Hello Cplot, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
Thanks and good luck.
Noble Skuld the Legend Killer 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the Zodiac article and debate. Please dont forget to sign comments on the discussion page with 4 tilds thus ~~~~ Lumos3 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Another vote of thanks for your recent edits. Keep up the good work. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at my comment on Talk:Capitalism. LotLE× talk 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just got curious, and looked through your contribution history a bit. I have not edited the article, and don't plan to. But it looks quite "off" to me the way you deleted such large sections of the Transformation problem, especially al the mathematical discussion. That raises a lot of red flags in my mind; it's usually pretty destructive, and not good editing behavior, to delete a whole lot of material other editors have developed. LotLE× talk 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This edit by Ultramarine borders on vandalism. [1] However, I don't want to rever it, minding the 3RR. I'd help if you restored your last edit. Thanks. 172 | Talk 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Along those lines, I can't entirely get behind your expansions of the "Marxian political economy" section. They seem to add a lot of wordiness, while not really adding much content. The topic of the Capitalism article is broader, and only the broadest brush on Marx's analysis is appropriate or necessary.... especially since the slightest addition triggers a new fit by Ultramarine and a few others, which is a big hassle to deal with. Before adding a word, ask yourself, "Is this word important enough to fight over intensely for days?" If the answer is "no", it's probably best to leave the reasonable existing explanation as it is.
I think more productively, you could help in fighting the awful nonsense that User:C-Liberal keeps adding to the very first paragraph. I don't think we need more there, but rolling it back pushes me near 3RR. If we can get several editors who automatically remove the rantish POV additions to the lead, it keeps it more stable. LotLE× talk 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please restore this edit [2]! VisionThing and Ultramarine would have a fit, and start making edits of much less relevance (or deleting large chunks of text) in retaliation. As the article seems to be stabilizing, the last thing I want to see is an edit that may provoke the partisans. 172 | Talk 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You called Economizer a "crazy person" in labor theory of value discussion page. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Economizer 01:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, do not make false charges of "vandalism." [3] Someone editing an article in a way that you don't like is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Economizer 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the wiki policy on the three revert rule. You are close to violating this policy on the September 11, 2001 attacks article.-- MONGO 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 12 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Please discuss your proposed edits when you return. JoshuaZ 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You have again been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for your reverts of September 11, 2001 attacks. Weregerbil 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked you for another 24 hours for 3RRV on the same article. Please don't do that. Please discuss the matter and don't just fight over the tag especially when every single other editor on the page finds the tag unnecessary or innappropriate. JoshuaZ 02:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You deleted another users comments on the talk page whom you disagreed with. You provdied no explanation in the edit summary, and there was clearly no violation of wikipedia's ettiquette in the users remarks. Whatrsmore, the editors edit history indicated this editor was very new (only making a few edits) so if any action was warranted (and I don't think there was any action warranted) a simple explanation of what the editor had done wrong would have been sufficient. Regardless, your intervention on the discussion page — whether appropriate or not (I think not) — demonstrates you are not a disintrested administrator when it comes to this article. You should be recusing yourself from actions related to the article: especially blodking other editors. -- Cplot 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
have you seen this discussion at the village pump?
I take POV-pushing seriously, but I am incredulous of any sort of conspiracy theory like those being presented in the Village Pump discussion. Believing that Wikipedia is slave to governmental interests is not caution, it's paranoia. This, combined with the obvious sock status of the original poster, led to my tongue-in-cheek reply.
