User talk:Trojancowboy

Welcome!

Hello, Trojancowboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Janet Reno, you will be blocked from editing. Anastrophe (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Raoul Lowery. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:Anastrophe., you will be blocked from editing. your arguments are specious. you are providing no WP:RS as reference. you've also vandalized my user page, rather than posting your claim to my talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

butcher of waco

your source does not corroborate your claim, and is therefore unreliable. Anastrophe (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, as a WP:BLP, your desire to add offensive material to the biography is trumped by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"yahoo hits" is not a reliable reference, and cannot be used as such. your claims are specious. STOP. Anastrophe (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Janet Reno. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hqb (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Please do not make reports to WP:AIV for content disputes. AIV is for reporting vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I investigated your edits; I find that your allegation that Janet Reno is 'widely known as the Butcher of Waco' is unsubstantiated. The reference you give says that "a small number of Branch Davidians" refer to her as that; the number of hits for the phrase on yahoo and Google is very small for an alleged popular phrase.

As above, please use the article's talk page to resolve disputes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself warned that further reversion of the article Janet Reno will result in a block for violation of the three revert rule. The vandalism exception does not apply in this case. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Raoul Lowery. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Curtis LeMay. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Katharine Burr Blodgett, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

magnetic flux density

That article is part of a series on "orders of magnitude." See the template on the right. Please don't move it.

Thric3 (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic hydrogen

Your revert of my merge, calling it 'vandalism', was not appropriate. A while ago I found an old article called nascent hydrogen, and decided to merge it as it hardly got any attention under its previous title. Since atomic hydrogen is the same thing as nascent hydrogen, it should also be merged, and into the same section in hydrogen. This is what I did. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Atomic hydrogen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over page Atomic hydrogen

To try to stop this dispute, please see Talk:Atomic hydrogen#Merge with page Hydrogen?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the text to the hydrogen article simply moved the dispute there. WikiProject Elements has been notified of this dispute and will try to resolve in favor of the best article quality. --mav (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sylvia Stolz

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —BradV 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "Brooklyn Book Festival"

The deletion of an article you created, Brooklyn Book Festival, has been proposed for the following reason:

No third-party sources, no assertion of notability.

You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of William Pomerance

A tag has been placed on William Pomerance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. FlyingToaster (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to William Pomerance. Thank you. Hey there Trojancowboy. Thank you for your contribution of the article on William Pomerance. However, please take note that information added to Wikipedia must be sourced by reliable, third-party sources. Writing that Pomerance is a "Communist" and a Jew without citation is inappropriate and has been corrected. Walt Disney making a claim that Pomerance is a communist in an interview, while himself admitting that he had no evidence, does not mean that Pomerance is a communist. It means he has been accused of being a communist only. Please feel free to contact me if you need any help or clarification. Thank you! FlyingToaster 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in inappropriate external links that add no value to the article for the purpose of "being useful for expanding the article" should not be done. The last time i deleted i did it one at a time so that it would be clear why each one had to go. This time i mass deleted because the record of the reasons remain. Please see the external links [|policy]. [|This] may also be helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Butz

Per reliable sources and accordingly, the overwhelming consensus from an issue discussed countless times, the correct terminology is Holocaust denier, not revisionist. Please see the archives of Talk:Holocaust denial.
You, like many others who bring forward that quote, are plucking it completely out of context. Here is what Stephen Some said regarding it:

It really is incredible how these idiots can take what you say out of context. However, rest assured, my comments were the following, "These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything THEY say with facts and figures." Yes, I should have added "alleged facts and figures," however, I did refer to what THEY say. Therefore, I feel comfortable with the comment because my implication is the facts and figures according to them, which of course are entirely false.

