Please do not modify.
ARCHIVED: Dick Clark 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck! Dave 06:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Do you think you could post your evidence that Lew Rockwell released his picture? I'd like to use it for the libertarianism article, too. Thanks in advance.
Could you please give us more information about the ownership and source of the images that you have posted? They seem to come from copyrighted websites. As you may not know, Wikipedia uses as GFDL license, and so all material must be freely available for any commercial and non-commercial use. I we don't hear from you we will have to blank them. Thanks for your help and for your contributions to the project. Cheers, - Willmcw 07:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Related to the above, would you mind also providing a source for Image:Stephankinsella.jpg. Cheers, Burgundavia 08:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Images need to be released under the GFDL or similar license, allowing for any use, commercial or non-commercial. If the copyright holders are willing to do so, please indicate that fact on the image pages. Thanks, - Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:38 (UTC)
I believe I have taken care of this issue...- DC 5 July 2005 14:59CST
I saw your comment on the new VfD. Whilst quite lengthy, it is at least informative. I dropped by to say that, as the 'original' author, you are entitled, and almost expected, to vote keep, although the closing admin may or may not count your vote. - Splash 18:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of warez groups for an ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion of the List of warez groups article. — RaD Man ( talk) 05:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings - as an active participant in the ongoing edits to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article, I wanted to inform you that I have started a "Request for Comment" (RfC) proceeding over this article in light of continued disruptive and abusive editing behavior by two other participants there. The RfC is located at the link here [1]. In case you have not participated in an RfC before, it is the first step after the talk page in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process for articles in which an agreement cannot be easily reached (outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). I decided to initiate this RfC over the actions of two users who I believe to be seriously impeding the constructive development of this article into an encyclopedia-quality description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In one case the editor's behavior was long term. In the other, the editor responded to negotiation efforts I initiated with him on the talk page with unprovoked personal hostility against me, which in turn led me to first warn him of the potential need for an RfC and then follow through as his belligerence continued. I am hopeful that this process will assist in working out the differences that exist on the LVMI article and help to direct the responsible editors toward making their future contributions in compliance with the neutrality mandate and with other Wikipedia standards and policies.
You are also welcome to contribute to this RfC, and as a participant in the LVMI article development your participation here may be beneficial. To those who are unfamiliar, participants may contribute by endorsing (or declining to endorse) the RfC case regarding the problem users as stated. Endorsements should be placed here [2] per the RfC page's instructions and entail the use of a tilde signature in the normal fashion. RfC participants may also contribute by way of discussion of the RfC case and all pertinent materials here [3]. A formatted area is also provided on the RfC for the named editors to respond to the complaint. Thank you for your continued work on the LVMI article and for your patience during this process, as it is my hope that we will be able to produce an agreeable quality product upon its conclusion. Rangerdude 00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. Unfortunately a few of the usual suspects are also trying to disrupt this process and dismantle work being done to better the article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 18:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
As you are a member of the Mises Insitute, might I suggest that it might be appropiate to recuse yourself from editing articles related to the Mises Insitute, such as Lew Rockwell, to avoid the possible impression of conflict of interest?
