as if even approaching the subject of something they hold sacred is an offense, and the other extreme acts as if the most provocative and objectionable material is essential for an encyclopedia and to soften the presentation would be to surrender to censorship. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion in the past about having the image in Wikipedia [13]. It shouldn't have to occur each time a different editor decides to object about something. Many things I read here at Wikipedia make me uncomfortable; I simply do not visit those articles.

I have shown as much respect to other editors as has been shown to me; golden rule and all that, you know. Unfortunately, I am not predisposed to believe all that the LDS church states as fact; I have (and will continue to have) the right to question them about anything and everything I read, anywhere. For instance, I was told to my face less than two months ago that Mormons had absolutely no part in the

Mountain Meadows massacre; I feel it is my obligation to ensure that facts are presented here, not some church's POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please forgive the edit wars. It was my understanding that this website is a free encyclopedia edited by the users and that any user could edit the content so long as they did so with good faith. I am a new user and deleted the pictures before I understood the correct procedure for requesting that content be removed. Even then, I maintain that what was done was not censorship. As I said before, I understand that you have a desire to contribute to the pages here on Wikipedia, and I have no objection to that. My only request is that you use greater discretion in the content you include on this website. The entries of "clothing" and "underwear" are not the correct place for a photograph of two individuals wearing the temple garment. There are several other examples of religious clothing (i.e. papal gowns, etc.) which could be used and which would not elicit a response such as the one you have received.

I do not consider myself a part of the extreme. I don't know the reason for which you have the feelings that you do, but if you are to demand respect and understanding of what you say and believe, and if you are to expect that people follow the golden rule, you also must return the courtesy to those who disagree with you. I am quite confident that if you were to ask the majority of members of the LDS church whether they would be offended by the picture as it was used, they would agree that it was offensive. As such, I think that a discussion in which you might be able to understand the reasons behind the reaction not only me but several people have had to your placing of such an image in a public forum would be appropriate.

As far as taking everything you hear at face value, I recognize that there are a few parts of LDS Church history which are not very agreeable, even to members of the Church itself. These are mistakes of individuals just like you and me. Although this could cause resentment for the beliefs and practices of the Church, it could also be discussed in a rational way with people willing to understand the subjects without resorting to absolutism.

Please accept my sincere apology. I will not do this again. However, understand that I will pursue the administrators of Wikipedia when I feel that content regarding the LDS Church has been displayed incorrectly and inappropriately. Asking for the picture to be removed was a rational request which has been granted at least once by the administrators of this website themselves. I mean nothing ill toward you. In fact, as you suggested earlier in this thread, I agree that a discussion page, in which thoughts and comments regarding the subject could be expressed, would be appropriate and would allow us all to rationally discuss our feelings on the matter. Hopefully, in this manner the best outcome could be reached. Thank you for understanding.Df008 13:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask admins for anything you'd like; good luck. You cannot delete items nilly willy because you find them personally offensive. There was discussion about this, you were not around to take part in it. The best outcome was reached (so far); the image is allowed. Again, if it is so distressful to you: do not go to that article. I think that you and I have discussed this as far as we can, any more would be just going around in circles. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to throw my opinion in here too. The relevance of the photo of garments to Temple garment is obvious, but as others have said, some of the other places you've put it are far less relevant. Censorship doesn't fly here, but neither does poking fun at other people's religions, so take care about how your actions may be seen by others. Friday (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship doesn't fly here, but neither does poking fun at other people's religions" I'm not sure why you came here to post that, but I'd like to know where people get their ideas of what is and what isn't allowed at Wikipedia; if you have something useful to add here, feel free, but don't come here to post nonsense. Show me a policy, not just your opinion. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Is Not a Battleground policy: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear." If you have personal issues with the LDS church or Mormon beliefs, this is not the place to wage war against your perceived enemies. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Which would be fine if you can show me one instance of me poking fun at anybody's religion. I do not joke. "this is not the place to wage war against your perceived enemies". It also is not a place for Mormon propaganda; when I see it I will challenge it.

Wikipedia Is Not a Soapbox goes both ways ... this is not a place for LDS POV. Just because LDS people take anything the church says as gospel does not necessarily make it true; it simply makes it their belief. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the temple recommend image you just added: Who gave you permission to photocopy a document whose copyright is owned by the LDS church? (Hint: the person to whom the document was issued does not have the authority to grant such permission or to make copies themselves.) I see that your version has the copyright notice redacted, which in good faith I will assume was an unintentional act. But I think the image you uploaded infringes a copyright and you have no rights to release it under any license whatsoever. Will you remove the erroneous licensing information and tag the image for deletion, or shall I? alanyst ^/talk/ 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scan that I copied has no copyright notice. The redactions I made were on to block means of identifying the person who was issued the card and the person / person(s) who issued it. There were signatures, dates, initials and a serial number on the card; that is what was redacted. I do not need LDS approval ever to copy any document that comes into my possession; the government can restrict such things, but nobody else has that authority. There is no erroneous licensing information on that image page; I explained what I did and how I did it. Sorry. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with many others, you share a common misconception about

In this case, the creator of the document is the LDS church and the copyright is owned by its intellectual property division, Intellectual Reserve Inc. You do not have permission or any legal right to photocopy the document in full, much less alter its appearance and post it online under any sort of license. Hence you have violated the copyright. Unintentionally, no doubt; but now that you know, surely you will assist in correcting the infringement. (Upon further reflection, I have struck this due to possible harbor under fair use.) alanyst ^/talk/ 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified my comments above because, as User:COGDEN rightly pointed out at [14], the fair use provision might cover the image you uploaded. In my opinion it's a borderline case that could still be a copyvio unprotected by fair use, but I'm not so sure now that it's necessarily a wholesale infringement, and since my comments above were too absolutist, I think it's important that I retract the parts that went too far. At the very least, the license you tagged it with is not the right one since you're not the copyright holder, but I shouldn't have said unconditionally that you were infringing the copyright. My apologies. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put these comments at copyright problems [Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_November_21/Images] - the image could be a good addition to Wikipedia under fair use, however, it currently doesn't qualify, but could easily do so:

I'm fine with using an image under fair use, however, graying out the copyrighted portion that states "©2003 IRI" makes it seems that the owner of the image knows that the image is in violation of the copyright, and knowingly removed the copyright notice (ie, the author had the intent to remove copyright notice to break copyright laws). My vote would be to re-include the copyright notice and use under fair use, but not in its current form, which due to the removal of the copyright notice would not hold up under fair use due to the "intent" portions of copyright law. Delete and re-do. [15]

I'd re-upload the image with the copyright included to remove any question of intent and ethics. Just my two cents as I deal with copyright every day, as the image stands, it will probably not hold up under fair use until that is included again. -Visorstuff 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FyzixFighter 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite our differences on Wikipedia, I sincerely wish you a happy and enjoyable Thanksgiving. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you like to use emphasis in a lot of places. (Just playing with emphasis there myself.) You've been using <B></B> and <I></I> to accomplish that. Since those are difficult to type, here's a shortcut: Double apostrophes surrounding a section of wikitext (like ''this'') will italicize it, and triple apostrophes (like '''this''') will bold it. They can be combined, so five apostrophes will italicize and bold the text. But my advice would be to be sparing with the emphasis, as it can convey an aggressiveness that you may perhaps not intend. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You twice. :) I am just an old code writer who is used to doing it that way. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to edit your comments on talk pages that are inappropriate. Please read through the comments on the village pump. An editor that makes one edit that blanks sections should not be treated in such a negative manner. Please stop misusing warnings. I will continue to revert your edits to user talk pages where you are being

Despite your contention we need to be welcoming to new users, not try to scare them off. --Trödel 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentions are very transparent; I will NOT ALLOW you to CENSOR my comments. Do not continue in this manner; I will report you for abuse of admin power. Incivility has nothing to do with QUOTING Wikipedia policy to newcomers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way; however, explaining policy by accusing a new user of vandalism is inappropriate. --Trödel 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading something into quoting one of Wikipedia's definitions of Vandalism, aren't you? I was attempting to educate a newcomer. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [16]WikieZach| talk 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it will be held for more than one day. WikieZach| talk 01:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will start soonWikieZach| talk 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i made a mistake. WikieZach| talk 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A

Per my comment above, the image of a temple recommend is needed on wikipedia (and a good addition), however, how it has been scanned is controversial - ie, the copyright information was deleted. As such, it may not qualify under fair use law [18].

As stated above, "graying out the copyrighted portion that states "©2003 IRI" makes it seems that the owner of the image knows that the image is in violation of the copyright, and knowingly removed the copyright notice (ie, the author had the intent to remove copyright notice to break copyright laws)...[the author should] re-include the copyright notice and use [the image] under fair use, but... the removal of the copyright notice would not hold up under fair use due to the "intent" portions of copyright law."

I plan to recommend that the image (pun intended) be listed for deletion tomorrow. However, I'd much rather have such an image on Wikipedia - if you could replace the image with a duplicate with the copyright info showing, we won't have to go through the VFD process. Or if you can give me a timeframe for when you plan to change the image that will work as well. Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you once already ... I have never seen one of these with any copyright notice. The one I photocopied didn't have one; I only redacted ID info and some initials up in the field. I am not concerned about the image being deleted. There are many images of them to be found online already.Duke53 | ^Talk 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your explanation elsewhere. The copyright notice has existed on every temple recommend since its current form at this size (1980s?). Before IRI it was Corp of the President. I will list it for deletion. Bummer. Cheers. -Visorstuff 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add: the copyright notice is quite small, and located in the lower right-hand corner of the "Signature of member of stake presidency or mission president" box. So it's easy to overlook, and I don't think anyone means to accuse you (Duke53) of lying about not seeing the copyright notice; you probably just missed it and redacted right over it as you were blocking out the identifying information. But do remember for future photocopying you might do to look carefully for copyright notices—that's all I'd suggest. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed:

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Let 'er rip. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your imput was given at

Removing personal attacks is a bit controversial- I'd advise you against doing things like what you did here. This comes off looking like you're removing criticism of your editing habits. Editors are absolutely allowed to criticise each other's edits- this is part of what makes the whole thing work. Friday (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not acceptable in my opinion (edit warring over the refactoring of someone else's comments). Please to not edit his comments again. If you want them to be refactored differently than they are right now, please request that an uninvoled admin do so at

