User talk:Work permit

August 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did give my reasons, in the edit summary as well as the talk page.  Did you not notice? ---- Work permit (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your vandal patrols, but please think before you DTR. You may not realize this, but before I deleted the section, I fixed the reference so the link to it would work.  I also fixed the title and author of the reference.  By reverting all my edits, you left the article in a broken state.  I suggest you read the reference.  It is an opinion piece that discusses the pitfalls of calling a convention.  All those pitfalls are discussed in two previous sections of the article, with better sourcing.  I suggest we discuss this on the articles talk page.  I created a section on the topic before I made my edit.  Cheers.---- Work permit (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Richelieu article
It is exactly as you suggested in your question on my talk page. Somebody happened by, somebody without any knowledge of the topic, and just put a citation-needed tag at the end of every paragraph that didn't end with a footnote. Check the other subsections I did not fix, and you will see the modus-operandi. I happen to have done some work on Richelieu, and the demands for a citation are already responded to in other citations in the paragraph. Wikipedia editorial best practices does NOT require every sentence to have a citation, far from it. And it is people who don't understand scholarship, or don't read the article, or don't refer to the citations already there, who create so many messes. Thanks for your question, and your vigilance. If you still think I have done an injustice, feel free to revert the edit.

P.S. I got a "Thank you" from another editor for my deletions on Richelieu.

--Vicedomino (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The Vineyard Beverly Hills
I was about to send you a note of thanks for your help, after reposting my edit on TVBH - but Roxy has just reverted me again! This is crazy. I don't understand him. He said on the article talk page he "accepted" the outcome of the WP:30 comments. So that's a WP:3R violation. I'm en route to bed right now, but I'll be going to Admins Noticeboard tomorrow. If you have any suggestions in the meantime, please leave them on my talk page. Textorus (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I got your message on my talk page, Wp. I was pretty steamed last night after I walked into Roxy's little trap and got blindsided by his third revert.  He set me up for that - deliberately and maliciously, and with egregious bad faith.  But then as I was pondering my next move, I realized once again - after many years of wikiediting - that there is just no point in dicking around with a bad actor who obviously has no interest in improving the article, or in building an encyclopedia.  There is no honest difference of opinion here.  His actions are entirely self-serving, maliciously preventing anyone from adding a single word to the article.  How deranged is that?


 * And he lied about his intentions - I gave him two clear opportunities to state his position on the talk page of the article, and he deliberately misled me, you, and Maproom. He lied and did it deliberately in such a way that he can now claim to have been misunderstood, and so make a pretense of blamelessness.  I used to know kids like that in school, and later adults like that in the workplace.  Deliberate, self-serving manipulators without a conscience, egomaniacs without shame or purpose.  The only thing they really want is attention - good, bad, or ugly, any kind will do as long as they are the center of it.


 * Such behavior is beneath contempt, and a complete waste of our time here. I see by your userpage, Wp, that you have spent a lot of time doing good works here on the project, and have been helpful to many people.  And I thank you for what you have tried to do with this article.  But I'm not dealing with a liar and manipulator any further.  You have my permission to re-upload my edit at any future time if you think it will improve the article.  But as far as I'm concerned - I'm not wasting my time on a pointless fight over nothing worth gaining.  And I'm not going to enable that bad behavior by giving him the attention he so desperately wants.


 * That is the fatal flaw of Wikipedia, which it seems I have to keep reminding myself of every so often - the article is manifestly bad as it stands, and Roxy is patently acting in bad faith - this should be an open-and-shut case. But there is no wikiadult in the room to bring this matter to a swift conclusion, no cop on the beat - Roxy knows none of these dispute actions have any teeth unless it finally goes all the way to Arbcom, or he manages to piss off an Admin along the way.  And he relishes the thought of a protracted dispute - he enjoys stirring everybody up - he craves the attention - he is laughing his ass off at us.  He knows he is acting in bad faith and obstructing good edits - and he doesn't care - it's all just a self-serving game to him.


 * Wikipedia encourages and rewards that kind of petty, pointless behavior: how many million hours of dispute and how many million words of typing have been wasted by good faith editors trying to bring bad actors around to a sane and sensible point of view? When all they really care about is feeding their miserable egos?  I decided years ago that I would not participate in those stupid little games anymore, and since then I have enjoyed the peaceful pastime of making mostly small edits without controversy or game-playing.  But I forget sometimes, and have to be reminded of the futility of all that.  And boy has this been a great reminder - right up side the head.  Why should I waste even 5 minutes of my "golden years" in retirement on arguing with assholes?  This is my time, not theirs.  Forget it!


 * I know my worth as an editor, and it doesn't depend on pretense and lies. I woke up this morning with a much clearer view and a lighter heart.  If Roxy wants to own the article, I say let him.  And what exactly does that do for him?  King of a three-line article!  Hahahahaha!  What a ridiculous, pathetic little boy!  A spoiled, selfish brat clutching a broken toy he won't let anyone fix or even touch!  Hahahahaha!


 * Now you go on and do what you want to from this point, Wp, but I'm done. I have a hundred other lovely ways to spend my time.  Textorus (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, I know how you feel because I feel just the same. I appreciate your comment about me.  From your userpage and edit history I also know you're a quality editor.  I was willing to back you up in resolving this if you wanted to.  But walking away is the right thing to do.  It's important not care more about an article just because some editor is being disruptive. Like you said, this is a stupid little three sentence article with less than 1000 views a month (before the hub bub).-- Work permit (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this affirmation, Wp. You're a good man.  Textorus (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)




 * Thanks for the civility barnstar - appreciate ya, buddy. Next time you're in the wikibar, the drinks are on me.  Textorus (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed
OK on  my mobile device it did but that Fixed it Jack90s15 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of hedge funds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_hedge_funds check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_hedge_funds?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed lede for Right-libertarianism article
@Work permit:, do you believe, as I do, that the following lede, as discussed on the Right-libertarianism talk page, is a reasonable compromise? The last sentence of the existing article is moved to the front of the lede, along with other minor clarifications, to avoid confusion for the reader, and to clarify the use and purpose of the term. I would like to put this dispute to rest, but the current lede just doesn't sit right. It mistakes for the term a greater use - and usefulness - than the numbers indicate. Right-libertarianism is a term used by some political scientists and writers to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines. Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. Like most forms of libertarianism, it tends to support civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarianism is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional socialist type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources, because it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production. Unlike left-libertarians, these libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets, and view any attempt to dictate the market process as counterproductive. Right-libertarians are typically referred to simply as "libertarians". JLMadrigal  @  02:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Mksalome2flipped.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mksalome2flipped.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Oil reserves/GA1


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Talk:Oil reserves/GA1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Charles eastman smithsonian gn 03462a-cropped.jpg


The file File:Charles eastman smithsonian gn 03462a-cropped.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Superseded by File:Charles eastman smithsonian gn 03462a.jpg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 09:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Oil reserves for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oil reserves, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Oil reserves until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)