User talk:Stopthebus18

Please don't vandalize user talk pages, thanks. Even if you don't agree with someone, try to deal with them by talking instead. Kim Bruning 13:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry... You can't talk with an anti-Semite like that. I refuse to feel sorry for him and his misguided primitive notions of the world.  People like him give rise to ignorance and hatred, so forgive me if I take the low road (which in retrospect isn't even that low). StoptheBus18 21:16, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well um, I'm not sure the gentleman in question is really even an anti-semite. Some folks have been provoking him a lot in an attempt to get him to make a mistake & off of wikipedia. I guess they've finally succeeded now, :-/.
 * But even if he *was* an anti-semite, or a muslim, or a communist, or a globalist or hmm, whatever you might happen to hate, um, well, it's a good idea to argue with him, not attack him ad-hominem.
 * Don't let others drag you down to their level! Instead, set the right example, and show them how truely civilised people hold a debate. :-) Kim Bruning 22:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Here here, how else will they learn? You've already proven you have a good sense of humor, now its time to show you've got good sense... period ;). The "low road" never convinced anybody of anything they didn't believe already, BTW. Sam [Spade] 22:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok I'm giving up but not because I agree with you (which I don't, I'm a Groucho Marxist, humor is my weapon) but because it's too much effort. Stay cool, StoptheBus18 00:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, don't give up! Just be civilised about things. You can even use humor, no problem, just not at other folks' expense. It might be ok to do so on slashdot, but we're actually trying to be constructive on wikipedia, so you have to be a little more conservative. Gottit? Great! I look forward to talking with you more then :-) Kim Bruning 17:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People on Wikipedia I Do Not Like
This list is naughty. User's who have created similar lists have crashed and burned (User:Wik, User:Lord Kenneth, etc...). Also, why come I'm not on your list? ;) Sam [Spade] 20:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Because even though I disagree strongly with your politics and even though its hard for me to admit this, you are a nice person *cringe*. And you've been cordial to me. StoptheBus18 22:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't condone your current behaviour. This time it's not even funny. Would you please fix your user page in the manner that Sam Spade suggests? Thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 23:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You're coming down harder on me than you were on WHEELER, and he used the phrase "Jewish Bolsheviks" in serious. What gives? StoptheBus18 23:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As long as people have a willingness to learn and they actually show improvement over time, I'll tolerate almost anything from them.


 * I'll admit that WHEELER is really frustratingly slow, but there is some willingness there.


 * Now you're a quick witted intelligent person, but right after you talk with sam spade, you actually go and make your behaviour worse. You realize that looks kind of deliberate right? This is quite dissapointing to me, since you looked like a reasonable person at first.


 * I also have a lot of trouble with the fact that you are displaying open distolerance of other wikipedians. Apparently folks think I have almost infinite tolerance. Maybe that's true.


 * Unfortunately for you there's just one exception. I just can't stand intolerant people. If they want to be that way, fine, then I'll be that way too.


 * There's still plenty of time for you to change your dissapointing behaviour before I get really mad or anything, but yeah, it saddens me, and I guess I'll have to be keeping an eye on you. :-( Kim Bruning 23:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not tolerate intolerance. When an asshole like Ed Poor writes racist shit on his page, what do you expect me to do? No I will not be apathetic. Apathy is complicity. If you don't call other people out on their racism, you are just as guilty as they are. The only thing I cannot tolerate in other Wikipedians is racism. Although I disagree with Sam Spade, I do not think he's racist, thus I tolerate his opinions. You I find troublesome as you find it more appropriate to go after me, who is promoting tolerance of all people, than people who preach ignorance and hatred. Ever heard of that maxim: "If you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem?" It seems extremely applicable to you right now. StoptheBus18 23:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "People I just adore" Heh! Well at least that's funny :-) Improvement it is, but I'm not sure if the people you "adore" will be as humored by it :-P . Consider just leaving that section out of your user page, it can get you into trouble, and rightly so I guess. :-) Kim Bruning 23:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As to your claims of being intolerant of intolerance, well, practice what you preach I'd say. No point into getting into wars with folks about it. How about looking up Ahimsa or so, and going from there?