As for paid editing in general, I am against it in principal but in actual practice I believe it requires finesse to judge. For instance, the MyWikiBiz affair earlier this year resulted in the deletion on principal of articles which were pragmatically good, and had no apparent flaws other than their being written by a paid author. (They were a little short on sources, but were much less POV than your average fan-written article on a TV show or band) If a university were to offer a grant to individuals willing to write FA class anthropology articles, would we refuse to accept their contributions? I certainly hope not. Being paid to push POV is of course different. -- tjstrf talk 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop reposting my username in your headings. If you want something done, this kind of nonsense is not the way to achieve it.-- MONGO 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:3RR...you are being nothing but disruptive at this point. I asked you nicely to not expect results for your requests if you are going to be going around adding comments about people in the talkpage headings. You have been blocked twice al;ready for 3RR on that article...and you are now at 3 reverts.-- MONGO 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not do this. [4] Comment on content, not other users. Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You're just disruptive, nothing more and I have done nothing "wrong" as you indicated [5]. Cool it.-- MONGO 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Calling people "clowns", as you did at 13:02, 28 November 2006 is not acceptable. Please refrain from these kinds of personal attacks, and focus on the article, not the editors. Morton devonshire 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why did you add a nonexistant category to the September 11, 2001 attacks talkpage? [6]-- MONGO 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What's up with the empty category? Why did you restore it? Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are my edits, but not the category. Soemthing weird is going on. My computer's boggind down a lot too. I'm going to restart it. Hopefully, if the bug is on my end, that will fix it. -- Cplot 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to have cleared up my general slowness issues. Thanks for the concern. -- Cplot 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, I do not understand your repeated hostility towards me. I have done nothing but try to reach out and be frineds with you. Sure I've made mistakes. But I've always quickly apologized for those. I would really like to be your friend here. Please tell me what I did to insult you. -- Cplot 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Cplot...I told you several times to remove a nonexistant category from the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page...you deliberately acted dumb about it. Then you added it here [8] on your own talk page. You have been nothing but disruptive and I have blocked you for one week.-- MONGO 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you would like to help there. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think he said that? Whatever. I'll see you tomorrow. -- 67.167.7.187 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo wrote:
Cplot...I told you several times to remove a nonexistant category from the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page...you deliberately acted dumb about it. Then you added it here [9] on your own talk page. You have been nothing but disruptive and I have blocked you for one week.-- MONGO 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, again I do not understand the hostsility. I've been trying to reach out to you and be friends. I wasn't playing dumb. I really don't know anything about that category. I don't even understand what it's for or how it's used for discruption. I feel really hurt by your reaction, and I don't understand how I offended you. I respect your decision though. I always try to assume good faith. And you're clearly an administrator who takes his respsonsibilities seriously. Please accept my deepest apologies for offending you. -- Cplot 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -- Tbeatty 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have extended your block to indefinite due to the evasion of your block with multiple IP's. [10]-- MONGO 06:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I can understand why you need to add the sockpuppet alerts, but did you have to blank the whole page?
Wikipedia and the CIA Saturday, April 15, 2006 How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia, Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens by Dr Les Sachs
Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the Internet
Fake Wikipedia Biography of Bush Donor Patricia Cornwell
Absurd Wikipedia "Budget" - the Giveaway of CIA-NSA Funding?
Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda operations against US citizens.
Remove 00 from middle of urls Bon Voyage
Thehappyfish 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not post those links again. Tom Harrison Talk 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. Sorry for geting miffed. It's just that I spent a lot of time here contributing material. I donated money to these clowns. And now I find out it's just to support some ridiculous Federal bullshit to control yet another media outlet. Nice policy piece you did by the way. I wish I had had that to read before contributing money. . -- Cplot 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you really intend to just use this page to continue promoting/discussing your paranoid conspiracies? -- tjstrf talk 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've protected the page so you can't use it as a soapbox. Good day. JoshuaZ 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Cplot, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
Thanks and good luck.
Noble Skuld the Legend Killer 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the Zodiac article and debate. Please dont forget to sign comments on the discussion page with 4 tilds thus ~~~~ Lumos3 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Another vote of thanks for your recent edits. Keep up the good work. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at my comment on Talk:Capitalism. LotLE× talk 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just got curious, and looked through your contribution history a bit. I have not edited the article, and don't plan to. But it looks quite "off" to me the way you deleted such large sections of the Transformation problem, especially al the mathematical discussion. That raises a lot of red flags in my mind; it's usually pretty destructive, and not good editing behavior, to delete a whole lot of material other editors have developed. LotLE× talk 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This edit by Ultramarine borders on vandalism. [1] However, I don't want to rever it, minding the 3RR. I'd help if you restored your last edit. Thanks. 172 | Talk 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Along those lines, I can't entirely get behind your expansions of the "Marxian political economy" section. They seem to add a lot of wordiness, while not really adding much content. The topic of the Capitalism article is broader, and only the broadest brush on Marx's analysis is appropriate or necessary.... especially since the slightest addition triggers a new fit by Ultramarine and a few others, which is a big hassle to deal with. Before adding a word, ask yourself, "Is this word important enough to fight over intensely for days?" If the answer is "no", it's probably best to leave the reasonable existing explanation as it is.
I think more productively, you could help in fighting the awful nonsense that User:C-Liberal keeps adding to the very first paragraph. I don't think we need more there, but rolling it back pushes me near 3RR. If we can get several editors who automatically remove the rantish POV additions to the lead, it keeps it more stable. LotLE× talk 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please restore this edit [2]! VisionThing and Ultramarine would have a fit, and start making edits of much less relevance (or deleting large chunks of text) in retaliation. As the article seems to be stabilizing, the last thing I want to see is an edit that may provoke the partisans. 172 | Talk 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You called Economizer a "crazy person" in labor theory of value discussion page. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Economizer 01:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, do not make false charges of "vandalism." [3] Someone editing an article in a way that you don't like is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Economizer 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the wiki policy on the three revert rule. You are close to violating this policy on the September 11, 2001 attacks article.-- MONGO 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 12 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Please discuss your proposed edits when you return. JoshuaZ 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You have again been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for your reverts of September 11, 2001 attacks. Weregerbil 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked you for another 24 hours for 3RRV on the same article. Please don't do that. Please discuss the matter and don't just fight over the tag especially when every single other editor on the page finds the tag unnecessary or innappropriate. JoshuaZ 02:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You deleted another users comments on the talk page whom you disagreed with. You provdied no explanation in the edit summary, and there was clearly no violation of wikipedia's ettiquette in the users remarks. Whatrsmore, the editors edit history indicated this editor was very new (only making a few edits) so if any action was warranted (and I don't think there was any action warranted) a simple explanation of what the editor had done wrong would have been sufficient. Regardless, your intervention on the discussion page — whether appropriate or not (I think not) — demonstrates you are not a disintrested administrator when it comes to this article. You should be recusing yourself from actions related to the article: especially blodking other editors. -- Cplot 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
have you seen this discussion at the village pump?