I just re-read your laughable defense of the 'conservative' Cindy Sheehan lol! Man, she sure jumped the shark in a hurry, huh? Sorry things didn't work out for her like I'm sure you and her liberal friends would have wanted. Now she's gone and started eating her own. Today she was trashing one of the two left wing senators in California. I think the Jewish one. Interesting...she hates Israel and hates Diane Feinstein. Is that the real reason why Lew Rockwell is so sympathetic? Just curious... Big Daddy 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow! I can't believe HOW MUCH I'VE GROWN as a Wikipedian since I posted this. Hope all is well... Big Daddy 09:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I justify my edits on the following: Inflammatory does not equal non-neutral, as it is an entirely subjective description. If the truth offends, then there is obviously some bias on the part of the one who is offended; and in this case, the truth is that Lew Rockwell is an ideologue who's willing to allow lies about the American/Japanese situation in World War 2 and the matter of the American Civil War to be posted on his website in order to justify his views about it, rather than conforming his views to the facts. Now for your specific objections:
"'The site also hosts screeds against the United States' participation in the Second World War, hopeful if unrealistic speculations about an end of the United States as a cohesive nation, and accusations of fascism on the part of the free world.'(Emphasis added)"
The word " screed" is in no way inflammatory by itself; it is an accurate description of the articles in question. Further, the article I posted on the future breakup of the United States is wildly unrealistic; for starters, even presuming that a breakup did come to pass, there is no way that the states would break up along the lines specified; economic, political, and logistical realities dictate that this is so simply because of the nature of the commercial relationships between several of the states depicted as joining separate factions. California, for instance, would not only never join with decidedly more conservative Arizona and New Mexico; it would experience massive loss of electrical service as energy from Oregon and Nevada is cut off. Secondly, no rational person could expect that to happen any time in the near future; I could have justifiably called it a pipe dream, because that's what it is. As for "free world," it's a common description for the West and liberal democracies in general; I have absolutely no idea how you consider it inappropriate. Rogue 9 16:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW, the convention is to not link individual years, only full dates. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. Cheers, - Willmcw 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one! Gator (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I misread more information than was there for him. My apologies. -- Emersoni 23:44, December 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oddly user:Theblacklarl claims to be Walter Block, but from his other edits it appears more likely that he is a high school student. However his edits are mostly not what we'd call Wikipedia:vandalism. It appears that he may soon violate the 3RR. Or he might be blocked for disruption as he's posted nasty notes on some user pages. Not to worry. This guy will either come around, self-destruct, or lose interest. Cheers, - Willmcw 18:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
As you can all see, the user DickClarkMises has made numerous comments regarding me. I will not insult him here because I do not want to be kicked off of Wikipedia. Please just know that I see things very differently from him. Again, my name is Sean Christopher Marinara and I am a college student at Holy Cross. Dr. Block used to teach here, and I learned about him through that. My friends and I are all libertarians. We have personal information about Dr. Block that we learned from his former colleagues here at Holy Cross. When I tried to post this information, some users, including DickClark, deleted it. The information is 100% true. I ask that you please carefully consider the situation before making any decisions which might be considered rash. (unsigned post by
User:Theblacklarl)
Everyone, look at the discussion page for Walter Block. You will see that the information I posted about him was correct. This proves the lack of knowledge on the part of DickClarkMises. He used his prejudice against italians to lead to trying to exclude my factual informtion from the redcord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl ( talk • contribs)
Owen, you're both rude and unhelpful....and a bully. You clearly spend a lot of time (probally all of your time) on this website but that doesn't give you permission to give people who have actual lives a hard time when they don't do everything just the way you want it. Stay away from my posts. Proudly signed by ~~TheBlackLarl
Everyone look above? Notice the untruths that DickClarkMises has put forth? Let me give you an example. I never claimed to be Walter Block. I am a student of Holy Cross, a CATHOLIC university. Now maybe some here have a problem with that...I know not. 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)~TheBlackLarl
No rush about editing articles - they'll still be here next year. Have a great holiday. Cheers, - Willmcw 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Gadget850 has started User talk:Gadget850/BSA article improvements as a step toward improving the BSA section of Wikipedia. Please visit this page and participate if you are interested or cross yourself out of the "Interested Wikipedians" if you are not interested. Thank you. Rlevse 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I have now completed the transition from state list to articles on Scouting in each state, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards, for merger and improvement of articles. Please help fill in some blanks at Scouting in Alabama! Thanks, YiS, Chris 09:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you see this proposal? Scouting Barnstarn -- evrik 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add the category Category:Living people into articles. It is the most silly category I have ever seen here and it will be soon defeted due to CfD. Such additions only make Wikipedia look like garbage bin. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 02:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well... yeah. It's a little piece of trivia that sure dates me. I must have seen it on CBS News with Walter Cronkite.... cheers! Mytwocents 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's describe him as 'libertarian' then, and avoid the left/right issue. The problem with that to my mind is that as a European (and an anarchist) 'libertarianism' is for me synonymous with the tradition also called anarchism, which is generally seen as left. This is how the term is mainly used (or in Spain the cognate 'libertario') outside the US, and thus I generally refer to US libertarian-party style 'libertarians' as 'right libertarian' in order to distinguish. I'm aware that too isn't perfect giving your belief that your position is 'beyond left and right', and the page on Raico is probably not the best place to start a major debate on it. A better idea would be to make the issue clearer on the libertarianism page. Bengalski 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say greetings to a fellow libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, who carries concealed! :-) Lawyer2b 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, sorry about the deletion of the "Living People" category at the Bill Gothard article. My reasoning came from browsing other similar articles (e.g. ones in the "Christian Leaders" category) and not finding anyone else with the "Living People" category; guess I thought it kind of farcical to have it in this particlar article alone (well, not "alone," but you know what I mean ^^).