Remember, editing wikipedia is supposed to be fun, have a nice day! Kim Bruning 23:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

yay, I'm nice
Thanks, I'm touched. Not sure if I've ever been told that before... certainly not on the wiki!

So what are my politics anyway? You seem to know them better than I do since you disagree w them so strongly... Have you seen User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases? I don't even know who I'm voting for in November... Maybe Libertarian? Sam [Spade] 04:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ope, I guess you did find it. I responded to you here. Sam [Spade] 04:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yah, Libertarianism is a philosophy I strongly disagree with. It's the party of rich white people. You'll never find a poor black person voting libertarian. I cant reconcile myself with a philosophy that advocates the abolition of public schools and the legalization of all drugs. There's something extremely disturbing about that. StoptheBus18 12:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a poor black person, but the ones I know hate public schools and would love drugs to be legal. Are you a poor black person? (rhetorical, you say your Jewish alot so I assume its true) Everybody in my town does everything they can to keep their kids out of the public schools, their horrible. Good place to send yer kid if you want him to join a gang, or get shot, or buy some crack. Our public schools are so bad they advertise on TV hoping somebody will be stupid enough to send their kid there. In holland, where drugs are legal, they don't have so many drug problems, etc... Anyhow I like school vouchers, so poor kids can go to a private school. I'm not a hard-core libertarian. Sam [Spade] 21:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Um Sam, sorry to dissapoint you, but in Holland drugs aren't actually officially legal. Even so, society is more tolerant of them than most countries, so you're definately more likely to get away with (ab)using them. Holland does have excellent public schools though. The price, of course, is higher taxes. ("Every advantage has its disadvantage" --Johan Cruijff). Kim Bruning 23:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well why not fix public schools? You don't fix the problem of public schools by sending the money away from them into private schools. I'm sorry but that just doesn't work, no problem ever got fixed by ignoring. Also, re:drugs in Holland, it's mostly marijuana and hashish, hard non-addictive drugs. I love pot and have no problem with it being legal. But not heroin, and especially not crack which ravages the inner cities. Also the libertarian idea takes the stance that the market and coorporations are benevolent... Well that's just not true. Coorporations are designed for one purpose to make, that purpose supersedes everything else especially human rights and the welfare of the individual. If we didn't have government to safeguard us from the private sector... well lets say Alaska would be a wasteland and Ken Lay would be president. StoptheBus18 19:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't like big business either, and I support trust-busting and unions and so forth. But I strongly support entreprenuership, small business, and a free market. There is a happy middle ground. Also the drug laws artificially control the market to create an extreme profit incentive for drug smuggling. Make hard drugs a medical issue and not a legal one, and you'll solve all sorts of problems. Public schools seem unfixable to me, but I am plenty willing to pay for free education and free medical care for all, so long as its market driven w incentive for progress, not the teachers union guided disaster were in now. I'm somewhere between socialist and libertarian really, its called "radical middle" ;) Sam [Spade] 21:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go slow :-)
I checked out the person you said was vandalising. Hmm, it turns out to be just someone with a right wing background doing what they thought was honest edits, thank goodness! Thank you for warning me though, sometimes really nasty vandals turn up.

Hmmm, A Changing IP address is a normal thing for people on dialup or DHCP, so that's no real indication of foul play, fortunately. Some of this new persons' mistakes have been fixed by others already, and folks are apparently keeping an eye on them.

When a newbie makes that kind of edits it's generally not nice if you treat them that roughly and swear at them, but there's no rule against it. (I'd reccomend strongly against it though.) You were out of line with a number of content free insults. Don't Do That, else you might find yourself ejected along with the vandal, which is probably not what you wanted to achieve. There's a rule on wikipedia that says it's actually a good thing to delete those before too many people see them, because it saves both parties involved later embarresment (and they held no content anyway). Make no mistake, your comments are still in history, so they can and probably will come back to haunt you someday, even if only when you apply for admin status!