WP:AN. You current behaivor is extremely provocative and is making the situation worse.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Admins don't have to be asked to delete some comments so I shouldn't have to ask that personal attacks against me be removed. There appears to be some bias by admins here. There are admins already involved who seem to 'conveniently' allow certain editors to do as they wish; if those admins won't 'protect' me I will be forced to do it myself. Be Bold !, you know? I don't find your 'behaivor' [sic] to be all that stellar either, BTW.Duke53 | ^Talk 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can support that you removed the personal attacks. I disagree with the edit war over the exact way the personal attacks are removed. So long as they are gone that is what I find important. If you really believe the exact way the refactoring is done is important, I think you should ask someone who is not curently involved in the dispute to redo it. I think an edit war over such issues is disruptive.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have a medcom case before a straw poll, I have found they dont always workWikieZach| talk 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre . For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

Thanks for uploading

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposal at

... is for you to move this back to where it began (see my comment on your talk page). Duke53 | ^Talk 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on my talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You moved it here ... you move it back. I had no problem with it being there; you suddenly saw a problem with it being over there and took it upon yourself to move it. I never saw a problem with it being there (especially after answering questions you posed there). Now you should take it upon yourself to move it back. Thank You so much for committing to 'not obstruct' such a move. Your insistence that I move it back could be seen as another incident of someone dictating what I should or should not do. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and again

Hey Duke, did you upload the photos of The New York Central Railroad? User:Paul Ittoop 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh Duke? User:Paul Ittoop 08:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not orphaned ... it was removed once for less than two hours. Why, I don't know. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple garments picture

Don't try to scare me by leaving a warning notice on my page. I deleted the picture not because I'm LDS, or care in the least whether or not the world knows the LDS "secrets" (none of which are secret any longer), but because the picture was just too big and intrusive. It doesn't belong where you keep trying to put it. It's just one form of underwear out of the many thousands that humans have worn over the centuries, and it's just not that unusual or interesting. May loom large in your eyes, but not in anyone else's.

There may an article to which that picture is relevant. If there isn't, think one up and write one. Zora 20:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to 'scare' you; deleting content can be considered vandalism. If you bothered reading the talk page you would know that the pictures had been discussed. The picture is relevant to that article, and will be staying in it. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone complained about your undergarments on

WP:DR instead, and I would suggest that you consider doing the same. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• And while you;re about it, removing content of marginal (at best) relevance, apparently promoting a controversial religion, is unquestionably not vandalism. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

In response to your report at

WP:AN3RR: Even though you did not violate the three-revert rule in the technical sense, you, too, were edit warring. Don't forget that users can be blocked for edit warring even if they make fewer than four reverts per day. Please discuss disputes rather than constantly reverting. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 04:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Both of you were edit warring, and therefore I can't exactly take up either side. If you had been trying to discuss this material and he hadn't listened, I might have reacted differently. I also might have approached this differently if you have given him a proper warning after the third revert. But at any rate: if you want the article changed, go to the talk page and discuss. You're not going to get anywhere by reverting. If you discuss, you may find a consensus emerges from other editors. Heimstern Läufer 05:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:your more recent comment: Did you think about leaving the warning before making your third revert? Then he would have definitely gotten it before his fourth. Not that I'm encouraging you to make third reverts, anyway, as that's really too many. Heimstern Läufer 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Williams discussion

I have reverted to version prior to dispute to facilitate discussion. Do you agree to this? Ebtunc2006 05:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and use of other's talk pages

Hi Duke53, I hope you are doing well - been a long time since we last interacted.

As a courtesy, please don't edit any comments (aside from your own spelling and grammar errors) on my talk page - let alone other's comments. I have restored the edits of alanyst that you deleted on my talk page. I've also placed a note showing the entired thread of your interaction with him on my talk page - I feel that the historical context of all dialogue on my talk page is important to readers of my talk page. Especially being an admin, the history of comments is quite important to me.

Most editors do not appreciate content edits on their talk pages. Feel free to control/censor/etc. your own page, but not others, doing so is against Wikipedia policies. Observing your history, you'll likely delete this comment, but thought I'd let you know. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility on User talk:Essjay

You are being incivil, whether you think so or not. These edits are inappropriate, and I encourage you to calm down. A good majority of established users have similar opinions as you, but they represent themselves in a civil manner. Please see

WP:NPA and consider this a friendly warning. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Consider me not giving a shit about your opinion. I stated facts ... deal with it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a final civility warning. Your tone on Essjay's talk page was inappropriate, your response here doubly so. If you cannot bring yourself to state your 'facts' in a civil manner, then this is not an appropriate place for you to comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Given that you decided to take another gratuitous kick at Essjay ([19]) while I was in the process of issuing the final warning above, you've obviously missed entirely the point of Bbatsell's friendly reminder and have no intention of comporting yourself in a civil manner. Consider my final warning withdrawn; I have blocked you for 24 hours and will issue escalating blocks if you continue to be incivil. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

Per my warning above, I have blocked you for 48 hours for using your userpage as a soapbox for a personal attack. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke sucks,

Duke sucks.

Thanks, User: ElinorD, but I think I will leave it up to see if anybody gets blocked.

Here's where that IP address resolves to (according to arin.net):

• IP: 24.178.78.17
• Country: United States
• City: Athens, Georgia

• Country Code: US
• Currency: USD [United States Dollars]
• Private IP? No
• Known Proxy? No

This was probably a completed assignment from the University of Georgia's acclaimed School of Journalism. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

In case you didn't notice, the "Temrec" image on your userpage is broken. I'm guessing that's why somebody cleared that line out; it's not doing anything. Certainly there's nothing there that could have offended them, considering the image doesn't exist. So although it's not always good form to do maintenance on other people's user pages, some people think it is, so your calling it vandalism might be a little disingenuous. You might want to clear it out yourself now that you know it's busted. Or you might not. --Masamage 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was only recently deleted if it is not working. When I reverted the change, the image was very much still available. auburnpilot talk 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; wrong image. auburnpilot talk 07:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

finished

I understand your complaint re MMM - please do not beat a dead horse. I can see from your talk page you remain unnecessarily confrontational. 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC) <---- written by trodel

I am only asking for a level playing field, something that is getting harder to attain around here ... hmm. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Intimidation, part II

“.…As far as removing content, it depends on what is removed, not who removed it. Anyone can edit your userpage, but it is generally off-limits. Libel, personal attacks, racist remarks, etc. can be removed at any time by any user and is acceptable under Wikipedia:User page (a guideline). Blanking content for fun is not acceptable. auburnpilot talk 07:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)”

"Oh, I see ... another rule with 'exceptions'. Glad you 'cleared' that up. Don't bother doing any 'cleanup' for me. Duke53 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"So glad to see you've learned absolutely nothing from your two recent blocks for incivility. There are very few things in life that are explicitly black or white. If you don't like exceptions, you best climb into bed and never leave. auburnpilot talk 11:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)”

Just so you know, she/he/it (s/h/it for short) pulled the same routine with me, and even got me banned once by his gauleiter, User:Physicq210, for not immediately submitting to his (AP’s) authority. Welcome to the fraternity of the about-to-be-banned. (The practice of rules applying only to certain people, and not at all to others, however, is typical of all Party members.)

BTW, since there is an entire wikicadre presently devoted to surveilling my every move, don’t be surprised to see the AP or a proxy show up here presently, perhaps even again “cleaning” your user talk page.

70.23.199.239 07:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sing it out, brother ... ever notice that when they are wikistalking someone it is described as watchlisting but never vice versa?

I am betting that the essjay scandal is hitting close to home for some of our more 'distinguished' editors. TCATASSOMB Regards !16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

legitmate editorial decisions

I came here to let you know that making legitmate editorial decisions is not vandalism. But it looks like you have a history of using warnings to intimidate new users because they are from an IP address. 24.252.101.35 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point out to me where you made "legitmate editorial decisions" and where I warned you because of it. Was it where you deleted an image with no comment? Or was it where you removed one image but left another; coincidentally, the one you removed was the one of the Temple garment (again)? Wikipedia does not allow censorship; read the talk page and discover who formatted the page in that manner. Nice try. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 13:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo on the Duke page

Duke53 - I'd like to learn what you have to contribute. If you could rephrase your post (regarding the photo) to something calmer, like, "The date and time of the photo are indicated here. The source of this information is ______ which I believe is attributable to a reliable source because ____." I promise to read it, take it seriously, and respond calmly and respectfully. I worry that responding to something that's not calm and respectful is counterproductive -- it just explodes into arguments and reversion wars. I can revert changes too, and I believe what I say as strongly as the next person, but that will get us nowhere. So somehow, we need something that we both agree on (well, not just us, but a consensus of the editors). Thus, to me, the only productive thing to do is try to build consensus -- everything else is a waste of time. If you've can provide something we agree on (like a well-supported fact), that's progress to me and I'll support it. Of course, be prepared to do the same! Cheers! Guanxi 15:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't want to learn what I have to contribute; the photo information is there on its page. I find your advice that I should 'rephrase' my post to be condescending, at best. That, and your inference that somehow I am not 'calm' when discussing this, makes me believe that you are not interested in the factual evidence but rather are simply trying to expunge this image for personal (POV) reasons. If it means so much to you, then I will suggest that you take it up a notch, and take it through the Wikipedia process at a higher level. Good luck with that; I am fairly confident that the image qualifies to be here and most editors will agree with that. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you felt my message was condescending or insulting in any way. Maybe you don't meant it, but your wording and use of italics, bold, and caps make many posts look like heated attacks. Do you want to build consensus, and if so, how? Guanxi 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help explain where I'm coming from. You said on the Duke issue talk page, I am not sure what your actually goal here is; if you are trying to discredit this image then you had better take a different tack. My goal is to build consensus and help create an excellent article. I'm not attacking you or trying to discredit anything (if you read my posts, I support publishing the photo on some grounds (including some you accuse me of opposing) and object on others). It seems like you view it all as attacks, which makes it impossible for us to move forward and agree. Really, assume good faith. I have nothing against you and respect your opinions, except the time wasted on fighting. Guanxi 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, are you an alum? I didn't got there, but several good friends did. It's a great school, with the second best hoops team in the state (just kidding!). Guanxi 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic

Main Entry: un-

Function: prefix
1 : not <uncounseled>
2 : contrary to <unconstitutional>
Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic
Function: adjective

1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : COMPREHENSIVE <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor>

— Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

Saw that image on your user page, and kind of had to. Editors need an enlightened-sounding term for "inappropriate" or "crap", so variations of "unencyclopedic" will always be around.