Note that you have already reverted the page three times within 24 hours - if you do so again you will be probably blocked for edit warring. If you are unable to grasp the above points then this will be taken to a more visible place. WilliamH (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strain (mechanics) article

You are proposing the strain (mechanics) article. This topic is already included in Deformation (mechanics). Strain is no different than deformation. I redirected the strain article to Deformation. There is no point of an article on strain. How would you fill that page? all the content about strain is already addressed in the Deformation article. sanpaz (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my computer

the nc6000 is infamous for being crap:

link to hp support board about it

nevermind im going to stick with my eeepc for a while, thanks Decora (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The price of tea in China (and kalium in America)

Although not an official policy, we've been trying to avoid adding price info to element articles. The reason is that it changes from year to year, month to month, from supplier to supplier, and is both quantity (and more importantly) purity-dependent. By the time you get done with that matrix of variables, it's impossible to keep up with. So better not to go down the road at all. Even if we decided on "ACS REAGENT" grade for all our elements, it's not defined for a lot of them. And then do we want prices of foil compared with shot or ingot.... Really, you don't want to do this. Trust me. S B H arris 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about the constant change in prices. However price information gives the reader a ballpark feeling for the item involved. An accuracy of 50% where available is vastly better than no idea at all on price.Trojancowboy (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't honestly say you're even doing that. How pure is the potassium you're talking about? And what made you chose that purity? As a long-time buyer of elements, I know very well that there is no even approximate answer to these question. But let's start with potassium. Exactly how pure is ACS reagent potassium metal? Do you know? Is it even known? Reagent grades usually defined by their impurities, not their purity. And the $700/kg stuff from GalliumSource you quote is for 98.5%, which is certainly not reagent, but an industrial grade. http://www.mcssl.com/store/gallium-source/potassium-metal/0085---potassium-metal-1-kilogram If you want 99.5% potassium from Aldrich, in 20 g cubes you'll pay $2 a gram for it, which is $2000/kg. The 99.995% in ampules is $492 for 25 g which is about $20,000 a kg. See the problem? And call me Steve. S B H arris 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Grbutter.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Grbutter.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chelene Nightingale

A tag has been placed on Chelene Nightingale, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Buttergr.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buttergr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Buttergr.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buttergr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Archibald Roberts

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Archibald Roberts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ttonyb (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on the talk page, but I still did not see enough to suggest that this passes A7. If you think you can show more importance, bearing in mind that if the article is to be kept in the longer term it will have to pass the higher standard of WP:Notability per WP:Notability (people), reply below here and I will userfy it for you to work on. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, I saw this message, the deleted article, and your reply, and found your reply way out of line. Naturally, we get upset when our work is removed, however, your work consisted of one line and one reference. Please take writing on wikipedia more responsibly and do avoid attacking its editors. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eight legs = all arachnids

Hi Trojancowboy, thanks for your contribution to Tick. However, since all arachnids have eight legs, I thought it was a little redundant to have that leg number info in the lede, so I reverted your edit. It's no big deal – just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Accedie^{talk to me} 05:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Accedie's talk page.

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Ghez9.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Ghez9.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

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

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:Ghez9.jpg. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word libellous

I need to ask you to make it explicit that in using the word libelous you have no intention of taking any legal action. I assume you don't, but I need to ask you and you might want to read WP:NLT to understand my request. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on another talk page you say you have no immediate plans. That's not enough, please make it clear that you have no plans to take any legal action or encourage others to do so. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've raised this at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat. You need now to make it clear there that you are not intending to take any legal action or encourage others to do so. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making very thinly veiled threats to attempt to take steps intended to be likely to result in legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Editing Block

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

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

Request reason:

This is an arbitrary block for no good reason. I correctly observed that falsely characterizing someone as a White Supremist in a biography of a living person is grounds for Wikipedia being sued for libel. I don't know what rights that I have to sue over such a manner but I may have some rights to sue for such treatment as this.Trojancowboy (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't get unblocked by making legal threats -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appeal of Improper Editing Block

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

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

Request reason:

I have made NO threats to sue Wikipedia. I have correctly observed that a charge in the biography of the living person "Jamie Kelso", that he is a White Supremacist, is libelous. Pointing out that Wikipedia could be sued by Kelso is not a threat of legal action. I posted a "dubious" notice there which resulted in me being blocked. That "dubious" tag was removed without a proper discussion of this issue. This is abuse by whoever blocked me from editing. Trojancowboy (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia works by consensus, this means that all dispute should be solved through discussion. If you believe that something violates WP:BLP, there are many venues where you can discuss the issue. Editors making legal threats are blocked because these threats have a chilling effect and short-circuit Wikipedia consensus-building processes. This edit had a serious chilling effect; therefore, I am uncomfortable unblocking you unless you explictly retract it and undertake to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods, which include neither the threat to contact other people so that they sue Wikipedia or its editors nor the threat to be the one actually suing. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may want to read this Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. In a WP:NLT block, the only way to have the block lifted is to acknowledge that you realize we have a No Legal Threats Policy, that even implied legal threats count and that you rescind any and all explicit or implied legal threats. Otherwise you will not be unblocked. Please read up on that policy page. He iro 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Block Appeal

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

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

Request reason:

I see now that I was in error for failing to know the proper procedure for reporting serious violations of WP:BLP . Other editors ganged up on me and caused my overreaction to defend myself. We are confusing cause and effect here. The behavior of these other editors had a rather chilling effect on the WP:BLP discussion as well. It seems to me that there is plenty of blame to go around. Most of my edits are in technical and scientific areas where such controversies do not usually happen. I have had over 1,100 edits with no such problems before. I am not familiar with all the details of how to handle these matters.

Perhaps it would have been better not to bring up the matter of libel action against Wikipedia in the first place. I did so to stress the importance of adhering to WP:BLP in order to prevent this. Perhaps you would want someone to defend you in your own biography when a libelous or untrue statement was being challenged. I have never spoken to Jamie Kelso nor communicated with him before. I came to this page for the sole reason of finding a link to one of his past internet radio shows. I didn't get what I came for.Trojancowboy (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't look like a clear legal threat retractment and a promise to make no legal threats in the future. Combined with WP:NOTTHEM in this very request, I see no grounds to unblock you so far. Max Semenik (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the guy's article talk page, you made the rather outlandish claim that "there is no such thing as a white supremacist". It didn't take me long to find a KKK page in which they clearly state that whites are intended by God to be His "chosen people". That is the notion of "white supremacy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Devil's Advocate, if that is the case, I can get you equally good evidence for Mormon Supremacy and Jewish Supremacy from the same type evidence. Considering one's clan to have been specially chosen by god for his favors, is about the most common human delusion I know of. If that is all you mean, most cultures have some of it. Indeed, America was colonized on it (you should read what John Winthrop and Cotton Mather had to say about the "election" of the puritans by god). However, there are connotations in White Supremacy that go quite beyond the idea of being specially chosen by god, or favored by god, or whatever. The Nation of Islam has classically been black supremacist in that (worse) sense. The real probablem is that everybody means something different by such phrases. S B H arris 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harris is absolutely correct. I am sure that I can find other references to Japanese Supremacy or Chinese Supremacy. If Baseball Bugs claims that Kelso is a member of the KKK, he has put Wikipedia at great risk. No group that I know of which Kelso is a member would admit to being White Supremacist. Why was all this discussion not carried out on the section of the talk page that I started instead of banning me for bringing it up?Trojancowboy (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so much what Kelso or the groups he belongs to say about themselves, but what WP:RELIABLE sources say about them. As for the groups he belongs to, Kelso either is or was a member of National Alliance [1], which is described by numerous reliable sources as a white supremacist organization(NY Times, Boston Globe and ABC News for a few). Kelso is also a member of the American Third Position Party, also described by reliable sources as a white supremacist organization(SPLC, Yahoo News, Charleston Gazette and Business Insider for examples). And these aren't even the sources that have been found and added to the article on Kelso that specifically call him a white supremacist. He iro 05:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am NOT claiming he's a member of the KKK. I'm taking issue with your statement, "There is no such thing as a White Supremacist. No organization that I know of wants to rule over other races." The KKK is exactly such an organization, and they openly admit it. So your assertion is false, on its face. And you didn't "bring it up", you made a blatant legal threat. That is absolutely against the rules. If you want to edit here again, you must retract and refute your legal threat. And lose this "libel" stuff. If you think there's a BLP violation of some kind, on the article talk page you say, "I think this is a BLP violation." Although, keep in mind you're essentially arguing over which kind of racist he is. Blecch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in an earlier unblock request, you stated, "I may have some rights to sue for such treatment as this." No. You don't. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. You have particular topics of interest here, and you've been editing for 4 years. You need to recant your legal threat, totally and unconditionally, and stick with subjects you know something about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging your hole pretty deep here, pardner. Baseball Bugs neither said not implied anything of the sort. I notice that you've been an editor since 2007. I'm more than inclined to assume good faith here, and chalk up your recent block to a temporary lapse of competence. Everybody is entitle to a brainfart once in a while. In the event that your latest unblock request is denied, as it probably will be, take a week off to cool down before you resubmit. You stepped on a big-ass policy landmine, and you're going to need some time to figure out what exactly happened, and then to revuerate. That's just my friendly advice, which you can take or ignore as you please. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1997? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrected. Like I said, everybody's entitled to a brainfart now and again. ~~