...Almost as if it were a category where you'd put people who were rumored to be dead, but confirmed otherwise. XD Ahwell, always happy to be corrected! Thanks, Weien 06:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Get well and be back soon. You'll be missed. Cheers, - Will Beback 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
don't be a d-bag we're here for the knowledge and learning...everything here should be judged on its consequences...do you want that user to just go back to going around and engaging in vandalism or do you want the user to become a productive member of the wikipedia community...its freaking idiots like yourself who ruin this site...get a frekin life and read a book while your at it (unsigned comment by User:140.247.43.84)
sorry my friend was being an asshole on the library computer...please accept our apologies no offense was meant whatsoever... (unsigned comment by User:140.247.43.84)
I made the following post to Lew Rockwell's page:
While no one claims that Lew Rockwell posts specifically anti-semetic material on his own webpage, LewRockwell.com, he has been criticized for posting the material of Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review (an organization which denies the occurance of the Holocaust.
This being my citation:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014604.php
DickClarkMises, if you do not think this should be posted, will you help find an administrator who can make a judgement?
At this point I will also provide a link to this book by William F. Buckley
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082640619X/103-9413957-9216660?v=glance&n=283155
In the book Buckley identifies Joe Sobran as an anti-semite.
16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
I hope the gang over at LvMI is suitably amused that you've corralled me into defending Lew Rockwell. - Will Beback 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I just removed your 3RR report [5]. Sorry, but there have to be *4* reverts, see WP:3RR. Feel free to re-add it if you can find 4. But if you do, please list the IPs that are causing the problem. A quick glance at the article history didn't look like there were 4 reverts. William M. Connolley 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it might be a good idea for you not to edit articles pertaining to the Mises Institute and/or its friends/enemies? EnforcerOfNeutrality 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)EnforcerOfNeutrality
I'm hoping that you immediately remove the reference that you are currently campaigning for public office from your userpage...see WP:NOT, especially Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider and also, to a lesser degree, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-- MONGO 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I should find a new hobby? What hobby would that be. You've heard Morgan Reynolds speak...so? You called them crazy and now refer to the information as stupid. Okay. Please remove the webspam link to your political campaign from your userpage.-- MONGO 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Clark, I want to apologize if I have upset you with my tone. My interpretation of policy does not seem to be what the concensus seems to indicate. I don't care about your politics, or whether you are in the midst of a political campaign. I am concerned about Wikipedia's appearance and it worries me that you link your current campaign website on your userpage. I personally see this as doing nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia. I stumbled into your website after our disagreement and, well, I've been around awhile and I never saw anyone who linked to their campaign website like this before. Now, I don't know a thing about your editing and apparently this is no big deal as no one has brought any problems regarding that to light. Not that my admiration or appeasement is of any importance to you, but it would surely be completely restored if that link wasn't on your userpage. This is my final comment to you on this matter.-- MONGO 12:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't vandalise the Joseph Sobran article. Thanks.
21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) User:CaliforniaDreamlings
Your comments are irrelavant...Wikipedia is not supposed to express popular opinion, but rather the truth. My edits of the Joe Sobran article are legitimate because they are facts. Besides, what "community"? are you talking about. It's pretty obvious that just as many editors support my edits as the Sobran defendors' version. -Roger
I thought your above comment was for me. But just for full disclosure, I'll post here the comment which you left on my talk page which the above is responding to:
Please work towards consensus on the article talk page. Your previous edits have, for the most part, been viewed as attempts to push a POV. A little extra effort in arguing for your edits would go a long way in helping other editors collaborate with you. Cheers, Dick Clark 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC) -Roger
I assume this was vandalism: [11]. Please revert me if it wasn't. - Will Beback 00:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've dealt with you before. Essentially you spend your entire day going through Wikipedia articles trying to make fit Lew Rockwell's vision. It's wrong, and it violates the principles that the Wikipedia was founded upon. Why don't you leave the Wikipedia alone. Why do you want to pervet facts to promote racism and anti-semitism? Why do you want to want to disrupt the flow of information? Please stop. I'm sure Lew could use some help keeping food away from himself so he can loose some weight. -Roger P.
