User talk:Brushcherry
Welcome
[edit]  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on things to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) - if you click on the
|
ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I restored the deleted comments and put your "contribution" back to where it should have been at the end of the thread. If you want to restore your comment on Godmin's Law you will have to do that yourself. --Snowded TALK 11:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- well at least i learned about the colon thing. well maybe, we'll see how this shows up. thanks for doing whatever it is you did re: my "contribution"
- hey look it worked.
- oops the signing thing..Brushcherry (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- Welcome! --Snowded TALK 09:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Capitalization
[edit]If you could start using capitalization it would make your posts a great deal easier/more enjoyable to read. I must admit I feel a degree of psychic pain when I see whole paragraphs without a capital letter anywhere in sight. Please disregard if you are E. E. Cummings. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate your concerns and in fact agree with you. I have poor typing skills, spelling skills, me not good at grammar, and am only a distance relative of LL Cool J.Brushcherry (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
in response to your question
[edit]I said that your description of the situation on the AR TP was false. Here is the description:
"the problem is, pro-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that say she is not philosopher, anti-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that says she is. anti-rand references generally are from the academia, reflecting rands lack of standing with the phd/philosophy community, pro-rand references tend to be more populist, reflecting the view that if people think she is a philosopher then she is a philosopher. both sides have multitudes of references, but neither side accepts the others references. this talk page is one long "is not! is too!"Brushcherry (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry"
What we have is not a bunch of pro-Rand editors trying to add that Rand was the best philosopher ever, never made mistakes, didn't have personal problems, suffered no criticism, or anything like that. No one who is "pro-Rand" has attempted to remove the crticism section, references to such things as her affair with branden, or the like. (There have been a few hit and run wacko editors, look at the archived section of the talk page called avalanche where I took action to stop a person who had been trying to remove all negative comments about Rand.) Neither do we even have something so simple as one side with a list of 340 references on lexis nexus that call Rand a philosopher, while the opposition supposedly has a list of 360 that say she isn't. They don't have a list of references that say Rand is not a philosopher. (That is what was the essence of what was false.) They have a list of articles that mention rand, but which don't mention the word philosopher. They describe this list of 360 articles as if it is a list of articles that say rand is not a philosopher. The articles refered to simply don't have the word philosopher in them. They might be about Rand's literary output or many other subjects. And they definitely CAN'T be articles that actually say Rand IS NOT a philosopher, because in order to say that, you have to use the word philosopher, and this is a list of articles where the word philosopher doesn't even show up.
The problem we have is that this had been a good, balanced, sourced, comprehensive and stable article up to DEC 31 when david snowden started making a bunch of wholesale deletions for which there was no consensus. He was reversed by myself and others as he satrted deleting referenced lists of people Rand had influenced, started deleting the cited reference to Rand as a philosopher, put in negative pov language to portray her as limited in influence to American fringe groups, and all out did whatev er he could to get Rand portrayed in a bad light. The problem is, snowded is ignorant of Rand's influence, ignorant of American culture, and personally highly biased against rand. He admits it on his website. He has campaigned this way on many articles. He has his view and he refuses to accept any other. So, on DEC 31 he canvassed another Brit with whom he has colaborated before, and had the article frozen because of "edit warring." the war consisted of his deletions of sourced material and additions of negative comments. The article, was frozen, and we were supposed to come to an actual consensus on changes before anything was done once the article was unfrozen JAN 6. Immediately after it was unfrozen, snowded and peter damien started in again with one sided deletions of refernced material and additions of whatever criticism they could think of, they removed all context for criticisms (For example, Buckley and Rand had a famous feud. Buckley, a Catholic, called her "godless", said she advocated sending the poor to concentration camps in Atlas Shrugged, and she called him "too smart to believe in god." The article had included his comment that she was dead (in her obituary) and that her philosphy was dead too. And there had been a footnote saying that he was catholic, and that she had criticised him for his catholicism. They removed the footnote. Note that snowded and peter damien are catholic themselves.) It is this same bunch who describe Rand a limited in imnfluence to the US right wing political fringe, but delete a list of people influenced by her that include not only canadians but also europeans, a big movie director in turkey Sinan Cetin and so forth.