"Not comprehensive" is an odd argument for exclusion, though. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't threaten me

userpages of other users, you will be blocked

. written by: 24.252.101.35 (Talk) (don't threaten me)

Image:Crystal_Headshot2_3.jpg

Thanks for uploading

first fair use criterion

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another photo

I have no idea if this is helpful at all or has been brought up yet, but I don't really want to read all the previous discussions about including Mangum's photo (and don't really want to get involved), so I thought I'd just provide you with the information so you can do with it what you wish. I don't know if people have attacked the reliability of the photo released by KC Johnson because it's a blog, but The News & Observer has just released the same photo [20] (albeit at a far worse resolution). They also released a photo of her during the lineup. The caption of the photo, however, only says "Mangum has avoided reporters" and gives no sense as to the date or source. The same article also gives more details about her life including alcohol abuse, etc. I'm leaving this same message on Johntex's page. -Bluedog423^Talk 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Lacrosse articles-Crystal Gail Mangum

The article is a disgrace and betrays an intent to malign the character which flouts NPOV. There seems to be a section of people here with an axe to grind (and from your username, I'm guessing you're less than neutral) . I have read through the talk page and there are disputes about the many things in the article that fail to meet any reasonable standards of neutrality -(see for example the talk on using Tom Leykis as a source). I had only a casual interest in this story until I read the article and found it so laughably one-sided. My edits do not take one side of the story or another and still leave behind many questionable (and disputed) characterizations. I've taken nothing out that fully exonerates the duke players (and we're all happy things turned out this way for them). If the article continues to remain as is, we should all start to lose faith in Wikipedia as a reliable and neutral source without an agenda since those with axes to grind will always devote more time and energy to maintaining their slant on the subject. I'm also cross-posting this to the talk pageGomez3000adams 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove nonsense

Say NO to Censorship

You have got to quit censoring people and articles. Quit deleting legitimate comments. I will not sit by and allow you to censor me! Wikipedia does not allow censorship ... do not remove content simply because you don't agree with its publication! <--- this bit of idiocy brought to us by 71.237.2.198. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, seems you finally agree with us. I'm so glad. I completely agree that the content should not be removed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday

Duke53, why not join the discussion at

Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre about the word "Friday" being in the lead, instead of edit warring over it? If you have compelling reasons to include the word, please share those reasons in a constructive way at the talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you see my message above? A bot edited your talk page shortly after I added it, which might have prevented you from seeing that you had a new message. You've continued to edit war without discussion since then, so I'm making sure you are aware of my earlier comment. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message ... the person who is deleting the content has never to my knowledge made any comment on the article talk page; if you go through the history there you can see that I have been active there for quite a while. Perhaps a message on the other guy's user talk page would be in order. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see his participation on the MMM talk page because his signature says "Tom" instead of User:Threeafterthree. If you look for "Tom" on the talk page, you'll find it in several places. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's posting under more than one ID? Is that legal? Duke53 | ^Talk 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's got a custom signature, not a different user account, at least not as far as I can tell. If you look at his sig, the "Tom" link goes to his user page. It's as if your signature said "I am a Duke fan" (note where it links). Nothing nefarious going on; it's a bit confusing when a person's signature doesn't state their username, but it's nothing more than that. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring over the word "Friday". I will ask for administrator intervention the next time either you or Tom (Threeafterthree) adds or removes that word in the lead. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Crystal Mangum Headshot.jpg

Thank you for uploading

image description page

.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

gr 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair use rationale for Image:Crystal Mangum Headshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading

boilerplate fair use template

, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to

fair use rationale

.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

gr 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know how to do that, and don't have time to learn right now. The picture was taken by a member of the Durham, NC police department and was distributed by them. I don't know what other info is needed; I already said that on the image page. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're looking for that isn't already there ... I responded to this already on your talk page, but apparently you did not see my response. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your Personal Attacks against other Wikipedians

Please note that making Personal Attacks is against Wikipedia policy. If you wish to remain in good standing please stop your slanderous personal attacks against those whom you disagree with. This is your last warning. This message is from an ASSHOLE at 41.240.70.151 ... 33+ incidents of vandalism that were exactly the same (over the course of two days) qualifies anybody as an ASSHOLE. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address

WP:AIV. Cheers. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Laugh of the Day : A new admin saw fit to 'report' this exchange to another admin. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 04:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stalking"

I readily admit that I watchlisted you a long time ago, because you have a history of being blatantly, mind-blowingly uncivil. You'll probably be very unhappy to know that this is considered entirely appropriate under Wikipedia's stalking policy, which forbids following a user around to disrupt their editing (which you'll note I have never done), but encourages keeping an eye on people who might cause problems themselves. However, I don't usually pay attention when such stuff rolls by on my watchlist, because I honestly don't care about you that much. If you'd like me to start paying you more attention I would be happy to do so. If you want me to go away, you'll have to argue with the policy-makers, not with me, because I am within my rights and believe that you need watching. If you think I'm going to start blocking you because I dislike you, you can relax, because I'm not that stupid. --Masamage ♫ 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ... that's a load off my mind, I didn't know exactly how stupid you are. As far as you disliking me: there isn't much here that I could give a shit less about. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. --Masamage ♫ 05:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to say it. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the photo

From the comments above, it looks like the Mangum photo was deleted for lack of a fair use rationale. All pictures not released under a free license (public domain, CC, or GFDL) must have such a rationale to be used on Wikipedia. Some states do copyright police photos, so we need a rationale for them. *** Crotalus *** 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three times we have explained the rationale for this photo ... why can somebody simply decide that they don't want it and delete it without comment, and with no record of it? I am perplexed about this. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no comment on whether the photo should exist, you can find a record of the deletion in the deletion log for an page or image. - auburnpilot talk 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that your 'comment' was made when you 'reported' that the image had been uploaded again. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the things I routinely do is clear all items that are nominated for speedy deletion. The image was nominated as a recreation of deleted material. I was unsure of the need/desire for it to be deleted, so I contacted the admin who deleted previously. Personally, I think the deletion is completely wrong and that both the image and article should be restored. - auburnpilot talk 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you 'routinely' contact every admin in cases like this? Duke53 | ^Talk 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. - auburnpilot talk 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so ... but I just quickly scanned through about 3,000 of your edit summaries and didn't see one remotely similar to the 'heads up' used in this case. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the picture myself, as replaceable fair use. --Tony Sidaway 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I tagged the picture myself, as replaceable fair use" Problem being: it wasn't replaceable. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangum

As I look things over, I strongly suspect that there's someone, naming no names, who's trying to bait and frustrate people into making rash remarks. Try to not play into his hands. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should, and it doesn't do the 'undelete' cause any good if you sound as though you're editing out of personal animosity toward the subject of the article. Marieblasdell 07:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Stick to the facts. There are POV editors trying to bury the Mangum biography because it doesn't suit their ideology. In reviewing the editorial records for at least two of them, their bias, hubris, and baiting attitude are obvious. Let them hoist themselves on their own petard. They are a disservice to Wikipedia, and it's being taken notice of. Keep fighting the good fight. Ikilled007 07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ikilled & Marie, thanks for your concern, but I have not made any rash remarks ... WP is all about verifying, and everything I have said is verifiable. There is no personal animosity on my part, I just want verified facts to be known. This has been an interesting day at least. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. Did you end up getting married? That has been bugging me for a long time; you should write a book about that period of your life. :)[reply]

We get married on August 19th of this year. Thanks for asking! :) Ikilled007 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sitting here with an ear-to-ear grin! Congratulations and Good Luck to you. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with the suggestion, especially after the headache from discussing even one of your rash remarks. You've been blocked for incivility before, so you generally know the drill. I don't want to block you since you are intelligent and more than capable of being polite, but if you continue to make provocative statements and then coyly pretending that you just "want the verified facts to be known", it will happen. It might be of some small comfort for you to know that I do not intend to get involved in any editorial capacity with Magnum's article aside from the DRV vote - I simply don't care and I have no desire to get trolled by you or Ikilled007 again. Good night, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not "troll" you, sir. You clearly demonstrated bias, and then realized it and removed some of it. I resent your accusation. Ikilled007 10:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"if you continue to make provocative statements and then coyly pretending that you just "want the verified facts to be known". I did not 'coyly pretend' anything ... you read something into my comment that you wanted to see there. It is of no comfort to me that you won't be involved because I do not care who is involved, but I am not going to allow anyone who is involved to misrepresent my comments ... I will stand by what I say, but nobody else is allowed to distort my words and pretend that the facts are 'only my opinion'. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was offended by your comment and I suspect that many others would be as well. I'm sorry for threatening to block you for incivility. Goodbye, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words

Also, I thought this might interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Divine_Brown_%28sex_worker%29 Ikilled007 06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see an admin say this

"I've been pretty busy the last few days and haven't been able to keep up to date with the changes, but maybe it is finally time to request arbitration. I agree that there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what NPOV actually means, and perhaps arbitration is the way to go. In the mean time, try simply reverting the reverts. I've done that a few times, and if enough people participate, then none of us will be in danger of 3rr. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)"

This appears to be advice on how to conduct an edit war. Suppose that editor gets 10 others to do the same thing you are proposing; would that be okay too? Aren't there official routes to follow instead? Duke53 | Talk 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are official routes to follow, and I (and others) have suggested several times that the dispute will probably end up in arbitration. The issue is an editor who reverts legitimate edits with little or no comment, apparently because he doesn't like the change. He seems to have a problem understanding NPOV.

My comment was meant to convey that just because somebody reverts your change, if you feel it is without merit, then you should feel free to re-revert it, and include a note on why you are doing it. In this case, the person tends to not participate in any discussion, but then reverts back to some earlier version that he prefers - again with little or no substantive comment about why he reverted.

I hope that clears up what I meant to say. I'm running on very little sleep today, so my original comment probably could have been phrased better. ; ^) Nice hearing from you again, BTW. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it

I was just going to warn you about your repeated editorial comments about Mangum, but in looking at your talk page, I figured I had to start another warning section. Incivil editorial comments about other editors, use of red text ... this won't fly here. I suggest you tone it down--now.

96 05:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Excuse me? I've only made one revert today to that page. Get your facts straight. And again, I say cool it ... I'm thisclose to reporting you to the AN.

96 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact is, there's a way to say what you want to say in an encyclopedic manner. The way you're rewriting these articles may be appropriate for the Duke Chronicle, but

96 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

MfD nomination of User:Duke53

I've nominated

96 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Re:Image:Page colors.png

Hi. I changed

Wikipedia screenshot}} might still be more appropriate. Either way, I thought I'd notify you. --Deskana (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: Image:Unencyclopedic2.jpg

(I can't believe I'm writing about this at 3 in the morning. Excuse me for errors.) This picture has incorrect license tag; I don't think it qualifies as GFDL-self if the image consists of text quoted from a copyrighted website. There's only two sentences of text and the list part is programmatically generated, which raises interesting copyright dilemma I'm not quite familiar with, though; can such short passages of text copyrighted in first place... If it's non-free, it's an image that shouldn't technically be on User: page. It's a JPEG image that would look better in PNG; since formatting isn't relevant it should better be rendered in plain text. And the image is conceptually wrong and misses the point: while the word undoubtedly isn't in some dictionaries, it's a correctly formed word (for the record, "encyclopedic" is in the M-W). Etc etc etc...