What's up, Doc? is absolutely correct. I am arguing over exactly what type of racist that Kelso is. I am sure that Kelso would not object to being characterized as one but I do not presume to speak for him. Why was all this discussion not carried out on the section of the talk page that I started instead of banning me for bringing it up? (edit conflict caused paragraph duplication)Trojancowboy (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been, had you not started the discussion with a false premise and then proceeded to throw legal threats around. And until you refute any and all legal threats, you won't be editing again, and unless you get serious about this, they might take away your talk page privilege also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read WP:NOTTHEM - regardless of what "other editors" have or have not done, the key to being unblocked is to discuss your actions and how you will avoid repeating the situation in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you still have not made any attempt at retraction. Tiderolls 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this post, Jamie Kelso has not replied to my email regarding his thoughts on his biography. I don't know that this address is monitored. The phone number on the Voice of Reason website has not answered in several attempts.

We have gotten a little off topic. We are not editing a biography of Heinrich Himmler, of Blessed Memory. We are discussing a lynching of an established editor by a gang of editors on their own agenda. This all started when I correctly inserted a dubious tag on Jamie Kelso because of a potentially libelous remark. This mob has failed to adhere to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

How about this threat from someone who acts like that they own Wikipedia?

And until you refute any and all legal threats, you won't be editing again, and unless you get serious about this, they might take away your talk page privilege also. Baseball Bugs.

Perhaps Baseball Bugs should be blocked instead of me.

Wikipedia is a tax exempt foundation. It seems to me that they endanger their exemption if they take a particular political point of view. It is time to reinsert my dubious tag and discuss the issue.Trojancowboy (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "particular point of view" here, certainly none taken by the foundation. That is precisely why we have a "reliable sources" policy. There is probably room for discussion and compromise over the underlying issue, but there is certainly no wiggle room over NLT - it is part of the community culture that if NLT is broken your feet will not touch the floor. I have suggested that your user talk page editing is restored, if that is done, and you agree to rescind any legal threats and avoid even the appearance of making legal threats in the future, you will likely get unblocked. That will avail you nothing, however, if you make comments like the above. Nor indeed, in the longer term, if you try to edit confrontationally rather than co-operatively. Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

A few words of advice

If you want to be unblocked, you need to retract your legal threats. As I and others have argued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you clearly and unambiguously sought to give the impression that legal action was likely, apparently in the hope of intimidating others into not continuing to oppose your campaign to impose your preferred version in the article. You also clearly and unambiguously expressed the intention of calling the matter to the intention of someone who, according to your account might take such legal action. However, even if you can somehow still deny that doing so was a legal threat, this edit contained an explicit statement that you were yourself contemplating the possibility of taking legal action. It would be very easy to retract both of those legal threats. If you are not contemplating either taking legal action yourself or inviting participation by another person who you think may take legal action, then why not just say that you aren't? It really is that simple. If, on the other hand, you are still contemplating one or other of those two things, then Wikipedia's policy requires that the block stay in place.