So, what we have is a bunch of Objectivists with day jobs, none of whom as far as I know is assciated with or even really likes the Ayn Rand Institute, who are trying to keep this article comprehensive and free from partisan distortions, and a bunch of political and religious opponents of Rand who feel that if the article doesn't bad mouth Rand it isn't objective, because they know for a fact the she was not only evil, but also incompetent.
Forgive me going on like this! I answer here since the debate has moved on since you asked me what I referred to.
Ted. Kjaer (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, i was not aware of the history of this page. when i first started visiting there was (and still is) that "this used to be a good page" warning. as a long time fan of wikipedia, i only recently got into talk pages and creating an account. as an amatuer wikipedian, i have noted, in my short time here, the anti/pro/neutral people, despite how they would catergorize themselves. although, i just posted something else on the talk page, i am trying to ween myself off. so many rules i am probably violating. i don't want to be a jerk. keep up the good work.Brushcherry (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
Mentorship
[edit]I want to be your mentor. I don't know much, but I'll try to point you in the right direction. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your take on the Ayn Rand muddle. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- okay, thanks. do we have to formalize this is the wikipedia community? that would be my first question. i freely admit to being flippant and such. when do you cross the line? how do you add links in your rants? i mean well thought out arguments. Brushcherry (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- Welcome to the family. There is no formal process (that I know of). Let me know if you have any questions. You should know that by extension your adoptive family includes user:Drmies, user:Warrington, user:Bongomatic (don't let him near your articles, he likes to delete stuff), user:Kelapstick and user:Scapler. Feel free to ask them anything as well. I will let them know you are "one of us". If your new extended family doesn't scare you off inbreeding nothing will... Don't be flippant. And what do you mean by links? Double bracketing wikilinks, and webpage links are usually collapsed by putting them in single brackets. So anytime you want to link to a page just copy the address and enclose it in brackets. Like this [1]. If you want a quick response, it's best to post someone's page so they know you left a message. Otherwise you have to wait until someone check or it's noticed in a watch list. You can also use the "talkback" template or just post a short note saying, "I responded to your message on my page" so that conversations are kept together. What kind of articles are you interested in? We are forming a bacon cabal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I looked through your contributions and they seem very narrowly focused. Have you thought of branching out? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! And welcome to the family (I didn't know the family existed, ChildofMidnight I think I have a tear forming...no that's the jalapenos) I'm Kelapstick, but I answer to just about anything. But CoM is right, your edits are (almost) all on the talk page of Ayn Rand, not that there is anything wrong with having a Wikipedia focus, but it is best to have a couple of side hobbies (it gives you something else to do if you get frustrated). I will give you an example, my focus here is mining, I am one of the founding members of WikiProject mining and that is where I spend a lot of my time (now more watching for vandalism but sometimes making new articles and editing old ones when I can find information, but there surprisingly little reliable information on the web). In my spare time I look at Newpages for articles that need cleanup or ones that should be tagged for speedy deletion because they are vandalism or advertisements or other things. There is an actual Adopt-a-User program, but you don't have to "officially" use it to help out a new editor, so I wouldn't bother. Best of luck and if you have any questions please ask, that's what we are here for!--kelapstick (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we were here to add bacon articles. Stay focused! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is the bacon cabal coming?--kelapstick (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome from me also. I'm the guy that messes with commas. Good to have you on board. Mind you, ChildofMidnight is a flaming liberal, and kelapstick is from another country...ssshhhh...; if you need a common-sense perspective, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is the bacon cabal coming?--kelapstick (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we were here to add bacon articles. Stay focused! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! And welcome to the family (I didn't know the family existed, ChildofMidnight I think I have a tear forming...no that's the jalapenos) I'm Kelapstick, but I answer to just about anything. But CoM is right, your edits are (almost) all on the talk page of Ayn Rand, not that there is anything wrong with having a Wikipedia focus, but it is best to have a couple of side hobbies (it gives you something else to do if you get frustrated). I will give you an example, my focus here is mining, I am one of the founding members of WikiProject mining and that is where I spend a lot of my time (now more watching for vandalism but sometimes making new articles and editing old ones when I can find information, but there surprisingly little reliable information on the web). In my spare time I look at Newpages for articles that need cleanup or ones that should be tagged for speedy deletion because they are vandalism or advertisements or other things. There is an actual Adopt-a-User program, but you don't have to "officially" use it to help out a new editor, so I wouldn't bother. Best of luck and if you have any questions please ask, that's what we are here for!--kelapstick (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Cookies! | |