...at this point I'm supposed to go "Hmm hmm" and stick it in

PUI, but I really wouldn't like to subject you, or your delightful image file, to the Long and Ardourous Process of Wikipedia. I believe we should try some sort of agreement first. So I ask, how do we proceed from this dilemma? Surely, something must be done. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks

I appreciate the thought.--John Foxe 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks for your encouragement.--John Foxe 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a third time, I appreciate your support. It would be nice to have some knowledgeable hands over at First Vision, but I'm afraid most non-Mormons consider the theological side of Mormonism more technical and less exciting than say, Mountain Meadows Massacre.--John Foxe 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, Duke.--John Foxe (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shea

Since Jack Shea died in that car accident I believe that BLP no longer holds sway.

Hint 1: Since the "L" in BLP stands for "Living", what makes you believe that it's referring to him? Hint 2: Who is the subject of the word "allegedly" in there? Hint 3: How is a person's blog a reliable source for anything, BLP or not?

Unless you find an actual reliable source and can show that particular spin is important, out it goes. --Calton | Talk 02:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, if you're going to be as sarcastic during the rest of this discussion as you've started out at User talk:Calton and on Talk:Jack Shea, I'd rather you didn't try to help. Gratuitous rudeness just pisses people off, and makes them rather less likely to come around to your point of view. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added a BBC News link ^[21] to each of the pages in question. Hope this helps and please let me know if I can be of further assitance in the future. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, but all that your article states is that the other driver was accused of driving while intoxicated; as can be seen elsewhere it was never proven. Therefore, he cannot be called a drunken driver. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your argument here. You seem to arguing against the information that you were previously edit warring to include. What gives? Incidentally, BLP doesn't just apply to the subject of the article; we're required to be cautious about other living people who may be mentioned. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows and understands that Jack Shea is dead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-post of dialogue which was deleted from another user's talk page

I am posting this here to show an example of how claims can be made, then not be proven and ultimately eradicated as if the claim never existed.

We seem to have a communciation problem. Foxe was warned about the 3RR on July 11. That warning also resulted in him being reported for violating WP:3RR. I warned him again on the 23rd. Both warnings are clearly observable on Foxe's discussion page under the section title 3RR violation. Please do not continue to state he only had a single warning when it is blatantly obvious that he had two warnings.

When I level an allegation I do so based upon evidence. I reported Foxe for 3RR violation based upon his continued disregard of WP:3RR. As you know, an editor does not have continuously violate, or make four violations, to result in a block. His behavior is continuous and revolves around the same edit war. His continued disregard of WP policy is aided by individuals such as yourself who do not review his activity, erroneously state he only had a single warning when he had received two, do not acknowledge his disinterest in concensus as demonstrated by his refusal to particiapte in mediation,[1] and his behavior shows no improvement. If you are going to point out errors, please make them in the original complaint, but going back and finding errors to cover your misrepresentation of fact is not acceptable. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"When I level an allegation I do so based upon evidence,". This is simply not true; a while ago you made an allegation about me using sockpuppets, based on nothing more than a 'hunch' or gut feeling. To this day you have not apologized for this false accusation against me. Duke53 | Talk 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Duke53 | ^Talk 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ford customer service.png)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Meadows massacre

Need some help over here. The history Revisionist have taken over. Tinosa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinosa (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I have been busy, but will take a look later tonight. Keep on fighting the good fight. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday and admin action

I have responded on my talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of requested admin intervention

Hello Duke53. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at no personal attack " policies. Thank you.

Here's a direct link for your convenience. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Duke53) Hello,

this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duke53, where you may want to participate.

-- alanyst ^/talk/ 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(Note: this matter has been moved from the administrators' incident noticeboard at an admin's request. Apologies for any inconvenience.) alanyst ^/talk/ 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your "clarification" to the RfC purely on the basis of protocol: in an RfC the subject (in this case, you) has a section of their own in which to respond to the complaint. You are not supposed to respond inline to what I or the other editors have written; neither are we to respond inline to your comments within your response section. I hope this clears up how the RfC works. Please feel free to state your objections, clarifications, perceptions, and whatever else you like, including the "clarification" that I reverted, within the location reserved for you. This makes it easier for onlookers to figure out what each person is asserting. alanyst ^/talk/ 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop responding to comments within other user's sections. As alanyst has pointed out, you have a section where you may respond. I've moved your most recent comment to the appropriate section. - auburnpilot talk 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Hi again, Duke53. It's no secret that I keep an eye on your contributions, and regrettably in the past I have focused almost exclusively on problems I perceived without offering positive feedback. This time I would like to compliment you on your recent collegial tone and constructive approach. I've left a note at your RfC to that effect.

I happen to agree with you about the

Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks, without the awkward dual-name style it currently has). I think The Wild Center is a good redirect so people who know it by that name can still find it, and by arriving at the properly named article would hopefully be educated about its real name. I think it might be good in the article to mention the colloquial name of the museum (e.g., "The Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks, nicknamed and marketed as 'The Wild Center', is..."). I thought about offering these opinions on the talk page of the article, but thought that might come across as provocative given our history. Hence this note. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, and do enjoy your upcoming Thanksgiving. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The little finger

The saying is (paraphrasing approximately), give a man the little finger and before you know it, he will have your arm.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Wild Center thing

I reverted your removal of "(The Wild Center)" from

Talk:Adirondack Museum. Sorry, I probably should have done it the other way 'round, but 'tis done. If you want to discuss it further, the article's Talk page probably makes the best place to do it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That Wild Center

I think that the Museum has the right to choose its own name. I see on their web site, incidently it is wildcenter.org not naturalhistorymuseumof the adirondacks.org, on their brochures, and on their advertising, in fact in every case it is called The Wild Center, and I believe it is confusing to a person searching for that name to find another name. I think that in the interest of the searcher or researcher this game of one name versus another is not serving. I owuld go with the name in use on all of this Museum's material, which is The Wild Center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 888fortune (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that the Museum has the right to choose its own name." So do I, and they did, when it was founded and funded, as the

Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"I think that in the interest of the searcher or researcher this game of one name versus another is not serving. I do not understand what this statement means. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the official name of the museum (

Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks), simply because it is factual and accurate. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

p.s. you hit the nail on the head with one thing: "... and on their advertising ..." the 'wild center' thing is an advertising campaign, which was not a unanimous decision from what I have heard. . Duke53 | ^Talk 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bearlogo.png

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

talk) 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Loonlogo.png

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

talk) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your concern about OR

I'm running out of time to type this; sorry if this is too brief. In reply to your raising the issue of the photo: as I remember the discussion, the question about OR became moot when it was pointed out that images on Wikipedia serve to illustrate points made elsewhere in the article, and should not be used alone to convey content. Because of this, as I understand it, images are not subject to the same rules of verifiability as article text is. The OR question concerning that photo became a non-issue at that point. And, as I mentioned at User talk:888fortune, I see a difference between using private correspondence as sources for an article (OR = bad) and as evidence for a talk page discussion to help editors interpret which of an article's sources might be more valid or reliable. I'm really not trying to bend the WP rules here. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I see a difference between using private correspondence as sources for an article (OR = bad) and as evidence for a talk page discussion to help editors interpret which of an article's sources might be more valid or reliable". Coincidentally, so do I! In a talk page discussion I was attempting to use private correspondence as evidence to help editors determine if the photo's source was reliable. You really can't have it both ways, unless you can show me that "images are not subject to the same rules of verifiability as article text is". I can't seem to find that little tidbit anywhere here. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in December 2006 when the photo's verifiability was being questioned, I asked a question at the Village Pump (see this) and got this response from an experienced Wikipedian. The answer made sense to me so I didn't ask for citations to the relevant policy statements, and I stopped being concerned about your uploaded photo's provenance with respect to reliability. I'm looking around now for current policy statements. Here's one: Wikipedia:No original research#Original images. I've looked around some more, and haven't run across anything else that seems particularly relevant. I'll let you know if I do spot something else. In any case, it appears that the OR policy does explicitly state that images are generally exempted from that policy, with a few caveats. I hope this is helpful to you. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Takeheart.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

==Closing in on 3RR violation==

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at

three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Ebtunc2006 (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop vandalizing Phil Ford article

Stop pushing you agenda by vandalizing this article. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed

I have called attention to your recent behavior (edit warring and incivility) at the administrators' noticeboard. Here's a link for your convenience: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Duke53 edit warring and being uncivil. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Judy htfl.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

UNC-Duke Rivalry

UNC-Duke rivalry appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.Ebtunc2006 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

---

Replacing material deleted by another editor

UNC-Duke rivalry. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.Ebtunc2006 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I meant to submit the warning based on WP:OWN, rather than WP:NPOV. I apologize for the mistake. Let's work this out with an intervention from an administrator. Does that sound fair? Ebtunc2006 (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Adding your own subtle jabs at the Helms Championship is apparent. I am deleting superfluous, redundant phrasing. I suggest we take a break from editing and allow another WP:AIV settle your biased, contentious tone towards your editing as well as your fellow Wikipedians. Thank you and best wishes.Ebtunc2006 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

==Closing in on another 3RR violation==

three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's resolve this amicably

I have suggested we have an administrator or neutral 3rd party examine our dispute on the

UNC-Duke rivalry page. You seem to be extremely familiar with the dispute and administrator intervention process, so maybe you can help me with contacting someone to resolve this dispute. I intend to adhere to the pillars of wikipedia and do not wish to edit war. I trust you feel the same. Thank you very much and best wishes as always Ebtunc2006 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Celebrations for a grey day.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our

talk) 13:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Dude

Dude, you need to chill out. I was just trying to get on Ebtunc2006's good side so he'd stop vandalizing pages. But you should stop adding POV content to pages as well. Do you disagree that both UNC and Duke have had great basketball programs? I don't see how anybody could think otherwise. Just relax and have fun. It's just wikipedia. There's no point to constantly warning people. I'm sorry if I offended you, I am just trying to make sure these pages don't continue to have constant reversion wars and remain stable and NPOV. Take it easy, -Bluedog423^Talk 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Having looked closer at your contributions, I would now say that your contributions to the UNC page are not clear vandalism and I'm sorry I suggested that. However, I still believe that the edits have a unnecessarily negative emphasis when it's not necessary or helpful to the page. We're just trying to make these pages as informative as possible and I believe that your edits have not done that. Your edits of reverting vandalism to Duke pages clearly has been helpful and it is appreciated. I just want to see positive contributions to wikipedia rather than all-out wars of saying "UNC is a very successful basketball program" vs. "UNC is a basketball program." Cheers again, -Bluedog423^Talk 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For adding "flavor" to the community and taking on the incompetent--no matter the personal cost. Eustress (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

delete nonsense

Image copyright problem with Image:AmerLegion color Emblem.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News link

I think you missed a character when you copied-and-pasted; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265374,00.html is functioning just fine, and it's the search result I got from Google. If you prefer, here's Google's cached version. —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AmerLegion color Emblem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AmerLegion color Emblem.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke53

UK does it better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.165.224 (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV inputs at

1843 polygamy revelation

requested

NPOV inputs to the articles

1831 polygamy revelation article in particular is receiving a lot of attention since its appearance on the DYK section of the main page, and many recent editors appear to be fixated on endowing it with a particular POV and deleting relevant cited information from reliable sources. If you are knowledgeable about this subject, please feel free to edit these articles yourself, or invite other editors to do so. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Abortion allegations of Smith's polygamous children at

Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.