in every Wikibattle you get into, you are always on the opposing side of Jewish interests. You act like Joe Sobran is some effin hero----he has stated that he thinks Jews as a people, not as supporters of Israel, but as a people, are diametrically opposed to the interests of the US as a whole (and this need to be removed). Shame on you FOR DEFENDING ANTI-SEMITIES!!!!!!
User:CaliforniaDreamlings 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, it seems the community mostly agrees with the version which states that Sobran was fired for anti-semitic behavior. I don't see what the issue is to be honest with you. User:TheDookieMan
Yeah yer damn right I left that at another user's page. It's because you and DJac75 have something in common. You constantly, and I mean every time, go with the anti-Jewish side. So I'm giving you an opportunity to explain it. What is your explanation for this?
06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC) CaliforniaDreamlingsCaliforniaDreamlings
I'm done prattling around. It's clear that DJac is an anti-semite and you are an apologist for them. You should be ashamed of what you are. It's sick that you're even able to edit these Wikipedia boards. Grow up and realize that we're all one people. Stop singling out minority groups and using them for target practice.
~CaliforniaDreamlings
Wikipedia has a rule which dictates that users are not allowed to enact more than 3 reversions in the space of 24 hours. Please do not break this rule. Thanks, TheDookieMan 04:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan
I'm baffled by your bafflement: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] are easy enough to find. William M. Connolley 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, good, in that case I shall now unblock you. Please remember (its a hard lesson, it took me a long time) that even getting close to 3RR is a bad idea. Almost always there is a better way. William M. Connolley 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Haha, the autoblocker catches all, even when it shouldn't. You're unblocked now (I hope). William M. Connolley 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! Thank you for supporting / |
| |
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON! |
I'm guessing that the only rodent problem is obtaining enough of them. - Will Beback 10:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Please do not modify.
ARCHIVED: Dick Clark 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck! Dave 06:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Do you think you could post your evidence that Lew Rockwell released his picture? I'd like to use it for the libertarianism article, too. Thanks in advance.
Could you please give us more information about the ownership and source of the images that you have posted? They seem to come from copyrighted websites. As you may not know, Wikipedia uses as GFDL license, and so all material must be freely available for any commercial and non-commercial use. I we don't hear from you we will have to blank them. Thanks for your help and for your contributions to the project. Cheers, - Willmcw 07:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Related to the above, would you mind also providing a source for Image:Stephankinsella.jpg. Cheers, Burgundavia 08:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Images need to be released under the GFDL or similar license, allowing for any use, commercial or non-commercial. If the copyright holders are willing to do so, please indicate that fact on the image pages. Thanks, - Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:38 (UTC)
I believe I have taken care of this issue...- DC 5 July 2005 14:59CST
I saw your comment on the new VfD. Whilst quite lengthy, it is at least informative. I dropped by to say that, as the 'original' author, you are entitled, and almost expected, to vote keep, although the closing admin may or may not count your vote. - Splash 18:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of warez groups for an ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion of the List of warez groups article. — RaD Man ( talk) 05:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings - as an active participant in the ongoing edits to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article, I wanted to inform you that I have started a "Request for Comment" (RfC) proceeding over this article in light of continued disruptive and abusive editing behavior by two other participants there. The RfC is located at the link here [1]. In case you have not participated in an RfC before, it is the first step after the talk page in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process for articles in which an agreement cannot be easily reached (outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). I decided to initiate this RfC over the actions of two users who I believe to be seriously impeding the constructive development of this article into an encyclopedia-quality description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In one case the editor's behavior was long term. In the other, the editor responded to negotiation efforts I initiated with him on the talk page with unprovoked personal hostility against me, which in turn led me to first warn him of the potential need for an RfC and then follow through as his belligerence continued. I am hopeful that this process will assist in working out the differences that exist on the LVMI article and help to direct the responsible editors toward making their future contributions in compliance with the neutrality mandate and with other Wikipedia standards and policies.