| Yes, welcome and ask anything you want, if I can I will help Warrington (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you all. I will look into the info you suggested. i have pause, however, regarding exactly how pro-bacon this group is. i certainly enjoy bacon, however, if this is some sort of applewood smoked bacon cabal that apparently controls the casual dining industry in the usa, and somehow has an interest in the ayn rand philosopher debate, please let me know now. further, how picky are you about capitalization? it's a weakness of mine..but seriously ...i'm a long time wikipedia visitor, the ayn rand page was just the first time i investigated the talk page. so that has kept me busy the last few weeks. before i branch out, i'd like to see how this arbcom thing goes. i'd like to see how that plays out before i start challenging other stuff.Brushcherry (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
did you ever pick any of that sirius up at 7 cents? Stevewunder (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Page protection
[edit]Page protection is done by an administrator. It's all at WP:PP--kelapstick (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Basically, if there is editing back and forth and an ongoing dispute, an admin protects the page, usually in the worst possible state. This encourages brief hair pulling followed by a cooling down period after which anyone left when the protection ends returns to work on the article. It also focuses the discussion on the talk page, where people can rant back and forth until they are blue in the face. After sufficient venting the worst offenders are usually tired out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Advise
[edit]Please read this, you may also want to talk to your mentor who manages to avoid this sort of behaviour. Its not impressive and really not helpful to your cause --Snowded (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- what sort of behavior? edit-war on a discussion page? if i am a "troll" leave my posts for the world to see. and i will be condemned as such.
Brushcherry (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- You are a new user so I am trying to help. You need to address content issues on the talk page, and stop making provocative personal remarks. When people simply delete your comments its a sign you have gone too far and (possibly) that they simply can't be bothered to report the behaviour (Don't feed the Troll is a good plan). You might want to look at the two bans received by Stevewunder to get an idea of limits. --Snowded (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- odd though that snowded, idag, and tallnapoleon are the ones deleting my stuff. Brushcherry (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- and none of those three ever delete content related discussions from any editor. This is nothing to do with sides, its wikipedia and something you just need to learn. --Snowded (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- and i have never deleted anything from the ayn rand page. the fact that you think deleting stuff from the ayn rand talk page is ok blows my mind. please see my comment........oh wait.. it was deleted....let me guess...your content related issues just happen to revolve around ayn rand being a philosopherBrushcherry (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- You need to read the substantive material. The question of what she is called, philosopher or not, is an interesting question of citation and policy with wider implications for Wikipedia which is one of the reasons I am interested in it. If policy allows limited citation support then I will accept the label. You really need to stop imputing motives here. There are substantial issues on content of the article other than the use of the word philosopher and major issues on the behaviour of editors which has resulted in Arbcom intervention. None of that has anything to do with the sort of material you are inserting (and which is being deleted) which has nothing to do with content is troll like in nature. If you don't want to learn that is fine, I am trying to respect the fact that you are new to this and may not understand things. However if you don;t want to listen that's fine, I will leave off trying to help. --Snowded (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- what is the substantive material? My question still stands (despite it being deleted) why does your content related issues revolve around ayn rand as a philosopher? same goes for kjear. please stop trying to pretend this is about wikipedia policy and not about your personal opinion on ayn rand.Brushcherry (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- There are a range of personal opinions about Rand, most editors have them in respect most articles. What matters is how you abide by wikipedia procedures. You either don't, can't or won't put the effort in so I will leave you to it. You can take a horse to water ....
- please sign your posts..its wikipedia procedure.Brushcherry (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
I suggest working on other articles and checking in on Ayn Rand now and then. Good luck and god bless. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:
[edit]This seems to be a real difficult subject, Ayn Rand. Which edits do you think of that they have been deleted? I can’t find them. But usually no one should delete anyone else’s edits, unless they are really non-relevant for the subject. Like I love Ayn Rand. Or if they are uncivil something , like you are an idiot, fascist jerk and need urgent mental care (an example).It is all in the talk page policy, it is there, linked on every talk page. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Warrington (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Warr I think you are still very sleepy. Here's one of the edits: [2] and here's another [3]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No not sleepy, I have to much to dooooo. Maybe this part made people stressed:"ayn rand was a female that wrote dribbish that ... There are a lot of unhappy people over there.