Don't blame me though, I don't control your edit history, you do.

Note that wikipedia is planned to be around for a very long time, so everything you type here will be visible for a century or more if you're (un)lucky. So go really slow, and think before you leap, ok? You can still answer a comment on talk tomorrow, next week, next month or next year, it'll wait for you that long. (And you can pull it out of history if not). So take your time doing things, it'll come out ok in the end then.

In other news: check out Vandalism_in_progress for more rapid response vs vandals.

Finally, remember to have fun!

Kim Bruning 21:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Check out don't bite the newcomers re: above. Sam [Spade] 21:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: your comment on my talk page on one sided deletion
 * I did? Whoops, let's take a look. Kim Bruning 21:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I read right over that. But I'm not sure if that was a personal attack, or more of a hyperbole. (That's a subtle jab there). Don't take me wrong, I think you're alright! But yeah well, try to take it slow and easy, like when you're driving a car or so? That way you won't get that kind of responses in the first place.


 * Hmm, since the anons' reply appears borderline to me, I'll go slow and leave it for now and see what other people think first, we'll see if it gets deleted as well in time, no worries! Kim Bruning 21:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ouw, you actually put THAT on User Talk:WHEELER? Oh goodness, dude, are you deliberately *trying* to get yourself banned? :-( I'm sorry, it's not in my power to prevent that. Slow down! How about just trying to edit articles for a while? That might be good. In the mean time, look up wikipedia policies on how to have a civilised discourse. I still wish you a nice day, but I'm a bit worried about you. Kim Bruning 21:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered that you consider me dreamy enough to sigh over, but you've got me wrong on a couple of points: (1) I never said I "hoped all faggots burn in hell"; you may be confusing me with Fred Phelps. (2) I never said that African-Americans should shut up, or that no one is oppressing them. (Your sarcasm will be more effective if it's more on target.) --Uncle Ed 12:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I finally got around to reading the Lynne Cheney entry. Great work! 172 17:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Slander
You may want to consider removing the baseless slander re: myself on your user page. Your reference to my words on another user's page as "racist" has no basis. In fact, my words relate to the fact that blacks are hurt by particular policies and those policies should be changed to fix that. That isn't racist... it's the opposite of that. You may want to consider whether you want to go around haranguing people over their free words, as it won't be long before others turn similar attention to your actions. In short, you're acting in a wildly childish manner. -- Stevietheman 17:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah ok Ann Coulter, whatever, you tried to argue that Blacks really were bad drivers which is why the cops kept pulling them over so much not because they were "driving while black". Real progressive.  And by the way: what you're accusing me of is libel, not slander.  Libel is when it's in print.  StoptheBus18 19:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Stopthebus18. Just saw the Heeb article which I had not come across before. What are their politics? are they secular, anti-Zionist, anarchist,...? Does Spielberg share their views? I have some sympathy for the slogan "no tolerance for intolerance". Bashing the fash can be helpful at times. The thing is that at wikipedia it won't get you anywhere, except maybe banned, especially when combined with personal threats. Why not let nazis, racists and repukes air their views openly? At Wikipedia speech really is free (unlike the free press which is only free if you own one) and with NPOV you can begin to dismantle the propaganda machine. In the end people can tell what makes sense and what doesn't.pir 19:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

thanks for your message. I got to Heeb from your page. I got to your page because of an e-mail on the mailing list. You say Heeb are pretty close to Likud - does that mean they are not critical of the Republicans/neocons? Or are they critical of pretty much everyone pir 20:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No no my mistake, they're critical of the occupation and Likud. They're left wing and extremely critical of any type of conservatives.  Have you read my entry about Heeb on Wikipedia?  If not check it out. StoptheBus18 21:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edits Ok, personal attacks not so ok
Stopthebus18, I applaud your efforts to attempt to maintain NPOV in the main article namespace. I haven't checked all of them yet, but that looks good! :-)

Okay, that's the good news. The bad news is that I keep seeing you make personal attacks against people. This is not done on wikipedia. I think I already told you that before politely, but I think I'd better re-iterate that that's really over the line. If you would keep yourself to editing and actually making an encyclopedia, that would be good.