Please see the

new section at Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI: Informal Mediation Requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

signature

Were you trying out a new signature recently, because this seemed to hork up a followon afd (only stopped by an improperly closed tag there, which made fixing it super confusing)? I'm not here to bust your chops, but if that is a new change I think it needs another closing </font> tag. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV edits at the Book of Mormon Requested

Your NPOV inputs to the article the

WP:OWN based upon the discussion at the talk page, in which one editor appears to demand that all edits be cleared by him first. Please take a look if you have a chance—it looks like a group effort to keep some facts off of the page. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Anti-Duke vandal

Hey again, Duke53. I've seen your frustration about the vandal who keeps inserting partisan shots into various Duke basketball related pages. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I've left a message on the talk page of the admin who blocked that user, and hopefully we'll see a longer block result. Just wanted you to know that folks are working on a solution to the problem you're irritated about. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 04:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Actually it's kind of amusing to me that grown (supposedly) men are still bitter about that game. The only thing that Christian Laettner 'stomped' that day was the hearts of many, many Kentucky 'fans', but that was only after he stuck a dagger in those same hearts with that tremendous shot. Greatest thing I have ever witnessed on TV ! An amusing story: about eight years ago a Kentucky 'fan' was evicted from a hotel on Long Island, NY (during an NCAA regional), simply because I had the 'audacity' to be wearing a DUKE sweatshirt in the hotel dining room. He was ranting & raving about Laettner all the while that he was near us. He made such a fool of himself that a friend of his made a special trip back to the hotel to apologize to us. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 05:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the immortal words of Adolph Rupp: "For all the money that we're paying these boys, you'd think they could learn our plays". That attitude carries over to their 'fans' to this day. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar and encouragement, Duke.Hi540 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIL World Luge Championships 2009 and the FIBT World Championships 2009

I received the following request from another user, that I will be unable to help with as I'll be in Florida when these events occur. I thought of you owing to some of the photos you have added to the Lake Placid article, in one of which you indicated that you're from Tupper Lake. If you're interested, please respond to Chris; if not, do you know any other Wikipedians in the area? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize what I am asking you will not occur until February, but since you live closer to the

Lake Placid bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track than I do, would you mind taking pictures of the FIL World Luge Championships 2009 (February 2-8) and the FIBT World Championships 2009 (February 18-March 1). Both events mentioned will take place at the track. I would like to have these images posted in their respective articles in Wikipedia if you do not mind. Chris (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

For the last few years I have actually spent very little time in the

Adirondacks; I pop in for a few days here and a few days there ... but my work keeps me away for long periods of time. If I am in that area at that time I would be happy to oblige that editor, but February usually means warmer climes for me also. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks anyway. I think I know another editor nearby. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 11:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Piercefieldsign.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing

Hey there...

I am going through a number of images that have some minor licensing issues. I came across Image:TupperLake,NY.jpg which you uploaded. The licensing on this image is not complete as it was uploaded many years ago. I wonder if you could follow the link to the image page and correct the licensing with a GFDL license (or other free license). If you have any questions or issues, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:This town.png

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My NEW BOOK--MMM

"History books about the Latter Day Saint movement" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_books_about_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Note: U. User:Tinosa/SandBox

If you have a few minutes, spend a few seconds here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tinosa/Sandbox

If you have more than a passing an interest in the MMM, you may want to contribute to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tinosa/Rescue_of_the_Mountain_Meadows_Infants_and_Early_Investigations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinosa (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bernadette-1980.png)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Bernadette-1980.png

Thank you for uploading

image copyright tag

; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

I was curious as to why you have undone my editing of a wikipedia page. SpeedyLA (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... erm, because this is Wikipedia; we are supposed to edit these articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 09:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested discussing this on your talk page. Leading me hear only to brush off my question seems odd. I was asking you what it was specifically about adding a brief explanation of proposition 8's ruling you found to be worthy of removal. Furthermore, I would like to see it you would be open to a more unbiased choice of picture. SpeedyLA (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember suggesting that we discuss this on my talk page; what I suggested was discussing it on the article's discussion page .... which we seem to be doing.

I wasn't really sure on how to answer your question ... "unless you are willing to have your comments 'mercilessly' edited " ... (I think that that is the term they use), then you may be in the wrong place, at least according to the 'powers-that-be' here at Wikipedia. Sorry. Duke53 | ^Talk 09:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I hope it is just a coincidence, but you are right that Speedy's edit history is a bit suspect, so I've requested a

Eustress (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In cahouts with another user for...

Exerting near complete control over the content of a certain wiki topics in which you have a biased, vested interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NVC

You refuse to accept the consensus of many users contributing to articles for which would create a balanced view of a topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Your tactics include reverting and undoing most changes that is made, often without explanation why. When a reasonable explanation is given by an editor, your response has typically been "reverting BLATANT VANDALISM". Impressive argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITWAR

Accusing editors of vandalism or censorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAITH

You have a history of trying to keep people from editing "your" pages by posting warnings and threats on their talk pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HUSH

The above behavior is unfortunate and should be noted for future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.64.63 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unencyclopedic2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Insensitive Term

Hi, I noticed your recent edit to the "Dook" page, and I was a little bothered by your description for your edit. As the parent of a developmentally disabled child, I never like seeing the term "retard" thrown around, and I'm sure you recognize the difference between the behavior you were responding to and true mental retardation. I hope you can avoid using terms like that in the future. Idiotic should work fine ;-) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.237.254 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

retardation; delay; a person with mental retardation; a stupid person, or one who is slow to learn; To keep delaying; to continue to hinder; to ...

(en.wiktionary.org/wiki/retard)

I was using the second definition to describe that editor's idiotic behavior; I didn't believe that that editor was mentally retarded, I just felt that he was either stupid or slow to learn.

BTW, the definition is from Wikipedia's dictionary. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you would suggest that I should use the term "idiotic" in the future:

"Idiot is derived from the Greek language and was used to classify individuals with severe mental retardation. These individuals were unable to function well enough to take care of themselves and required care around the clock. The term gradually became part of the mainstream and by the middle of the 1890s, the negative connotations prevented the term from being used by the medical community". Duke53 | ^Talk 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what 1890's vernacular has to do with today, but it's good to see where you're coming from.63.167.237.254 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in your book it's okay to refer to someone as an 'idiot' (an individual with severe mental retardation) but not as a 'retard' (a stupid or slow to learn person); good to see where you are coming from. Have a nice day. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you sure showed him 53. Par for the course.69.200.226.107 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you showed me, '69' .... par for the course, anonymous one. I am so chagrined. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on the RfC dispute?

Duke53, maybe there's a way out of the dispute between you and Hoopsphanatic. If you put {{

WP:CIVIL, I won't press for it to be removed if it is at least NOINDEXed. Then the RfC can be closed as resolved and we can all go our merry way. What say? alanyst ^/talk/ 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ive left a proposal of my own for both sides to look at (simmilar to this though a tad different in mannor) if they would like on the disccussion section on the request for comment page (sorry terrible with links RFC). The Alanyst's proposal may acheive this just as well with less work thoughOttawa4ever (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Duke53, I appreciate it. I have closed and archived the RfC. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being clear above how to do the NOINDEX thing, but you in fact did get it right the first time. You probably already know that putting {{SomeTemplateName}} in the wiki markup will do template inclusion, inserting the contents of [[Template:SomeTemplateName]] at that spot in the page. If you add the 'tl' and the bar before SomeTemplateName, it will treat the braces as literal characters and just display the template name between them (but as a link to the template in case you need to view the template itself). I think 'tl' stands for 'template link', and is a bit more convenient way to refer to a template (without including it) than the 'nowiki' tag. So, on your user page, the version without the 'tl' will cause the NOINDEX template to be included, which will have the effect of hiding it from search engines. And the version with 'tl' simply prints the NOINDEX link with the braces, and has no effect on search engines. Dunno if you care much, but in case you do, I hope this is useful. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR... not

WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

:

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The

three-revert rule

does not apply to such removals.

Nice try, though. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple garment

That is only supposed to trip when people try to remove the images, which you know as well as I do is a very common form of vandalism on that article. What precisely were you trying to do when you tripped it?—Kww(talk) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to remove that annoying link to the encyclopedia of mormonism, which doesn't allow us to freely surf back to WP after clicking it.

When was this bot added, and where is the discussion about adding it ? Duke53 | ^Talk 13:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at

Wikipedia:Abuse_filter/Requested#Muhammad_images. I was of the opinion that the consensus for image inclusion had been demonstrated over a long period, and that the filter, if working properly, is quite legitimate. I'll give removal a shot, and try to figure out why it tripped. I'm surprised you had the problem with the link, though: I examined it, and had no problems. It's got some unusual PDF usage, but nothing aside from that.—Kww(talk) 13:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at the linked discussion, it was Dragons flight. I was able to reproduce your problem, and have reported it as a false positive.—Kww(talk) 14:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Underground entrance.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Underground entrance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Unencyclopaedic.jpg

Thank you for uploading

image description page

.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

talk) 09:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

AfD

I've just nominated Beth Smith for deletion. Since you worked on it I am letting you know. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Duke University Newspaper, The Chronicle, on Duke Wikipedia Page

Hi there! I apologize in advance if this is the incorrect way to communicate with you, but I've never used "talk" before. I'm a rising sophomore at Duke University and am writing an article for the paper on Duke's Wikipedia page, and I had noticed you had edited that article. I was just wondering why you edited the page, if you have any affiliation with the University, and any and all comments you may have regarding the page. Feel free to reach me here, via email: [email protected] , or via AIM: haahaamagician . Thank you very much! Haahaamagician (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful

When someone says "quit being an ass" and removes your message from their talk page, do you really think it's useful to respond with yet another templated warning? Why not just disengage? If there's an actual problem with Storm Rider's edits, someone else can deal with it. Friday (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

three-revert rule

. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Please stop being a hypocritical Wikipedia Troll

Stop harassing me by copying and pasting various warnings into my talk page. You are not an Administrator. You have not and you will not succeed in intimidating me. BTW, you are the one who has been attacking other editors, by claiming their edits are "moronic", "childish", etc. So stop being hypocritical. HAND. 63.88.64.5 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)63.88.64.5[reply]

File:File:Garment.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. File:Garment.jpg 137.186.178.125 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC) --137.186.178.125 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Duke53 Undid my revision without any recognition of content

When you undid my recent revision to the Joseph Smith, Jr page you left a message for me that started with: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. . . ." Like the previous three people who undid my revision you failed to provide any commentary on the change I was making. You failed t include notes in your edit summary justifying why you undid my revision. Sorry, sending me a message that you are undoing a revision doesn't help me know if you actually read the before and after that I did or not.

