User talk:Getaway/Archive 3

Email
Enable your email please. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re: Ward Churchill misconduct article
I never would have noticed the attempted purge had you not raised the flag. Thanks. I see that it's now in a proper AfD procedure (which can get tedious, but at least the article is given about as fair a shake as one could expect on WP). Yeah, you have to be on the lookout for a minority group of admins using their authority to in effect distort the truth. It's usually the same batch of people who are well-versed in Wikipedia minutiae to push a certain agenda; or bury the facts. The fact that Noelle Bush article had been kicking around for nearly 3 years is pretty telling. But, there are thankfully a few good admins who try to keep this nutty experiment from going off the rails. Alcarillo 15:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Ward Churchill misconduct
Don't worry, the protection will be lifted. I just felt I should discuss it with the protecting admin (Xoloz) before unprotecting, as this is quite an unusual and controversial case. However, I'll unprotect for the time being and see what happens - hopefully I won't get in any trouble about this. :-) WaltonOne 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the article. WaltonOne 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR
You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Ward Churchill. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, please place on this page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system and or Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
I read the wiki article on forum shopping and realized that you must have confused the legal term with the wiki policy. There was no consensus being discussed and there was no asking of the other parent or anything close to it, It was simply a warning that the article may still be in danger of being deleted. You seemed to be so happy that you had won the day that you forgot why the article had been deleted in the first place. You do realize that other administrators may decide to speedily delete it in the future do you not ? The same thing goes for it being renominated for deletion. Let us hope that doesn't happen. Albion moonlight 12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

With 1 possible exception
I have made no mention of your past or attacked your reputation since Fred Bauder said "Getaway is an editor in good standing. If you continue to harass him, you are the one violating Wikipedia policy" Since then I did respond to a request for comment wherein another user requested other wikipedians to comment on user Verklempt and his possible use of sockpuppets. I am pretty sure that what I said there was appropriate. I have been very polite to everyone. I have no point of view on Ward Churchill except for the fact that those articles may be libelous and may be deleted by the board. Perhaps you should make a more thorough attempt at understanding the meaning of context and apply it to what I said instead of assuming there is some hidden meaning or context to it. Assume good faith. Albion moonlight 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in.
I find the JDL to be worthy of the FBI's list of terrorist groups but until they are declared to be a terrorist group by a reliable source I will back the other editors who object to use of the word terrorist to describe the group in general. Albion moonlight 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaming Wikipedia REVISITED
What is your evidence that I am conspiring with Lulu. You have not produced a single shred of proof that that is the case. Please stop wikilawyering Once again I am sorry if you feel intimidated by the prospect of having to abide by consensus. But consensus is the heart of wikipedia. Albion moonlight 07:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine international adoptions
First, congratulations :-) Second - the information was correct at the time (October 2005).  That link isn't working for me either, but this one explains the background.  International adoption rules and practices aren't static - for instance, my own country has just banned adoptions from Guatemala.  Editors can only go on the information available to them and I would strongly urge anyone involved in adoption not to rely on a general online resource.  Regards, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Write_for_the_enemy
Read this and have a nice day. Albion moonlight 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Improvement!
Excellent job of cleaning up the overly exuberant language someone introduced around Churchill's defenders Witherspoon and Mayer. I entirely agree that leaning on "professor" repeatedly is absurd, as is a peacock word like "preeminent". We don't agree much... so I'd like you to know that I appreciate good edits when you make them. LotLE × talk 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sean Hannity page reverts
I will try to engage you productively on here regarding your reverts of my entries on the Sean Hannity page for Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars etc.