There's all kinds of people on wikipedia: liberals, conservatives, left and right, old world and new world, jew, christian, muslim, hindu, and more, fundamentalist to agnostic, and we all have to work together. If we didn't, there would be no NPOV wikipedia, right? :-)

If you're willing to work together with everyone, then you'll be most welcome to stay I think, and people will gladly cooperate with you.

If however, you decide to continue personal attacks against certain groups of people that you happen to disagree with - well - that's not very productive, and a number of people might begin to resent your presence. Were that to happen, your stay at wikipedia might be a bit shorter than you'd planned.

Kim Bruning 21:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Be clear that there is a difference between humor and insult, and it does factor into our decision to block you (temp or perm) or not. Your "coward" comment on User_talk:Trey_Stone should not be there. Fortunately you can edit it out yourself. -Stevertigo

Threats
Whom are you threatening? RickK 20:25, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Joe Pesci. That motherfucker has it coming. StoptheBus18 20:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

StoptheBus18, I saw your comments on Trey Stone's page. Don't let him and his ill-informed opinions bother you. Don't even bother responding to him. He's just a troll and an idiot not worth your time. 172 01:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please be cool, calm and collected. Obey the policy and stay, we need your sense of humor. Rudeness never achieves a good end. Lets be good to eachother. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I just really really really hate Joe Pesci. StoptheBus18 14:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thats all good, as long as you understand how civility is a necessary aspect of the group editing process. For example, if mengela was able to come and edit on the wiki, it wouldn't be ok to be rude to him here (on the wiki name space). However if he was rude, or vandalized or something, he would get in trouble for that, not just for being who he is. Its the same concept, but a reverse, of how pamela anderson would be expected to refrain from swearing at or threatening other users, no matter how big her breasts were, or how much she favored whirled peas. ;) Sam [Spade] 19:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK it all sounds wiki:good so I'm just gonna go wiki:nap and then take a [wiki:shower]] and maybe look at some wiki:porn and then have a wiki:beer? I don't wiki:know...

I see you've been improving your own behaviour, but you still have to expect to reap what you've sown for some time to come. Stevietheman didn't actually call you a name, he (accurately) observed that you were building up a reputation for being rather uncivil (to put it politely). I think we can both agree that his observation was rather accurate wrt your behaviour up to this point.

Let's see if you can keep your cool for a week or 2, and then perhaps other folks will cool down too. (cross fingers). If not, usually it's possible to come back to wikipedia after a period of 6 months, what with 'wikimemory' being what it is. Kim Bruning 21:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Commie Nazi's
See: User talk:Trey Stone. Sam [Spade] 05:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thank you for that enlightening peice of information.  StoptheBus18 15:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So did you want to rob me? ;) Sam [Spade] 17:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No I'm a communist remember? I hate money. StoptheBus18 18:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * PS Michael Moore is not a fanatic. Name one thing he's said that's so fanatical?


 * I used "fanatic" as a euphamism for something I would have required foul language to describe otherwsie ;) Sam [Spade] 20:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * nm, I looked, and I actually said "extremist nutjob", which I stand by :) Sam [Spade] 20:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why would I want to rob you? StoptheBus18 16:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Commies always rob the rich/middle class and brutalize the poor and intellegencia, trying to insert themselves as the "ruling party" over a serfdom. I'm not saying your a commie, I was just joking re: the argument you and trey had on his page. Sam [Spade] 18:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Whatever. That guy Trey doesn't know shit about Communism (or anything apparently).  StoptheBus18 15:24, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * PS I don't hate money. I just hate the people who think it's more important than human life.