For the record, people love or hate Joseph Smith for his religious history. The start of Joseph's religious history was completely missing from the page - the first vision. I added a very short blurb about Joseph's first vision. I took out a huge section on joseph's treasure hunting because it was in the spot the first vision should have gone. People don't love or hate joseph smith because he did some treasure hunting in his youth. The treasure hunting part was trivial to his history.

I am unsure if you actually read the revisions, however, if you have a passionate interest in joseph's treasure hunting experiences I suggest you make a new page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmgcf (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best...

...not to feed the troll. I blocked the IP address who was obviously goading you on your userpage, but please don't leave messages like this in the future. It's just giving him the attention that he's looking for — and it makes it more difficult for admins to identify the bad guy if you're using edit summaries like this one. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've also semiprotected your userpage. There's no reason for IPs to be able to edit userpage in the first place. If you have any other pages which are subject to vandalism or harrassing edits then let me know, or you can post a request at

WP:RFPP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding your question — I didn't edit what you wrote; I deleted it outright. Before you ask, no, the difference isn't just a semantic one. The former would have modified the signed words that you wrote, implying that you said words that you didn't say. It's almost always a bad idea, and usually makes matters worse. The latter, which I did, was the least inflammatory way I could think of calming the situation and handling your own understandable but inappropriate response. Creating a new user talk page – even the talk page of someone who was trolling you – with the opening "Hey moron..." isn't acceptable. Since the user was blocked (by me) and your userpage protected (by me), it didn't seem to serve any purpose to leave an insulting message on the IP's talk page. If you prefer to leave one of the standard blocked-notice templates, that would be fine.

In the future, it would probably be more effective to ask an admin for a block at

WP:AIV; you don't have to try and handle these things by yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Deletion is considered editing, no matter how you try to spin it. It is comforting to see you monitoring my behavior so closely, but perhaps you could also pay more attention to a certain few editors who are allowed to call me names and make (false) accusations against me without any free 'advice' from admins. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do, besides block the IP trolling your user page, and semiprotect the page so he can't come back?

Your behaviour was grossly incivil, but I set that aside and didn't block you (or threaten to block you, or hint at blocking you, or offer a silly template) because it was in response to obvious trolling. Nevertheless, understandable doesn't equate to acceptable, so I asked you to deal with such goading in a different way next time. You know as well as I do that calling people assholes isn't okay around here. Again, if you are having trouble with harrassment, vandalism, or trolling, you have a spectrum of options available to you, from

WP:RFArb

, depending on the circumstances.

Going through the right channels has a couple of effects. First, it depersonalizes the dispute. The problem editor gets directly handled by someone else, which means that he doesn't get any sort of thrill from making you lose your temper. (It also discourages any sort of tit-for-tat back-and-forth namecalling.) Second, it establishes a bit of a track record in a formal forum, a corpus of case history that can be referred to in the future so that admins new to the situation can be quickly brought up to speed. Finally, more admins will watchlist your userspace and talk pages in the future, which means that problems are more likely to be detected and corrected quickly — often before you're even aware of them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Nothing that happens (or has happened, including attempts to harass me through the USPS) here has ever made me lose my temper; a group of TBMs has carried out a system of false accusations and name-calling against me, with very little, if any, intervention by admins ... oddly, when I do some name calling an admin shows up like the Lone Ranger to edit, er ... delete my comments. What would ever make me want to involve them again ? Nothing ... when I reported those TBMs nothing ever came of it, except for some mild wrist slapping.

2) I'd rather be called an asshole than a hypocrite; answering in kind will be my defense mechanism ... deal with it in any way you choose. I will do what I have to do ... feel free to do the same. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you ask for assistance before? I am surprised that a broad campaign of harrassment would be ignored, and would be willing to assist you in formulating suitable requests in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:29, 28 November 2009

(UTC)

Duke Sucks

(above revelation added by User talk:76.177.132.65)

Oh, good ... just what we needed: one more moron from Kentucky (UNITED STATES KENTUCKY GEORGETOWN 38.2421 -84.5534 40324 -04:00). Duke53 | ^Talk 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am a Minnesota Gophers fan who happens to live in KY for work. As I have worked in both North Carolina and Kentucky, I can attest, there are far more rude, obnoxious, and moronic people in NC than KY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.227.37 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "warning"

I highly recommend that you do not try and play that game with me. My edit was not an "attack" on you, but rather it was a critical statement based on the means of your editing behaviour. It is nonetheless fair enough to say that you seek only to annoy, hold back and supress Latter Day Saint editors, and I gain that impression from a) your edits, you make no contribution to the articles whatsoever but simply seek to revert what you would consider "Pro-LDS" edits (remember "everyone is allowed their point of view except us") and try and talk them down and combined with this b) You are openly mocking mormon theology on your own userpage, that I find offensive and would class that as an attack myself. Yet despite this irrational behaviour you find it alright to try and lay the law down and try and "warn" me for simply speaking against you? I'd like you to leave me alone and my faith please. Routerone (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting bogus warnings on my page, I actually haven't done anything wrong. Routerone (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but these are not 'bogus' warnings, you are breaking Wikipedia rules with your actions; if you continue to do so you most certainly will be barred from editing at Wikipedia. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am I breaking the rules? You have no evidence to support such, you just removed my comment and tried to pass it off like I had removed yours when I didn't. Plus, you cannot "ban" me or judge whether I will be bannned, that lies with the admin, not with you. Routerone (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong again: if you continue to delete from articles and talk pages in your usual fashion, you will be barred. Hint: there are 'diffs' from each page which are evidence of your behavior. The banning will be done by admins, but based on proof offered by any WP editor. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again? I only deleted one comment, and that because it came across as being troll-bait rather than contributing to the discussion. I didnt revert anything else on that page other than that, so stop the "if you continue" stuff, please. Routerone (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mangum

As you know, agenda-pushing editors managed to get the page on Crystal Gail Mangum deleted and salted; however, in light of her recent arrest for arson and attempted murder, I think it's time for them to be overruled. I found one version of her name which has not been salted: Crystal G Mangum. So if you want to handle this job, I think that would be great. I don't have the free time to write an article. Also, since those editors probably read this page, you'll have to work fast, as they censor rabidly. Ikilled007 (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. This lady is a mess. She needs help desperately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Good grief. This lady is a mess". Lady ? We obviously have a different definition of what a lady is, but 20 years to life might be just the 'help' she needs. :) 05:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Using the term broadly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Issuing warnings to admins is not necessarily the wisest course of action, but we'll see. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are NOT exempt from Wilipedia's rules and will be treated exactly like other editors when they are introducing their own POV to articles. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that link even lead to any useful information now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A WP guideline tells us to leave broken links in place as other editors may have the resources to repair them. Cheers Duke53 | ^Talk 04:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

Just a few things I thought I'd mention:

1. Routerone accuses you of being a 'troll'. Your actions do seem kind of trollish, focused on countering Routerone rather than improving Wikipedia.
2. On Wikipedia, usually we use quotation marks to '''bold''' and ''italicize'' things, instead of the <B> and <I> tags.

Also, when you said "I think that I'm totally not surprised that you are disagreeing with me and supporting that editor" I assume you were referring to me? If so, then my response to your following question, "Leaving content aside, do you think that the 3RR rule can be excused from some editors, but not all?" is twofold.

1. "Leaving content aside" makes no sense. If Routerone were reverting large or significantly helpful edits, then it would be completely different. In the end, Wikipedia is all about the content.
2. Yes, I do think that systematically blocking an editor for violating the 3RR is wrong. If we wanted to, we could write it into the wiki software to do that automatically. But we don't, and there are reasons for that,
   WP:IAR
   being one of them. There are better ways to deal with the situation: discussion, mediation, 3rd opinion, etc.

...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Routerone can refer to me as a troll if he wishes, because I consider him to be just one more 'Morgbot', attempting to spew his own testament here, with the 'company's axe' to grind. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I assume you were referring to me? " Yeah, I'm sure that the mormon connection between you two never crossed your mind; it crossed mine immediately. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, I do think that systematically blocking an editor for violating the 3RR is wrong." Perhaps I'll put you on my watchlist to see how you react to other violators of the 3RR rule. I highly doubt that you are so generous in other cases. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. If you want to know what I really 'think': your signature might be the single most annoying thing on Wikipedia. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I get why you highlighted the 'think' and 'you' in your other message ;) Yes, my siggy is rather long, I've been thinking about changing it. I imagine it must get dull to those that see my comments frequently. For the record, I don't know Routerone personally, but I do admit that the "mormon connection" does make me more sympathetic towards him since I somewhat understand why he does what he does. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

Lay aside your prejudices please and stop harassing my edits on Joseph Smith jr. You have previously reverted my legitimate edits as "vandalism" and now I add some content into the article sourced from direct first hand accounts and a skeptical book "(Mormonism unvailed)" and you tediously revert me accusing me of "Point of View pushing". Sorry, but there was absolutely nothing point of view pushing about my edits. I simply added in how Smith found his seer stone in a well he dug (which is true) and how Martin Harris gave several accounts of Smith locating objects with a seer stone and how he switched the seer stones over to test Smith, and that is point of view pushing how? I am truly sick of your biased, pathetic, method of not contributing to the article but shamelessly reverting anything that doesn't fit your anti-mormon agenda. You are not the arbitrator of what goes into that page or not, so lay it off now

Ps: As you started the inapropriate reversions on me, you will be the one who will get punished for 3RR if it continues, not me. Routerone (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rr report

