User talk:CredoFromStart

.

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Text added: "stupid faces who eat milk because it's so bad that its chunky" ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you didn't originally add the text, though it seems that you revered the removal of the text without seeing what you reverted. Please make sure you are paying attention to text you revert. Not all IPs are bad.  Thanks! ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Wiki bullying ==

A wiki person called Deor will not stop deleting anyting I do to pages. He changed the Roman names I added to the apollo page He is now always changing it when I change it back. I find this offensive and unfair He is now changing edits I did to the history of the world page, It used ce bce bc and ad and it was messy So I made it just bc and ad because it was about half and half between the 2 systems

Who would I contact about this Coffeewhite (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CredoFromStart" Views

*

Dan Burton
If the legislation is in fact controversial, please provide a cite(s) for that. (The problem is that articles about Congressfolks should not be filled with descriptions of legislation that sounds good, or is popular, but simply died in committee.)

And it would then be preferable to paraphrase information from the news stories about the legislation, since the controversy is really what's most interesting, with the legislation summarized in a sentence or two. For example, I don't really think "incentives to recruit Border Patrol agents" is particularly interesting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm with you in that I don't have problems with adding, to a politician's article, info about important legislation that passed where the politician played a major role. Or controversial proposed legislation that got a lot of newspaper coverage. (The newspaper coverage is noteworthy.) And in the latter case, a summary and link to the full text is useful, of course.


 * Anyway, good exchanging views with you. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On Galt
Thank you for helping with the Galt Page as you can see the editor who threw it into deletion is so neutral on this. I wish you could help somehow if you knew other Wiki people who could help save this article. Haory has now weighed in and they get only glee from this even though they waste peoples time by just deleting and not getting to the bottom of the issue here as you can see I cited additional info at the bottom on my Keep at the top of the page. If you can please help. Artsojourner (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 69.3.194.115 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GWAV
Thanks for the help. Goldnpuppy (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK
You know, if you think something on my userpage is inappropriate, you could just ask me about it or even ask me to remove it. I generally will. I considered removing the DYK a while back, but I thought it would look kind of opportunistic to remove it right before opening an ArbCom case. I haven't received any complaints about it previously - just a couple of "amens". Anyhow, I'm happy to remove it. If you think it "baited" Strider12, or accounts for her behavior, between the time I put it up (around March 4) and filed the ArbCom case (March 28), then you're welcome to make that point at ArbCom. MastCell Talk 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also responded to your note suggesting that I had rapidly and consistently reverted all of Strider12's edits over the last two months. This is actually not the case, at least as I read the page history - I see quite a few editors reverting Strider12, which follows from the fact that she repeatedly inserts material to which virtually all other editors object without trying to gain any sort of consensus. I detailed this a bit more on the ArbCom page. MastCell Talk 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

strider12 arbitration
IronAngelAlice is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppeteer, and MastCell knows it very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IronAngelAlice&diff=prev&oldid=161827980

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/IronAngelAlice

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=161832150

Note that he states IronAngelAlice should be indefinitely blocked for repeated, multiple sockpuppets, which is what should have happened. He gives the false impression to AN/I that this is what he will do...so that no other admin will investigate and actually indef block IAA (whom he already knows is his POV ally from abortion related articles). Then, when he thinks no one is paying attention because they trust him and he is "on it," he gives IAA only a 24 hour block. Fast forward to the future to the two POV warrior editors immediately tag-team reverting Strider12's every edit:

User:IronAngelAlice: 13 times MastCell: 12 times-Captain Heartbeef (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fairly disturbing, given the large amount of collaboration between the two of them. Unless there's something you didn't mention that kept IAA on-wiki - I do find it a little unfortunate that I found out about from what appears to be another sockpuppet. However regardless of the source if you're telling me the whole story then that's a concerning issue. Credo From Start    talk  12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I generally don't respond to bogus accusations from obvious sockpuppets. Credo, if you have a question, ask me. In this case, a bare minimum of due diligence would have uncovered the fact that IronAngelAlice and I do not "collaborate" or "tag-team", and that I've fairly often disagreed with and reverted her - to say nothing of the fact that I blocked her way back when. My role in that situation was in line with my standard practice in handling socks, which I do quite a bit of at WP:SSP and elsewhere. It was conducted on WP:AN/I, the most public and transparent venue on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you make some effort to investigate the actual situation instead of taking what you're told by this sock at face value. I don't think IronAngelAlice is the most constructive presence on that page by any means, but tactic #1 of every disruptive and abusive editor when attention is focused on their conduct is to play hide-the-ball and look-over-there! Which is exactly what's happening here. I stand behind my actions and if you have a specific question then ask me and I'll be happy to discuss it. I would prefer from here on if you not amplify these kind of baseless, obviously false accusations without looking into them and deciding what you think first. MastCell Talk 21:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch!
Thank you for the report you made at WP:AIV regarding vandals adding a "hidden" tag to the featured article. I blocked and  for this, while another admin blocked. Great working catching these! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

moved comment
I moved your comment here to before your sig, so the numbering thing (1, 2, 3) would remain consecutive. Hope that's alright with you. 86.44.28.52 (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:How to Archive
Thank you sir, you are indeed a paragon of virtue. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

from coffeewhite
Hello I am coffeewhite. You recently redircted my page called roman god apollo to the apollo page. The Apollo page does not deal with both counterparts as you say and uses the greek names for everyone mentioned on it. I did an Apollo project earlier this year on thr roman one. I found your apollo page no help for the project and used none of your info I will reset the page and am going to update it with my whole project over the next period of time Could you please send me a response on your taughts

coffeewhite

I know the page was terrible but I was going to add in the full stories in a project I did

I did a project and I found the Apollo page no help and didnt use any of its info

There is no Roman names for the people mentioned.

Most people can probaly switch the other gods names as they know them but what about the less important people

It is also wrong to say the Romans had identical beliefs about Apollo even tough they adopted him they changed some things

I find your page only deals with Greek Apollo

I also pick up a very negative attitude by you towards the Romans

You were very negative in the way you presented that the Romans adopted Apollo from the Greeks

The Romans were superior to the Greeks

When the Romans invaded Greece the Greeks were quick to abandon their gods

Sure the Greeks called themselves Romans till the 18th century

Hi again

I also forgot to say in my last letter something

You said I could improve the Roman side of things on Apollo but the page is locked

Am I still able to edit it somehow?

I just realized this comes up on your page and I didnt leave my name

I am Coffeewhite

Recently I put the names beside the greek gods mentioned on the Apollo page with their roman counterparts. Within 10 minutes it was changed back. Why was this? Also sorry for putting my last message on your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeewhite (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
When doing redirects the syntax is: #redirect article not #redirect article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamadog903 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Chickenpox party
Chickenpox party and pox party should be merged. There are citations in the first that would help the second one. Kingturtle (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of WXXW-LP for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WXXW-LP is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/WXXW-LP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)