Money is just paper, paper that helps convince people to give you stuff, or do things for you. People give me stuff and do things for me even when I don't have paper. Human life is of variable value, I'm sure you have heard "every man dies, but not every man truly lives" "better to die on your feet than live on your knees" etc... Life is what you make of it. We are here for a reason, to learn, and to love. A life without God is the worst kind of suffering. Sam [Spade] 16:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore your condescending and arrogant religious statements and focus on the fact that I don't think you understand what I meant. Human life is not of variable value, that's why murder is against the law.  The people who run comapanies like Enron or people in the IMF or the World Bank, for them profit is more important than people and I find that truly abhorrent.  So much destruction and devestation is done in the name of profit by companies (9 times out of 10, American companies).  Worse than that is that the American government (especially now with the Bush administration) is so beholden to these companies that they often dictate American policy.  Who do you think lobbied so ardently for the overthrow of Allende?  The phone company ITT, the copper companies and others.  You should see the movie the The Corporation. StoptheBus18 17:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ruy is that you? Trey Stone 06:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand, I am fundamentally anti-Corporatism and pro-Environmentalism. I don't agree with your excesses of Anti-American sentiment, but I can understand them. I too am disturbed with the modern American (lack of) culture, which for me is focused on its Godlessness. The lens thru which I view the world may be adjusted differently, but it is the same world we are both aware of, and neither of us is rose tinting anything. For one reason or another I am seen to be condescending by some people, some of the time, but I don't see that as reducing the value of what I say. Always a pleasure chatting with you, Sam [Spade] 17:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * We had G-d in the 1800's. In fact we taught good slaves that in order to be good Christians they should not revolt against their masters.  Thus I don't think any of this has to do with G-d or not.  Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, these cultures "had G-d" and they also perpertrated some of the worst crimes against humanity.  Witness also the religious imperialism of the colonialists who not only sought to make money but to civilize as well with the introduction of G-d as some sort of cultured element.  But that being said I don't blame religion inherently.  I just think that saying our culture is fucked up because of a lack of G-d is extreme and ignores the real issues at hand.


 * Secondly, I'm not being anti-American I'm just saying that history of this country is nothing like the ideals that it was based on.  It's a fallacy to immediately equate critiscm of something which hatred against it.  Also it allows one to completely dismiss any arguments, by deeming them anti-American and thus irrelevant.   Believe it or not, or country has done alot of horrible, terrible, awful, evil shit to the world at large.


 * There is such a divide between what we say our country is and what our country actually does. But that being said, nostalgia (yearning for some imagined better time in American history) is dangerous.  Reagen yearned nostalgically for the 1950s, a simpler time he called them or some such thing.  Maybe it was simpler but if you were anything less than an upper to middle class conservative WASP, life really wasn't all that much better.  You really really need to check out A People's History of the United States.  StoptheBus18 18:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We agree far more than we disagree, it would appear. One exception is the "saying our culture is fucked up because of a lack of G-d is extreme and ignores the real issues at hand". I would say you misunderstand. Your examples of Inquisition, Crusades, brutality towards natives and cruelty towards slaves only underscores my point about the need to focus on G-d (to be polite I will use this wording), since these horrific misdeeds were only all the more Satanic for their attempt to claim divine privilege in committing them.

I agree very strongly with your point about America ignoring (disgracing really) its core values, and I often point out that the constitution (Tattered shreds that they find themselves in today, do we have use of any of the original ten amendments, the "bill of rights" in these modern years? I fear not...) is the best part of America. As for Howard Zinn's book, I watch PBS, and am well aware of the evils that men do :). All that I can do is learn, and love. Think globally, act locally, etc... etc...

Sam [Spade] 18:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting. StoptheBus18 22:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think so :) Sam [Spade] 07:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Coulter 'rape the earth' quote
'Rape' quote should stay out. The Internet sources which I found are all 2nd hand (hearsay) and do not cite a 1st hand source such as a bona-fide transcript which can be read on line.

Also, that particular quote is gratuitously inflammatory. There is no need to intentionally quote something that serves only to the fan flames of religious and sexual indentitiy politics the way including that quote does.

Additonally, the overall tone of the Ann_Coulter is already so harsh against her that including this is mere piling on and adds a stink of too much POV tone overall.