Regarding my 3rr report. As Routerone has apparently self reverted and bowed out from further reversions, I decided to retract my 3rr report as a sign of good faith. Please go ahead and edit the article, avoid engaging in revert wars, and be well. I suggest you let your problems with R1 pass away. However, if you must report him for 3rr, please do not reinstate my report - instead, file your own, which I will oppose unless R1 starts reverting again. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA post

Please be aware of my recent post at

WP:WQA#User:Duke53 inflammatory comments. If you're really here to help improve Wikipedia, please act like it. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

" If you're really here to help improve Wikipedia, please act like it. If by 'improving Wikipedia' you mean tolerating lying ... don't count on it. But what do you think ? Duke53 | ^Talk 05:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Duke53. You have new messages at B Fizz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Generally when someone tells me "what I said" or "what I believe" (and I know what I've said and what I believe much better than them) I call them misinformed, not a liar. Your crusade of "not tolerating lying" isn't providing any benefit to the project that I can see. So what if you've "exposed" Routerone? Now we've been "warned"? We will know we shouldn't

assume good faith of him? It all seems counterproductive to me. Why are you doing it? ...comments? ~BFizz 16:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

So, are you going on record as being tolerant of lying here ? Is lying a benefit to the project ? Perhaps the old system of "Lying for the Lord" is actually something we should strive for ? I'm doing it to stop WP from becoming another tract for the lds faithful. This isn't the 'Church of Latter-day Wikipedians'. But what do you think ? Duke53 | ^Talk 18:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Your ally Routerone lied, and is now trying (rather feebly) to explain the lie away. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If tolerant of lying is your way of saying "assume good faith", then yes. I support it. This isn't the 'church of Latter-day Wikipedians - I'm not stupid. Its these kind of statements that led me to post to the wikiquette board. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a complaint on

WP:ANI regarding your behavior. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Final warning on uncivil disruptive behavior

(on ANI and User talk:Duke53) Duke53 - Please consider this as a final warning on disruptive incivility towards other contributors to Wikipedia.

WP:NPA

are core Wikipedia policy. We expect contributors here to treat each other in a collegial and adult manner. You are clearly not acting in a constructive, collegial, or friendly manner at the moment, and it's disrupting multiple locations on Wikipedia including ANI here and now. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion here on your and others' related behavior - in a collegial, adult, and civil manner. Please don't push the issue further. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons on civility

I will take lessons on civility from you when hell freezes over. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility knows no bounds; you are a master at it. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 week for personal attacks and baiting

1. I have left a warning for Malik to avoid personal attacks and engage on pages such as

Talk:Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case

in a more polite manner.

However...

2. Your actions here were confrontational and designed to increase drama, and provoke conflict, rather than to calm down the situation and lower incivility levels. You have been warned about this. You've been blocked repeatedly. And yet this type of behavior is persisting.

Your preferred method of engagement in dispute resolution on Wikipedia appears to have devolved into poking people with sticks. That's not acceptable. Either that needs to change, or you are going to be walked out the door here by a long term or permanent block.

I have imposed a 1-week block for personal attacks and baiting other editors. Please reconsider your behavior going forwards. If you can focus on content and avoid attempting to engage on user behavior policy issues, where you have proven to make things worse over and over again, then you may well be able to have constructive ongoing participation here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

So, in effect, you are saying that I must take any and all crap that other editors wish to hand out, even if they come to my talk page to do it. The warning that I put on his talk page was legitimate; he came here to give me crap and all you did was slap his wrist ... at the least, you could have given him an official warning for his behavior, but this doesn't leave a trail, does it ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Duke53 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An editor came to my talk page and left a nasty message; I responded to it (on my talk page); an admin who was already involved in other incidents I was part of blocks me, without even giving the instigator an official warning. I guess that his stern talk to the instigator will undo years of similar behavior by that instigator. Cheers.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests should be limited to discussions of your actions, not the blaming of

other editors or the blocking admin. TNXMan 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Duke53 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Being blocked doesn't bother me a single bit ... the methodology used to do it does. Banning me for personal attacks and 'baiting' because I responded to personal attacks and 'baiting' is a kid's trick. I can give as good as I can take, but WP makes a mockery of itself every time they do this type thing; no wonder Wikipedia is such a mockery in academia: <

personal attack removed

>.

Decline reason:

Unblock declined. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Circumstances surrounding my being blocked

As time permits I will outline the events concerning my recent block. There seems to be a double standard in place here at WP. But what do you think  ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it funny?

How you warn me for repeatedly reverting someone, but you say nothing to the person who was trying to add in statements based on a youtube video, which is classed as an unreliable source here on wikipedia. Hypocricy and downright prejudice of the highest order. Wikipedia is not a resource for you, to troll mormons. Haven't you learnt anything from your last ban? Routerone (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Duke53, that it's generally considered uncontroversial for someone to

remove a comment they think was ill-thought-out, especially when nobody's replied to it yet. It's not recommended, but if it's done in the interest of reducing drama, few people are going to complain. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

help me

{{help}}

An editor (User: Routerone) deleted a 3RR report I instigated against him, and now I cannot restore it. Can someone please reign this guy in ? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs of his edits from that report:

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

Duke53 | ^Talk 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported this at the admin noticeboard. I agree that Routerone's behavior is unacceptable. You're handling this well. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is being handled on AN, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Routerone, so I've cancelled the 'help'  Chzz  ►  17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird diff at ANI

Take a look at [29]. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno how you managed that...

Hello, Duke53. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

23:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like you edited an old version of the page. In the nicest possible way, please be careful and check before you hit save! Oh, and you get this for the trouble you caused me ;). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Duke lacrosse case move

Please weigh in, if you are inclined to and have a chance, on the latest move to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

{{help}} [30] Any editor is allowed to insult me in any way; if I respond I get blocked. Please help. Duke53 | ^Talk 10:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have asked them to apologise; hopefully they will, and we can all move along. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is far from the first time and when I responded (lightly) to it last time I was blocked for one week, where he got a slap on the wrist:[31] "Malik, both your posts on Talk:Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case recently and his talk page were violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Duke53 then went off and baited you further, which I am about to go do something about given his earlier warnings, but you were off base to start with." and this:[32]:Your post on Duke53's talk page: that was a little uncivil and personal-attacky there, Malik. I did not 'go off' on him. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but the issue that you raised above, specifically, has been dealt with. A minor low-level 'attack', and an apology below. Finished, all over. No need to bring in past issues, or other issues. Time to

move along. Thanks for raising it.  Chzz  ►  07:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit summary

I'm sorry I called you stupid in my edit summary. I had already provided a source, and there was no need to add a {{

fact}} tag again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Crystal Gail Mangum's educational status (mostly because of FERPA, and sealed court records) has never been fully documented, unlike the three innocent boys' records, which were fully and widely revealed. Questions linger about how exactly she obtained a degree, having been in seclusion for long periods of time in 2006 -2007. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

ANI

Hello. I'm not sure what happened here - it looks like you saved an old version of the page, so I've undone it. If there's something worthwhile and new you wanted to add to an old discussion, the solution is to start a new thread. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Jumps the Shark

Hey Duke,

The only reason I re-posted is because I realized I hadn't signed with 4 tildes and assumed Tedder removed the post based on it not being signed. He removed it a second time, and I have not re-posted since. Interesting, though, that he seems embarrassed by the post enough to have removed it.

But I will visit him again in a year to let him know he still bears the greatest responsibility for my removing myself from WP. Having you discredit me is par for the course, but when admins are doing it it is clear WP has jumped the shark.

I doubt even you could find a site more biased than the Joseph Smith article as Tedder was not able to.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]

No Duke53, I don't mean another website biased against Joseph Smith, there are plenty of redneck Mormon-hater sites out there, I mean on Wikipedia.

Ask Tedder again for me, is there a single article on Wikipedia that shows a worse bias than the Joseph Smith one?

I'm still looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your supporting words at

new guy on a mission shows up, doesn't understand the Wikipedia process, and quickly becomes uncivil. The ultimate edits he made were acceptable, but his process in getting there was, well, the reason why many people avoid religious articles like the plague. Thanks for putting in your two cents. --Taivo (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

FAIR have provided their sources :)

Seeing this [33]. They quite obviously have ignored my request to provide me with the source, and that's their own humiliation, not mine. But that does not mean the statement I was wishing to cite is false, as FAIR is actually usually well cited ^[1] from both academic works both critical/pro LDS. Happy now? Routerone (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some editors believe they have more privileges here than others. What gives you the right to post here while maintaining that I am not 'allowed' to post on your talk page ? Hypocrisy lives on. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about an agreement that both of you stay off each other's talk page?

talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

FAIR have now provided me their sources for these statements after I criticised their lack of response:

*Roger Van Noord, King of Beaver Island: The Life and Assassination of James Jesse Strang (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 33-35,97, 102, 163, 219;

*Doyle C. Fitzpatrick, The King Strang Story: AVindication of James J. Strang, the Beaver Island Mormon [sic] King(Lansing, MI: National Heritage, 1970), 34-38;

*Milo M. Quaife, TheKingdom of Saint James: A Narrative of the Mormons [sic] (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1930), 2-8, 16-19, 92-93, 185-189.

Vandal?