You are also welcome to contribute to this RfC, and as a participant in the LVMI article development your participation here may be beneficial. To those who are unfamiliar, participants may contribute by endorsing (or declining to endorse) the RfC case regarding the problem users as stated. Endorsements should be placed here [2] per the RfC page's instructions and entail the use of a tilde signature in the normal fashion. RfC participants may also contribute by way of discussion of the RfC case and all pertinent materials here [3]. A formatted area is also provided on the RfC for the named editors to respond to the complaint. Thank you for your continued work on the LVMI article and for your patience during this process, as it is my hope that we will be able to produce an agreeable quality product upon its conclusion. Rangerdude 00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. Unfortunately a few of the usual suspects are also trying to disrupt this process and dismantle work being done to better the article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 18:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
As you are a member of the Mises Insitute, might I suggest that it might be appropiate to recuse yourself from editing articles related to the Mises Insitute, such as Lew Rockwell, to avoid the possible impression of conflict of interest?
I just re-read your laughable defense of the 'conservative' Cindy Sheehan lol! Man, she sure jumped the shark in a hurry, huh? Sorry things didn't work out for her like I'm sure you and her liberal friends would have wanted. Now she's gone and started eating her own. Today she was trashing one of the two left wing senators in California. I think the Jewish one. Interesting...she hates Israel and hates Diane Feinstein. Is that the real reason why Lew Rockwell is so sympathetic? Just curious... Big Daddy 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow! I can't believe HOW MUCH I'VE GROWN as a Wikipedian since I posted this. Hope all is well... Big Daddy 09:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I justify my edits on the following: Inflammatory does not equal non-neutral, as it is an entirely subjective description. If the truth offends, then there is obviously some bias on the part of the one who is offended; and in this case, the truth is that Lew Rockwell is an ideologue who's willing to allow lies about the American/Japanese situation in World War 2 and the matter of the American Civil War to be posted on his website in order to justify his views about it, rather than conforming his views to the facts. Now for your specific objections:
"'The site also hosts screeds against the United States' participation in the Second World War, hopeful if unrealistic speculations about an end of the United States as a cohesive nation, and accusations of fascism on the part of the free world.'(Emphasis added)"
The word " screed" is in no way inflammatory by itself; it is an accurate description of the articles in question. Further, the article I posted on the future breakup of the United States is wildly unrealistic; for starters, even presuming that a breakup did come to pass, there is no way that the states would break up along the lines specified; economic, political, and logistical realities dictate that this is so simply because of the nature of the commercial relationships between several of the states depicted as joining separate factions. California, for instance, would not only never join with decidedly more conservative Arizona and New Mexico; it would experience massive loss of electrical service as energy from Oregon and Nevada is cut off. Secondly, no rational person could expect that to happen any time in the near future; I could have justifiably called it a pipe dream, because that's what it is. As for "free world," it's a common description for the West and liberal democracies in general; I have absolutely no idea how you consider it inappropriate. Rogue 9 16:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW, the convention is to not link individual years, only full dates. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. Cheers, - Willmcw 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one! Gator (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I misread more information than was there for him. My apologies. -- Emersoni 23:44, December 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oddly user:Theblacklarl claims to be Walter Block, but from his other edits it appears more likely that he is a high school student. However his edits are mostly not what we'd call Wikipedia:vandalism. It appears that he may soon violate the 3RR. Or he might be blocked for disruption as he's posted nasty notes on some user pages. Not to worry. This guy will either come around, self-destruct, or lose interest. Cheers, - Willmcw 18:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
As you can all see, the user DickClarkMises has made numerous comments regarding me. I will not insult him here because I do not want to be kicked off of Wikipedia. Please just know that I see things very differently from him. Again, my name is Sean Christopher Marinara and I am a college student at Holy Cross. Dr. Block used to teach here, and I learned about him through that. My friends and I are all libertarians. We have personal information about Dr. Block that we learned from his former colleagues here at Holy Cross. When I tried to post this information, some users, including DickClark, deleted it. The information is 100% true. I ask that you please carefully consider the situation before making any decisions which might be considered rash. (unsigned post by