Also, I will make a suggestion that I hope may help you on another issue, though it is not part of the reason for the block. You have defended your attempts to remove references to "white supremacy" on the grounds that "No group that I know of which Kelso is a member would admit to being White Supremacist". However, there is no earthly reason why Wikipedia should start restricting itself to reporting only facts about people which they avow. To the best of my knowledge Heinrich Himmler never said that he oversaw and organised the murder of millions of people. Do you think therefore that we should not mention the fact that he did? The opening sentence of the article Harold Shipman says that he was "one of the most prolific serial killers in recorded history", despite the fact that he denied all the murders with which he was charged. Should we remove from the article all reference to his murders, on the grounds that he did not admit to them? Under Wikipedia's current policy, whether people "admit" to being white supremacists or not is irrelevant: what matters is whether reliable third party sources say so. When you have been unblocked you are, of course, free to start a campaign to change Wikipedia's policy if you like, so that we start reporting about people only those things that they choose to have reported, but unless and until such a change happens, "No group that I know of which Kelso is a member would admit to being White Supremacist" will carry no weight at all.

Finally, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by consensus. Many times I have disagreed with other editors about things. There have been occasions when I have been totally convinced that all the other editors involved are mistaken, and I have been right. On such occasions I have explained why I thought the others were mistaken, but if they have persisted in sticking to their view, I have simply walked away, and found some other area of Wikipedia to work on. Better that I spend my time on work which will achieve something useful than that I waste that time banging my head on a brick wall that will still be there when I have finished, even if I am right. Some Wikipedians edit in subject areas where conflict is continually present, others edit in less controversial areas, and rarely get into conflict. However, few if any people who edit Wikipedia frequently will always be able to have things the way they would ideally like. Better to accept the fact that, if consensus is against you, it is time to leave the issue and move on.

As you can no doubt imagine, it has taken me some time to think out and write down those three pieces of advice. I hope that you will consider them, and perhaps one or more of them will be helpful to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anybody really wanted to see this guy mend his ways and retract any legal threats, blocking him from editing his own talkpage certainly did not help (of course it does encourage him to now become a socker so he can say something in his own defense, and then we can block him again and again for that! Fun, fun!) This is a nice example of cyberbullying of a newbie by admins. Nice job. Let's now preserve it all in aspic in a "discussion closed" example box, which is WP's equivalent to gibbeting after hanging. ;) S B H arris 19:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page privileges were removed after this edit, where he not only does not retract his legal threats, but claims he has been actively trying to contact Kelso so he can pursue legal action against Wikipedia. NLT means NLT. And I would hardly call someone who has been here for almost 5 years a newbie, he knows the drill by now. He iro 19:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do YOU know what he was trying to contact Kelso for? You presume much. Perhaps he was trying to guide him, as a newbie, through the rather difficult job of finding Wikipedia:Libel (not merely libel) and taking the recommended course there.