I think your warnings on

WP:CITE instead of rushing into "you're about to be blocked"? The bottom line, in my mind, is that the editor was only told what not to do, not how to do it correctly. I think we as a community can do a little better.  Frank  |  talk  15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Feel free to communicate with that editor; after all these reverts by him it is fairly apparent to me that he is pushing his personal POV over & over by vandalizing that page. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, there was no disagreement about the editor pushing a POV, which is totally inappropriate. My question was your reaction to it; you labeled it simple vandalism (which it isn't), slapped a couple of templates on a talk page, and then went to AIV. I just think that a short explanation and perhaps a pointer to

WP:FIVE would have been a better avenue than the one you chose.  Frank  |  talk  17:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And what do I get for

WP:AGF? Special:Contributions/71.42.141.221.  Frank  |  talk  13:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Duke Lacrosse and COI

It looks like you've have repeated issues with the Duke Lacrosse article. Please refrain from removing relevant sourced information because of your own wish to whitewash historical fact. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeated issues with dealing with morons who can't even 'copy & paste' the actual quote; don't add your own commentary. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of "whitewashing", while insisting on including the white kids' inflammatory language, the IP conveniently left out the inflammatory language from one of the two women which preceded it and actually started the war of words. That oversight has since been corrected.[34] Be careful what you wish for!←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely agreeing with Duke53's edit. I think it's a fair edit, it include both sides' comments. My concern was with omitting the comments entirely. User InaMaka is now reverting both of our edits. Also, please be more careful with your usage of the 3RR. It requires 3 reverts of content within 24 hours. That has not occurred here. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Wives (TV series)

Hey Duke. I saw your additions to the

Sister Wives (TV series) article, all of which are good ones. Just wanted to point out that when you use a reference, make sure you put it between <ref></ref> tags, not just between brackets, because just using brackets will only make it a hyperlink within the article, and won't put it in the "References" section. You can see the change I made here for an example of what I'm talking about. Also, it would be best if you could use templates like {{Cite news}} or {{Cite web}}, but it's not required. Thanks again for your edits. I plan on continuing to follow Sister Wives, so if I can ever be of any help, let me know! — Hunter Kahn 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks ... I wondered how that worked, but didn't really understand it until your explanation. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify something

Duke, I know its easy to think that someone who doesn't agree with your additions must be your POV enemy. Well, I hate to tell you this but my involvement in this comes from having marriage/wedding related entries on my watchlist and not for any other reason. That's why I noticed the additions to Polygamy, which brought me to the reality show page. I do, coincidentally also have an interest in religion, but I do not normally edit in the Mormonism area, nor do I know particularly much about that topic. Anyway I can see that we're not going to agree about this topic area, but please understand that this disagreement does not come from some personal POV I have related to the subject matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got an awful lot of nerve coming here to post this, after deleting a legitimate warning from me on your talk page with the following edit summary: "Look in the mirror buddy ... you're a single purpose account ... editing only pages about Mormonism and it takes 3 seconds to discern your POV ... AGF what?" Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the policy and guidelines for talk pages. You may delete posts on your own talk page whenever you want. The idea is that if you are deleting them you've read them. Some people delete every message posted to their talk page. Anyway I really don't care about what you think of me. I posted here to clarify something to you. Do whatever you want with it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would rather I don't post to your talk page ever I'd be happy to oblige in the future but please state so clearly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with good faith I'm assuming that you're not intentionally baiting me but rather you're just slow; I don't care one bit that you deleted the warning; it was the edit summary: "Look in the mirror buddy ... you're a single purpose account ... editing only pages about Mormonism and it takes 3 seconds to discern your POV ... AGF what?. That was at least the third time that you were nasty towards me; I won't take much more before I make a formal complaint about your rude, condescending behavior. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The third time? I take it that when I said I didn't think you were "being honest" it was one of the first two times on your list of nasty things. What't the other one? I don't consider any of those nasty personally. The edit summary was perhaps worded in a manner that wasn't the most cordial, but it was also a reaction to your patronizing warning template that started with "Welcome to Wikipedia". Like I said. If you want to complain about my behavior there are plenty of venues to complain at. Complain away.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the last changes you made to Joseph Smith without first initiating a disscussion with you because you showed others the same courtesy. Please talk this out with me, and lets see how we can make this article better. I agree with the edit that had been made earlier, which replaced plural marriage with marriage as a requisite for exaltation according to Smith. Smith practiced polygamy, but it was rather controlled within the church, only the minority of men practicing it. Smith taught several times that those practicing polygamy under the consent of his revelation were blameless and would be saved, but it is a gross misrepresentation to say that he taught it a requirement for such. That would make the majority of his following damned, as they did not participate. The majority of his followers were sealed under his supposed sealing power, and were acting for their own salvation. See section 132 of the doctrine and covenants or the section of marriage in the fabulous work joseph smith: rough rolling stone. Please discuss this with me and lets decide on a way to make the article better. If the one version is not preferable to you, that is fine. However, your version cannot stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being that you are a chief editor of the Joseph Smith page and have mormon garments on your personal page, with no other intent other than gross disrespect, it seems a no brainer that wiki would be better served by your leaving. You run around accusing others of sock-puppetry (bias) and the hypocrisy never even occurs to you because you're too damn stupid. It scares me that people as intelligent as you have editing privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA

Don'cha just love a user like — Creightonian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ?

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... good for a laugh!

I no longer respond to sockpuppets or editors who are too stupid to use the software properly or who do not follow WP's rules. Best, Duke53 | ^Talk 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Duke53. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

FAIR is tracking your edits

Hey there - I ran across this on the Internet the other day - did you know that FAIR is tracking your wikipedia edits? I was pretty pissed off on your behalf when I saw this. [[35]] --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your concern; they have actually notched it back from a few months ago when they mentioned things about my real life.

This occurred when an editor here at WP posted revealing info concerning a few of the editors who are regarded by pro-lds editors as being their enemy. BTW, that editor is still active at WP, even though 'outing' is considered one of the worst offenses here. Best. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That does not sound kosher. Without saying too much here, how was it investigated at the time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Duke53

sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Duke53 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Here we go again ... look above and see the results of the first one (2007); page has pretty much stayed the same since then. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:3RR boy2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Hf_yte_info.png

I have tagged

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free

files in your user space

Hey there Duke53, thank you for your contributions. I am a

talk page

.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Lacrosse

In an effort to dissuade the riff-raff for a little while, I have requested semi-protection of the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's pretty famous in Durham. In fact, there's a street named after her. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Duke53 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 07:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about the continual battle over the "holy underwear" illustration? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Duke53.

In the arbitration case against you you have acused me as follows;

"Canadiandy (if he doesn't post under one of his alter egos, which are numerous)"

I did have a challenge with login once so that I had to repost as Canadiandy1 (I still sign as Canadiandy), but I do not see that this was ever deceptive. As well, I have never used an "alter ego." It would be appropriate for you to prove your position or kindly post a retraction. I would respectfully appreciate an apology as well.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]

Hey, andy (at least you managed to sign in today)

Are you saying that you've NEVER edited anonymously after registering ? Be very, very careful before you answer this. ( copy and paste are our friends, and so is the ability to save 'interesting edits' ). Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that I may have made edits without logging in early on. When I was a new contributor I was not familiar with the whole logging in, editing, posting name, 4 tilde thing). In fact, one of the complaints I had was when I was double signing in (i.e. being logged in and doing the 4 tilde thing). In reality I have rarely edited the article at all, leaving that usually up to the senior contributors who seem to know this whole thing better than I do. But what you are suggesting is that I created numerous alter egos. Your words. Your evidence, please? Before I apologize for something I did, I'd like to know more about the details.

By the way, you keep using the term, 'Cheers,' to end your communications. I'm not sure what you are meaning by this. Do you mean a polite "hope you find cheer" kind of a thing? Or is it more that you are drawing the image of cheering from a crowd? Or perhaps a more Australian type of a "See you later, friend" kind of thing? Because you seem to use it at the end of comments both kindly and unkindly. And so it seems a bit confusing given the different contexts you use it in. I only bring it up because I'm not sure if it is truly sincere. A little clarification, please?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]

I'm waiting, Duke.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]

Canadiandy, I respectfully recommend that you drop it at this point. Further attempts to coax apologies or concessions from Duke53 are likely to be viewed as baiting an editor under sanction. See below. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Duke53, I have reviewed the matters brought to arbitration, and in line with the comment by

WP:NPA. You have been blocked multiple times before, and have been editing for over five years. You should by now understand what is acceptable and what isn't. The thing that most obviously stands out is your persistent campaign to denounce Mormons on Wikipedia, such as this edit and follow on comments here. This participation is contrary to site policies. Should you wish to edit again, please post an unblock request stating what sort of productive editing you would like to do. Any administrator reviewing the matter should consult with me before processing the request. It may be advisable to place an editing restriction to keep you from getting involved in areas where you seem to have repeatedly run into difficulties. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I post this completely unsolicited by Duke53. Though Duke53 has already been blocked the following needs to be stated for the record. Duke53 is merely being attacked by a group of Wikipedia Mormon apologist, who have targeted him and others linked here [36]. The only statement in this link [37] to provide any examples is BFizz. Without examples, those above are merely saying soap boxing about Duke53. Not being their friend is not a reason to block him. Furthermore, the examples provided by BFizz are rather weak. They are merely examples of it takes two to tango. Further still yet, Analyst has engaged in the same behavior in the examples provided by BFizz. Take for example ridicule of a user name linked here [38] As for a mistreating a new user, Alanyst and Stormrider team up against User:Thewayandthelight [39] and successfully ran this insightful editor off. Alanyst and Stormrider have a record of using wikipedia manipulation techniques to supress and censor facts from wikipedia, instead of incorporating them. Editors such as Duke53 have repeated frustrated them in this. Now they are merely manipulating wikipedia to censor the editor himself. All statements against Duke53 were from Mormon apologist wikipedians. Without a state from a even a centrist editor such as John Foxe, the block of Duke53 comes off as manipulation.Mormography (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided above that proves that FAIR has targeted Duke53 and other wikipedia editors critical of Mormonism is now a dead link that redirects (presumably because I have successfully outed them here). The link can be found in search engine cache for those interested.Mormography (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your pre-emptive denial looks suspicious, as does your editing history. As a user with few to no edits outside the topic area in dispute, your opinion is not very convincing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see in your universe preemptively denying something makes the person guilty of the thing they are denying (probably because this is something you do and therefore think everyone is just like you). My analysis is convincing because my assessments are grounded in assertions backed up with several links. The topic area in dispute has to do with the motives behind silencing Duke53. My lack of edits outside of this has nothing to do with my opinion on the topic area, ergo you commit a fallacy. Also, suggesting that my edit history outside the topic area makes a person an authority and ergo capable of convincing opinions is resorting to the fallacy of proof by authority, demonstrating yet again you struggle with objective analysis and critical thought with regards to human behavior.Mormography (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

Hello Duke53. This is just a friendly notification to inform you that I have just closed an arbitration request to which you were a party, as the filing party has withdrawn it. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the request for arbitration because several arbitrators said the request was premature: there needed to be a more recent Request for Comment to see if the community could resolve the problem. Accordingly, I intend to open an RfC/U regarding your behavior. But since you are currently blocked and have indicated you have pressing real-world concerns that are keeping you away from Wikipedia, it would not be in the interest of fairness to open the proceeding while you are unable to respond. If/when you return to Wikipedia, I will ask Jehochman to unblock you for the purpose of your participation in a new RfC, or I will support any such request you make yourself. After the block is lifted I will open the RfC. If you are not willing to participate in a new RfC, then I will not support a reversal of your block since it would not help to resolve the dispute. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Racquette River.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Racquette River.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page

.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Unencyclopedice2.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Administrators' noticeboard.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Long lake fog.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Long lake fog.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gang.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gang.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated,

talk) 23:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:AmerLegion color Emblem.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Page colors.png

The file File:Page colors.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ [You just need to look at the various articles and see they are full of cite tags from numerous books and academic works?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duke53&oldid=1147967849"