User:Theblacklarl)
Everyone, look at the discussion page for Walter Block. You will see that the information I posted about him was correct. This proves the lack of knowledge on the part of DickClarkMises. He used his prejudice against italians to lead to trying to exclude my factual informtion from the redcord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl ( talk • contribs)
Owen, you're both rude and unhelpful....and a bully. You clearly spend a lot of time (probally all of your time) on this website but that doesn't give you permission to give people who have actual lives a hard time when they don't do everything just the way you want it. Stay away from my posts. Proudly signed by ~~TheBlackLarl
Everyone look above? Notice the untruths that DickClarkMises has put forth? Let me give you an example. I never claimed to be Walter Block. I am a student of Holy Cross, a CATHOLIC university. Now maybe some here have a problem with that...I know not. 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)~TheBlackLarl
No rush about editing articles - they'll still be here next year. Have a great holiday. Cheers, - Willmcw 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Gadget850 has started User talk:Gadget850/BSA article improvements as a step toward improving the BSA section of Wikipedia. Please visit this page and participate if you are interested or cross yourself out of the "Interested Wikipedians" if you are not interested. Thank you. Rlevse 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I have now completed the transition from state list to articles on Scouting in each state, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards, for merger and improvement of articles. Please help fill in some blanks at Scouting in Alabama! Thanks, YiS, Chris 09:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you see this proposal? Scouting Barnstarn -- evrik 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add the category Category:Living people into articles. It is the most silly category I have ever seen here and it will be soon defeted due to CfD. Such additions only make Wikipedia look like garbage bin. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 02:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well... yeah. It's a little piece of trivia that sure dates me. I must have seen it on CBS News with Walter Cronkite.... cheers! Mytwocents 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's describe him as 'libertarian' then, and avoid the left/right issue. The problem with that to my mind is that as a European (and an anarchist) 'libertarianism' is for me synonymous with the tradition also called anarchism, which is generally seen as left. This is how the term is mainly used (or in Spain the cognate 'libertario') outside the US, and thus I generally refer to US libertarian-party style 'libertarians' as 'right libertarian' in order to distinguish. I'm aware that too isn't perfect giving your belief that your position is 'beyond left and right', and the page on Raico is probably not the best place to start a major debate on it. A better idea would be to make the issue clearer on the libertarianism page. Bengalski 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say greetings to a fellow libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, who carries concealed! :-) Lawyer2b 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, sorry about the deletion of the "Living People" category at the Bill Gothard article. My reasoning came from browsing other similar articles (e.g. ones in the "Christian Leaders" category) and not finding anyone else with the "Living People" category; guess I thought it kind of farcical to have it in this particlar article alone (well, not "alone," but you know what I mean ^^).
...Almost as if it were a category where you'd put people who were rumored to be dead, but confirmed otherwise. XD Ahwell, always happy to be corrected! Thanks, Weien 06:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Get well and be back soon. You'll be missed. Cheers, - Will Beback 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
don't be a d-bag we're here for the knowledge and learning...everything here should be judged on its consequences...do you want that user to just go back to going around and engaging in vandalism or do you want the user to become a productive member of the wikipedia community...its freaking idiots like yourself who ruin this site...get a frekin life and read a book while your at it (unsigned comment by User:140.247.43.84)
sorry my friend was being an asshole on the library computer...please accept our apologies no offense was meant whatsoever... (unsigned comment by User:140.247.43.84)
I made the following post to Lew Rockwell's page:
While no one claims that Lew Rockwell posts specifically anti-semetic material on his own webpage, LewRockwell.com, he has been criticized for posting the material of Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review (an organization which denies the occurance of the Holocaust.
This being my citation:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014604.php
DickClarkMises, if you do not think this should be posted, will you help find an administrator who can make a judgement?
At this point I will also provide a link to this book by William F. Buckley
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082640619X/103-9413957-9216660?v=glance&n=283155
In the book Buckley identifies Joe Sobran as an anti-semite.