Look, I'm simply trying to tell you guys that although this kind of thing may make you grow one extra hair on your chest and make you feel powerful for 15 seconds, it's ALSO the way WP, as an organization, makes enemies-for-life. You're quite welcome not to listen to me. I expect you won't. But it make me feel better to say it. Since, at this point, your bitten newb victim cannot. S B H arris 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trojancowboy isn't a newbie. And all he had to do to get unblocked was to make it clear he had no intention to use or encourage others to sue. That would have been a simple solution which he chose not to use. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has 1200 edits total; it ain't the years, it's the miles. And almost none of those are in the "political" space of wikipedia, so he has no experience with the political wars and Lord of the Flies nature of WP. He's been working on articles (on a broad range of topics, mostly science), not stomping other editors. Yes, he could have retracted publically. He got less than 24 hours to do that, and didn't kow-tow to you-all. And so you really gave it to him. Wow! Impressive. And there's one more editor gone. New editors on WP have been falling for several years, now. I wonder why? S B H arris 20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are forbidden. It's a "bright line". He was told, again and again by different users, that he was not allowed to make legal threats if he wanted to keep editing. His responses amounted to "F.U." That kind of editor, wikipedia does not need. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sez you. But you spend more edit time in WP namespace than writing articles, Bugs. Heck, I see you're coming up on your 10,000th edit to WP:AN and you're not even an admin. You really should become one. Hmmm. Wups, I see that didn't go well for you:[2].

I happen to hold the opposite opinon from you. I think WP needs people who care about the content, and fewer people who care about beaurocracy, or spend time caring about what WP beaurocrats do and cheering them on. One beaurocratic sore spot (which got the ball rolling here with Trojancowboy when he ran afoul of it) is the content of BLP (which as a category of articles really should not even exist in an unedited environment); another one is blocking editors for political reasons, and not just vandalism. And yes, this is political. Somebody made up this NLT rule, and all the True Believers now follow it, in order to show their True-Believerhood (strangely, I see that lawyer user:Newyorkbrad, who is on the arb committee, isn't a strict constructionist on the issue. Brad, you'd better watch it). It is nonsense, of course: a legal suit is a threat. A threat of a legal suit, is a threat of a threat. NTL is about WP and the threat of barratry to it, which must set some kind of record as being a policy to protect the project from the threat of threats of threats. Crap, that kind of rabbitting would be funny if it weren't such a tragically misguided use of resources. Take a pill, WP.

But feel free to go your way and I'll go mine, O thou highly respected and valued fellow editor. I hope, however, that you don't think that all your service there on AN/I is earning you any lasting gratitude from the project. WP doesn't do loyalty. Like de Gaulle's France, it has no friends, only interests. S B H arris 23:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When not editing science articles and articles about Iceland, the links below are what the user edits. The dubious-discuss tag which started this mess at Jamie Kelso is not the first time he has inserted this tag on articles about white supremacist subjects : 2011 Spokane bombing attempt [3], [4] and [5], David Duke [6],[7], and [8]. And a smattering of other articles he has edited, with some diffs showing IMO a problematic trend:Richard Girnt Butler, Archibald Roberts, Mike Nifong [9], Approach-avoidance conflict [10], Hajo Herrmann, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Ernst Zündel [11], Talk:Herbert Hoover [12], Nick Griffin, Harold Cruse [13], Louis Farrakhan [14], Naomi Wolf [15], Sylvia Stolz [16] and Edgar Steele [17]. I have no problem with their science article edits, which is the vast majority of their output, but the occasional POV pushing on white supremacist articles, adding less than flattering info to articles on African Americans and people of Jewish descent, and now the refusal to retract legal threats over it is a problem. He iro 23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pick out the worst three? It would be nice if WP didn't have any BLP so we didn't have to agonize over whether Naomi Wolf is Jewish or Louis Farrakhan is really known as Calypso Louie to some people. And I see he added material to the Mike Nifong article on Crystal Mangum, but you can hardly blame him since she doesn't have a BLP for some reason, even though she has been in and out of the news for many, many criminal acts. Somebody finally added that stuff to the Duke LaCrosse page, where it is equally out of place [18]. But are we going to blame Trojancowboy for this? WP does seem to have a good many agendas where it comes to writing about certain political subjects, and I myself have noticed that sometimes when there seems to be no politically-correct way to handle a subject, WP often fixes it by pretending it doesn't exist. The WMF foundation's own COO had a BLP until she got arrested too many times for drunk driving and sent to prison, and then it disappeared. That's self-serving. It happens. But why pick on individual editors if you're going to have that kind of policy as an institution? Would it not be better to argue this out in the open, rather than ban people and then bring up old diffs they are not here to defend? All this looks pretty tame editing to me, and a pretty lame block.