For example, there are some who suggest (and claim to be able to document) that Hitler was among other things, an astrological reading, vegetarian, self-loathing bi-sexual. And yet, regardless of those points, there is enoguh in the public record about him to paint an accurate and rightly adverse picture with out talking up those points.

The Colter 'rape' "quote" I want stricken is along those same lines, It's inclusion serves no purpose other than to stir up gratuitious acrimony.

Rex071404 20:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well Bus, I found a linkable quote that is pretty near to what you previously had. Seems to me the quote accurately reflects Coulter's views since she has clearly repeated variations on it several times.  I have no idea why Rex thinks the Wiki should censor comments she publicly, proudly, and repeatedly makes.  Anyways, thought I'd let you know I included a close substitute for your Rex-deleted quote.67.180.24.204 01:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a ton man. I think Rex is one of those right wingers with an obvious agenda. He got himself banned from John Kerry for a while. His apolegetic defense of Coulter is at once disgusting and revealing. He argues that she is satire, however one wonders what she is satirizing. StoptheBus18 15:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right wing?
http://politicalcompass.org/ says I'm left of center/north of center centrist. Sam [Spade] 22:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Dude thats run by the libertarians. StoptheBus18 15:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Better to be an adolescent government-hating libertarian than a tantrum-throwing Marxist. Trey Stone 06:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I would like to stress again that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. It does not matter how much you dislike the people you label as right-wingers, attacking them in the manner in which you do is not allowed. Snowspinner 16:30, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * As you can see above he was answering a question I asked. Either way, what part of it was a personal attack? Sam [Spade] 16:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice. I am an amazing person. StoptheBus18 21:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * ?.. Well, anyhow I responded. Converted yet? ;) Sam [Spade] 22:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter Talk
Comments from you such as this at Ann Coulter/Talk: "we have still not found one fucking WMD" make me feel demeaned and degraded. Please do not say those things in repy to my comments. Rex071404 03:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Advice
Hi. I have a few words of advice, as I'm someone who has gone through what you're going through now many times before. I'm getting the impression that you're letting users who meet every sense of all definitions of internet troll stop you from getting serious work done, like your work on Lynne Cheney. After 20 months on Wiki, I've learned that the best way to respond to trolls is to not respond to them. Don't let them coax you into political conversations. Ignore their ill-informed opinions and rants. Ignore their personal attacks. Just don't dignify them with a response. Don't let them drag you down to their level. Any attempt to interact with them is a waste of time. (BTW, at times I forget my own advice.) Ignoring them is not being passive; actually this is the best way to get back at them. Their only motive, be they Lir's "red faction" of trolls or the Fox News crowd you're dealing with, is wasting the time of productive users because they have nothing better to do. So, the only way to fight them is to ignore them, keep working, and continue being a productive user. 172 23:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've learned that the best way to respond to 172 is that there is no best way to respond to 172, as he'll always obfuscate with "historical complexities" and "cultural background" regarding his favorite tyrants. See: Joseph Stalin, Kim Jung-il, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe goddamn the list is endless. Trey Stone 06:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that means your not allowed to play with me anymore :/ Sam [Spade] 00:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good advice. But check the dates I've been good lately. StoptheBus18 01:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ELF attack image
I was just pondering the copyright status of that enormous picture that features on your userpage: is it fair use, PD, GFDL, or what?

Oh, and by the way, excellent work in fighting the idiocies of Trey Stone and company. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'&#1048;eil]] 21:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

This kid's got some fucking problems. And if idiocies include combatting Marxist "analytical" anti-American bullshit, then I am a fucking idiot and damn proud of it. Trey Stone 06:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:


 * Image:Issue5.jpeg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License,  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the imagesand I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:07, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Unverified images
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:


 * Image:Incubus.jpg
 * Image:Incubus.jpeg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License,  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 07:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Image source/licensing for Image:Burned hummer.bmp
This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Issue5.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Issue5.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aniel.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aniel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Issue5.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Issue5.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Backlash (sociology) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Backlash (sociology) 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/Backlash (sociology) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)