Sean Hannity is a notable person. Al Franken is a notable person. The book was a national bestseller. An entire chapter is dedicated to Sean Hannity. Hannity has spoken many times of Franken through his various national media outlets. I can't understand why you would prevent any reference to the book on Hannity's page. While your vigilance is admirable, in that you usually revert my entry within minutes of my posting it, I think that you may be overexuberant in reverting. It also appears that you have violated the 'three-revert rule'. As a newbie Wikipedian, I am not looking to make waves or get into edit wars, or start making reports to admins, but I think that some explanation beyond a revert with an edit summary that says, "Take it to Franken's page" should be forthcoming. Ossified 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Another warning about personal attacks
This comment goes over the line in terms of attacking another editor. You have been warned about the no personal attacks policy before. Comment on the content, not the contributor.--Dcooper 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility
I am giving you one more warning about civility. Read the policy, learn why it is there, and if you can not be civil in your comments, don't comment.--Dcooper 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded on your talk page. Don't talk to me any longer.  Just because you are wrong, it is not my problem.--Getaway 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements like "That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you" are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Try to keep it a little less hostile. Thanks. Kaldari 01:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Patrick
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. Smashville 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. I will explain in detail on your talk page.--Getaway 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Smashville's comments are an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. He has put lies on my talk page.  There are TWO Dan Patricks, but he would NOT take the time to look at the other one.  He just ran off and made this stupid comment on my talk page.--Getaway 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FOR FUTURE ADMINS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THINGS TO BRAND ME WITH, THIS IS THE MESSAGE THAT I LEFT ON SMASHVILLE'S TALK PAGE: ::::You seem to be just dying to find something to slap on people's talk pages. What you wrote above was flat out wrong.  There has been a Dan Patrick article about the Texas politician and broadcaster for a very, very long time.  I just noticed today that Dan Patrick, formerly of ESPN, was cutting off the Texas politician's page.  As I was in the process of fixing this problem with a DAB page you came along with your silly, incorrect comments and warnings.  This type of behavior on your part is what is wrong with Wikipedia.  You did not attempt to discuss it with me on my talk page.  You just slapped the incorrect warning on my talk page.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  Don't you know what "Assume Good Faith" means?  Why didn't even attempt to talk to me before you slapped the warnings?  You were wrong, but I don't expect you to apologize, but guys like you who violate Good Faith never, ever apologize anyway.  Why don't you try to talk to people first?  That would be in line with Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be about.  But I don't expect you to understand, based upon the way that you handled this situation.--Getaway 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I just spend some of my spare time going through the recent changes and the new pages. When I see the big red numbers indicating that a page has been shortened significantly, I check it out. The warning is entirely valid. You completely deleted a valid page and replaced it with another. You did not move the page, you simply deleted it and copied and pasted to a new article, thus deleting all edit history. Smashville 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just curious as to why you enabled a full disambig page for the two Dan Patricks instead of a simple "For the politician and broadcaster of the same name, see..." link. The ESPN DP is a national figure, and most people searching for "Dan Patrick" would be looking for him, as opposed to the local DP. Thanks! Snowfire51 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked for help on WP:ANI to fix this. In the future, please do not move articles by cutting and pasting. Use the move button. --Onorem♠Dil 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sean Hannity
I have tried to engage you on the Sean Hannity talk page. When I suggested that we work constructively, your response was "I'm not going to ask for permission. If you put inappropriate matter in the article, I'm going to remove it, ok?" The whole idea of the talk page is to express why you believe something is inappropriate so that consensus can be achieved. It's not to ask permission. Tonight, you responded to an edit with the following in your edit summary: "No need for the long-winded, non-encyclopedic commentary. We know you don't like Sean Hannity we get it. Don't be biased." Since there's no way for anyone to know why you believe that the editor doesn't like Sean Hannity or why you think they're biased, I can only consider your statements to be in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please stop. Please also try to be constructive. Ossified 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can "think" and you can "believe" that my comments are uncivil, bu that is merely your opinion based upon the fact that you simply did not like what I said. You do not like to be told that your editing exhibits your bias.  That is what I see.  I stated it.  You don't like what I see.  That is too bad.  It is not uncivil to point out that you are exhibiting bias.  It is clear that you have a bias against Hannity because you are constantly attempting to put in derogatory matter about Hannity in the Hannity article.  By definition you have a bias.  Now, I will say it again.  Do not be biased.  That is not uncivil it is just simply stating a fact that you do not want to hear.  Do not put derogatory information in the Hannity article.  It violates NPOV.  I am sorry that you "think" and you "believe" something that is not true, but I cannot control that.  All I can do is control what I can control and that means that I will repeat once again, do not put derogatory information in the Hannity article, it is biased.--Getaway 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Getaway)
Hello, Getaway. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Getaway, where you may want to participate. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.188.243 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comments are the comments of Wikipedian who made this particular edit his first edit of all time. Please check the edit record of this anon editor.  This edit of my talk page is the first edit by that anon editor of all time.  It is clearly vandalism in that this editor is attempting to intimidate another editor; however, this type of vandalism will not have any effect on the way that I edit or change the comments that I make as an editor.  I am not afraid of this editor.  Obviously this editor is a weasel because this editor refused to use his editing name and choose to edit anon.  Will be removed.  Also, the RFC never, ever happened--which of course it shouldn't have.  All is right with the world.--Getaway 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)