16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
I hope the gang over at LvMI is suitably amused that you've corralled me into defending Lew Rockwell. - Will Beback 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I just removed your 3RR report [5]. Sorry, but there have to be *4* reverts, see WP:3RR. Feel free to re-add it if you can find 4. But if you do, please list the IPs that are causing the problem. A quick glance at the article history didn't look like there were 4 reverts. William M. Connolley 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it might be a good idea for you not to edit articles pertaining to the Mises Institute and/or its friends/enemies? EnforcerOfNeutrality 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)EnforcerOfNeutrality
I'm hoping that you immediately remove the reference that you are currently campaigning for public office from your userpage...see WP:NOT, especially Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider and also, to a lesser degree, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-- MONGO 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I should find a new hobby? What hobby would that be. You've heard Morgan Reynolds speak...so? You called them crazy and now refer to the information as stupid. Okay. Please remove the webspam link to your political campaign from your userpage.-- MONGO 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Clark, I want to apologize if I have upset you with my tone. My interpretation of policy does not seem to be what the concensus seems to indicate. I don't care about your politics, or whether you are in the midst of a political campaign. I am concerned about Wikipedia's appearance and it worries me that you link your current campaign website on your userpage. I personally see this as doing nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia. I stumbled into your website after our disagreement and, well, I've been around awhile and I never saw anyone who linked to their campaign website like this before. Now, I don't know a thing about your editing and apparently this is no big deal as no one has brought any problems regarding that to light. Not that my admiration or appeasement is of any importance to you, but it would surely be completely restored if that link wasn't on your userpage. This is my final comment to you on this matter.-- MONGO 12:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't vandalise the Joseph Sobran article. Thanks.
21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) User:CaliforniaDreamlings
Your comments are irrelavant...Wikipedia is not supposed to express popular opinion, but rather the truth. My edits of the Joe Sobran article are legitimate because they are facts. Besides, what "community"? are you talking about. It's pretty obvious that just as many editors support my edits as the Sobran defendors' version. -Roger
I thought your above comment was for me. But just for full disclosure, I'll post here the comment which you left on my talk page which the above is responding to:
Please work towards consensus on the article talk page. Your previous edits have, for the most part, been viewed as attempts to push a POV. A little extra effort in arguing for your edits would go a long way in helping other editors collaborate with you. Cheers, Dick Clark 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC) -Roger
I assume this was vandalism: [11]. Please revert me if it wasn't. - Will Beback 00:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've dealt with you before. Essentially you spend your entire day going through Wikipedia articles trying to make fit Lew Rockwell's vision. It's wrong, and it violates the principles that the Wikipedia was founded upon. Why don't you leave the Wikipedia alone. Why do you want to pervet facts to promote racism and anti-semitism? Why do you want to want to disrupt the flow of information? Please stop. I'm sure Lew could use some help keeping food away from himself so he can loose some weight. -Roger P.
in every Wikibattle you get into, you are always on the opposing side of Jewish interests. You act like Joe Sobran is some effin hero----he has stated that he thinks Jews as a people, not as supporters of Israel, but as a people, are diametrically opposed to the interests of the US as a whole (and this need to be removed). Shame on you FOR DEFENDING ANTI-SEMITIES!!!!!!
User:CaliforniaDreamlings 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, it seems the community mostly agrees with the version which states that Sobran was fired for anti-semitic behavior. I don't see what the issue is to be honest with you. User:TheDookieMan
Yeah yer damn right I left that at another user's page. It's because you and DJac75 have something in common. You constantly, and I mean every time, go with the anti-Jewish side. So I'm giving you an opportunity to explain it. What is your explanation for this?
06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC) CaliforniaDreamlingsCaliforniaDreamlings
I'm done prattling around. It's clear that DJac is an anti-semite and you are an apologist for them. You should be ashamed of what you are. It's sick that you're even able to edit these Wikipedia boards. Grow up and realize that we're all one people. Stop singling out minority groups and using them for target practice.
~CaliforniaDreamlings
Wikipedia has a rule which dictates that users are not allowed to enact more than 3 reversions in the space of 24 hours. Please do not break this rule. Thanks, TheDookieMan 04:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan
I'm baffled by your bafflement: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] are easy enough to find. William M. Connolley 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, good, in that case I shall now unblock you. Please remember (its a hard lesson, it took me a long time) that even getting close to 3RR is a bad idea. Almost always there is a better way. William M. Connolley 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Haha, the autoblocker catches all, even when it shouldn't. You're unblocked now (I hope). William M. Connolley 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! Thank you for supporting / |
| |
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON! |
I'm guessing that the only rodent problem is obtaining enough of them. - Will Beback 10:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)