I take POV-pushing seriously, but I am incredulous of any sort of conspiracy theory like those being presented in the Village Pump discussion. Believing that Wikipedia is slave to governmental interests is not caution, it's paranoia. This, combined with the obvious sock status of the original poster, led to my tongue-in-cheek reply.
As for paid editing in general, I am against it in principal but in actual practice I believe it requires finesse to judge. For instance, the MyWikiBiz affair earlier this year resulted in the deletion on principal of articles which were pragmatically good, and had no apparent flaws other than their being written by a paid author. (They were a little short on sources, but were much less POV than your average fan-written article on a TV show or band) If a university were to offer a grant to individuals willing to write FA class anthropology articles, would we refuse to accept their contributions? I certainly hope not. Being paid to push POV is of course different. -- tjstrf talk 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop reposting my username in your headings. If you want something done, this kind of nonsense is not the way to achieve it.-- MONGO 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:3RR...you are being nothing but disruptive at this point. I asked you nicely to not expect results for your requests if you are going to be going around adding comments about people in the talkpage headings. You have been blocked twice al;ready for 3RR on that article...and you are now at 3 reverts.-- MONGO 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not do this. [4] Comment on content, not other users. Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You're just disruptive, nothing more and I have done nothing "wrong" as you indicated [5]. Cool it.-- MONGO 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Calling people "clowns", as you did at 13:02, 28 November 2006 is not acceptable. Please refrain from these kinds of personal attacks, and focus on the article, not the editors. Morton devonshire 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why did you add a nonexistant category to the September 11, 2001 attacks talkpage? [6]-- MONGO 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What's up with the empty category? Why did you restore it? Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are my edits, but not the category. Soemthing weird is going on. My computer's boggind down a lot too. I'm going to restart it. Hopefully, if the bug is on my end, that will fix it. -- Cplot 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to have cleared up my general slowness issues. Thanks for the concern. -- Cplot 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, I do not understand your repeated hostility towards me. I have done nothing but try to reach out and be frineds with you. Sure I've made mistakes. But I've always quickly apologized for those. I would really like to be your friend here. Please tell me what I did to insult you. -- Cplot 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Cplot...I told you several times to remove a nonexistant category from the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page...you deliberately acted dumb about it. Then you added it here [8] on your own talk page. You have been nothing but disruptive and I have blocked you for one week.-- MONGO 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you would like to help there. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think he said that? Whatever. I'll see you tomorrow. -- 67.167.7.187 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo wrote:
Cplot...I told you several times to remove a nonexistant category from the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page...you deliberately acted dumb about it. Then you added it here [9] on your own talk page. You have been nothing but disruptive and I have blocked you for one week.-- MONGO 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, again I do not understand the hostsility. I've been trying to reach out to you and be friends. I wasn't playing dumb. I really don't know anything about that category. I don't even understand what it's for or how it's used for discruption. I feel really hurt by your reaction, and I don't understand how I offended you. I respect your decision though. I always try to assume good faith. And you're clearly an administrator who takes his respsonsibilities seriously. Please accept my deepest apologies for offending you. -- Cplot 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -- Tbeatty 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have extended your block to indefinite due to the evasion of your block with multiple IP's. [10]-- MONGO 06:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I can understand why you need to add the sockpuppet alerts, but did you have to blank the whole page?
Wikipedia and the CIA Saturday, April 15, 2006 How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia, Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens by Dr Les Sachs
Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the Internet
Fake Wikipedia Biography of Bush Donor Patricia Cornwell
Absurd Wikipedia "Budget" - the Giveaway of CIA-NSA Funding?
Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda operations against US citizens.
Remove 00 from middle of urls Bon Voyage
Thehappyfish 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not post those links again. Tom Harrison Talk 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. Sorry for geting miffed. It's just that I spent a lot of time here contributing material. I donated money to these clowns. And now I find out it's just to support some ridiculous Federal bullshit to control yet another media outlet. Nice policy piece you did by the way. I wish I had had that to read before contributing money. . -- Cplot 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you really intend to just use this page to continue promoting/discussing your paranoid conspiracies? -- tjstrf talk 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've protected the page so you can't use it as a soapbox. Good day. JoshuaZ 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)