But this one is legitimate.:
lets just delete everything. that's constructive. thanks idag and tallnapopleonBrushcherry (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
I added some stuff on the talk page. Hope it will help. Warrington (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, that one is NOT legitimate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. i guess i felt the "discussion" page was a more open forum. i realize that you should be polite, but more vigorous debate would be allowed. its not like i'm editing the ayn rand article itself. i think you are right though, i just recently got into "editing", and have been fixated on the ayn rand article.Brushcherry (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) brushcherry
- Brush, discussion pages are for the discussion of article improvements. One of the big problems at Ayn Rand (and lots of other articles) is the dispute and debate that goes on that isn't realted to sources and content. I may seem a bit stifling, but thems the rules. Discussion of the merits of the underlying subject, other editors and other stuff is discouraged as unhelpful to building an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- attempting to branch out..Guaraní Aquifer....i just deleted stuff...mentioned it on the talk page...no one has been there for two years.Brushcherry (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
Fun stuff
[edit]
|
The Cherry Impact Award | |
| I hereby award you this Cherry Impact Award for your incredibly delightful sweetness |
Warrington (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- is that a good thing or a bad thing? i am so lost with the wikipedia jargon.Brushcherry (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC) brushcherry
It´s just a fun thing, that I found a template about cherries. Usually everything which looks like this, is a good thing. Don’t be sad, you just happened to chose the worst article in the whole place, to edit. What are your other interests? Fishing, banking, gardening, or?
- history, law enforcement, espionage, that sort of thing. i have never fished, i do have a bank account, and have weeds in my yard. Brushcherry (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- ))
This article needs a cleanup,:Espionage and Lucy spy ring and the Battle of Heavenfield some might need attention...
well, will you take a look at them, what do you say?
Warrington (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- well i would probably get in the same trouble with the espionage page as the ayn rand page, there seems to be alot of editors with their own opinions, all of whom can probably whip out a reference if they had to. the lucy spy ring and the battle of heavenfield have no comments on talk pages and just reference a book or two. although i have a general (and limited) knowledge of ayn rand and of espionage, at least i have a frame of reference. the other two cases, well i have no idea. with no frame of reference, can i delete stuff because the references are not up to snuff? or do i need to do my own research (backed by references of course) and become an expert on the lucy spy ring? your continued input would be appreciated.Brushcherry (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
Sure, but please remember that the Ayn Rand page is a an extremely difficult subject, as somebody pointed out, it was at the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, which is the supreme court or the court of last resort on Wikipedia, and what happened on the Ayn Rand page was bad for you. Don’t let yourself scared of, there are plenty of good and interesting pages to edit, much less vicious than the Ayn Rand discussion.
Warrington (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A nice suprise
[edit]Here is something for you to read:
You are welcome to edit Ayn Rand!
Warrington (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- thanks....it's been an educational experience.Brushcherry (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
BLOCKQUOTE:
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
- TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
- SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
- Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
- Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Ayn Rand Arbcom
[edit]thank you for for your input. as a new editor, being involved with an arbcom case has been an an enlightening experienceBrushcherry (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- I'm glad you found it that way, and I do hope you take to heart the advice about broadening your editing interests. Too often new users start editing in a controversial subject area, and then get bogged down in conflict. With a range of areas in which to edit, if things get stressful one can just do something else for a little while. --bainer (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Brushch, some editors are happy to argue endlessly. I recommend staying focused on adding content, editing articles, and discussion that focuses on specific article issues as much as possible. It's more fun then getting bogged down in the petty feuding. And most importantly, always remember to: Do as I say not as I do. Ha ha. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom new comments
[edit]User:TallNapoleon has opened a new discussion on misconduct on the Ayn Rand talkpage. Here is a link.[4] Please respond if you can, as the editing group I am addressing is doing nothing positive for the article but rather is being disruptive, obstructionistic and destructive. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- would like to help but i suck at wikipedia technical stuff....can't figure ut how to to respond.Brushcherry (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- It was closed and achieved so you can't add anything. Net result was a short block for Love Monkey --Snowded (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)