Let me tell you a story: long ago when women were first becoming police officers, there was an argument that they wouldn't be able make successful arrests of men, because they weren't as strong. Turned out in fact when they finally looked at how it was going, female officers made the same percent of successful arrests of males as male officers, but the reason was that they had fewer fights to begin with! Which means that a certain fraction of cop/citizen fights involving two males isn't about law enforcement at all, but rather a male-male dominance fight where one person doesn't like being dominated. The same happens here on WP. I see a lot of basement-dweller man-wannabees asserting their "authoriteh" at the end of a computer button. No wonder most of them prefer to remain anonymous. Treat others like that in most Texas bars, and one would be paying large dental bills the next week. WP "administration" breeds some very, very bad social habits. S B H arris 00:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are forbidden. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the bars in places as diverse as Iowa, Iceland and Nevada are just as rough, Texas doesn't hold the monopoly on missing teeth or male/male dominance issues. I'm glad you have such a rosy view of this editor, definitely don't google their username if you want to keep it. He iro 00:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*....and accusing people of cowardice from a keyboard? Where, exactly, would one find that on the machismo spectrum? Tiderolls 01:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That rather depends on whether it's done anonymously or not. I've posted nothing I wouldn't say to anybody's face, if only I knew who they were. I'm in the phonebook. If you're looking for the guy with the sprotected talk page, that would be Bugs. Apparently he pissed somebody off. :) S B H arris 04:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's semi-protected due to recurrent postings of a swastika by a BLP-violating stalker of a woman on Facebook (yeh, it's a long story). I could send the stalker your way if you'd like. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? Won't work on Facebook, tho, because I'm not on there. Boundary issues. S B H arris 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on Facebook either. The stalker either actually is, or is pretending to be, hung up on some woman on facebook, and keeps trying to post her name in wikipedia articles. He's been stymied, and he's mad at me (as well as another editor or two) for stopping him. But you're welcome to him, as long as you don't mind that Hitler handkerchief turning up on your page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get off this editor's talkpage

I may not have helped either, but this continued conversation on a the talk page of a blocked editor who also can't participate is inappropriate. I'd appreciate it if you could take anything not directly relevant elsewhere. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored

After brief discussion I have restored your talk page access. I am quoting here what I said above, to make it clear:

There is no "particular point of view" here, certainly none taken by the foundation. That is precisely why we have a "reliable sources" policy. There is probably room for discussion and compromise over the underlying issue, but there is certainly no wiggle room over NLT - it is part of the community culture that if NLT is broken your feet will not touch the floor. I have suggested that your user talk page editing is restored, if that is done, and you agree to rescind any legal threats and avoid even the appearance of making legal threats in the future, you will likely get unblocked. That will avail you nothing, however, if you make comments like the above. Nor indeed, in the longer term, if you try to edit confrontationally rather than co-operatively.

If you want to return to editing and stay returned, you have to tread carefully, threats, legal or otherwise, veiled or otherwise, against the Foundation, the community or members of it are not something administrators are generally tolerant of. So you need to address that. You also need to be edit co-operatively.

For clarity, I do not plan to take any more administrative actions on this matter (e.g. I will not be considering unblock requests, or re-restoring talk page access if it gets taken away again). Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I admire that, Rich. Now, Trojancowboy, the onus is on you. Will you clearly state for the record that you do not intend to take any legal actions here, and never did? And that you want to go back to science editing and improving the encyclopedia? S B H arris 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Ghez9.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ghez9.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Ghez9.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ghez9.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]