User talk:66.69.219.9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User Account

I noticed your edits on the Austin, Texas page and also that you have been fairly active elsewhere. You should probably consider creating an account; having an account makes it easier to keep track of who's who and lets you use watchlists. Best of luck, and welcome to the community! EWS23 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with EWS23. You should definitely get a user account. The watchlist is probably the best thing, as EWS23 mentioned. You've made a lot of great edits; you should really take the next step and register! Whether or not you do, thanks for all the edits. -Scm83x 19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Hello! You make an interesting point regarding inherent bias...it would be great if you registered an account - although you seem quite knowledgeable about this place, hence why I wondered if you were editing anon. on purpose. If you are interested in a proper study of admins politial leanings, leave a message on my talk page, and we will discuss this further. It should be an interesting and informative exercise, regardless of outcome.--inksT 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I've left some thoughts on this on my talk page - I think the discussion can be held there for the time being. I am wondering about the religion aspect, although it would be nice to collect data on political alignment and religious convictions in one go.--inksT 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Replied as usual. I think my suggestion of a numerical instead of categorical scale is less "precise", but easier to process data for. I'm not very up to speed re: religion...can someone who indicates they are "agnostic" also put a numerical value on it, as in "I am 60% agnostic? (and what about the other 40%)". Also, since this is "your topic", feel free to invite anyone to join in on my talk page (it's just a talk page, the more the merrier).--inksT 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left bias

You are certainly correct that the left bias here is systemic and entrenched among the administrators. I've experienced this first hand since shortly after I began editing here. As to whether it's salvagable, it depends. Taking on the whole project's bias alone is far too daunting a task for any one person or even a group of people, but one thing you can do is pick a handful of about a dozen political-related articles where bias exists to concentrate on. Clean them up, sign up with a username so you can add them to your watchlist, then just keep an eye on them and counter the leftist bias when it appears. It won't solve all of wikipedia's problems by any means, but if even 10 conservative editors would each take a dozen or so articles to concentrate on that would go a long way to salvaging the whole thing. I know 3-4 others who do this, plus myself & we'd all gladly have you in the ranks.

Also - if the leftist admins cause you trouble, read up on the wikipedia policies and guidelines and document their violations. Don't be afraid to call them up on WP:RfC if they break the rules and be sure to ping the other conservatives you know to it if there's a problem that needs addressed. I'm currently pursuing arbitration against two leftist admins who have been particularly nasty, including one who harassed me personally and another who has breached etiquette many times. The evidence of their point of view pushing is pretty incontrovertable and includes both coordinated hits on articles and blatant misbehavior (i.e. quoting David Duke to discredit conservative topics). These same persons are probably the worst offenders of the lefties in the admin pool when it comes to pushing a leftist POV, so at minimum the case should bring attention to just how outrageous their behavior is. Rangerdude 02:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hi,

Having been around a while here, I have a little advice. This is friendly advice from someone who is not your nemesis, by the way. I think you can contribute a lot to Wikipedia.

  • If you dislike part of a Wikipedia article because it has a leftist bias, by all means change it, but make sure you have thoroughly read all the sections of WP:NPOV first. I think this would benefit you. The only other two policies that strictly deal with content on Wikipedia are WP:NOR and WP:V. (And WP:NOT is a very useful page, too.)
  • You will not get far by complaining about editors (or admins) as you are doing on the General Complaints page — I would advise you to work with them on the edits instead. (This is how Roe v. Wade got where it got over a couple of years, and I think the article is in a pretty admirable NPOV state now.) And if a dispute discussion occurs, complain about their edits instead of complaining about them. Attack the act, not the actor. The other way around works well on talk shows, but not here.
  • If you are concerned about leftist NPOV, a series of articles you will enjoy editing is the History of the United States of America series, which has a sub-article on each period of history. I haven't visited in a while, but I remember several articles in the series were problematic.

Regards - Tempshill 21:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willmcw's stalking

Hello again and thanks for your note. Unfortunately what you've encountered with Willmcw is common for new conservative editors to wikipedia on their first encounters with him. I've seen it a dozen times or more - he notices a new editor who challenges his leftist political viewpoints and starts stalking that editor and harassing (or completely undoing) his edits until either the new editor either yields to his near-constant POV pushing or gives up entirely and leaves Wikipedia in frustration. The latter is in fact often a goal of his - beating up on the new guy to frustrate him, even though wikipedia has an explicit rule against doing this (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).

My advice to you would be to first inform him directly that he's misbehaving and harassing you by following your edits. Politely ask him to stop wikistalking you, perhaps even mentioning that wikistalking has been considered a bannable offense by Jimbo Wales and the ArbCom in the past. He won't do it and will probably respond in hostility or even more intense wikistalking, but it is important to at least try to make a polite attempt at resolving the dispute - when he does respond with hostility it will help to show how he is clearly the agitator. If the problem worsens step 2 is to file a "Request for Comment" about his behavior on WP:RfC. This is sort of an informal hearing where you can post a complaint about another user or administrator who has broken the rules. You'll need to assemble evidence for it - link to the diffs of the specific cases where he's stalked you or broken other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You can cite him for biting the newcomers, for violating WP:NPOV, and for disruption - especially in cases where he's removed or edited your work without a good reason for doing so. Also see Wikipedia:Harassment for the precedents on wikistalking and cite those. One thing you should note on RfC's is that they require two certifying editors to proceed. As somebody who has also been harassed and wikistalked by Willmcw, I would be happy to provide the second certification should you desire.

If the RfC doesn't work, or if you don't believe it would accomplish anything, you might consider taking it a step higher and joining the current pending case against Willmcw that I initiated over some of his very same editing behaviors last month (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Willmcw_and_User:SlimVirgin). To do this simply add yourself to the complaint as a party and list the evidence of all that he's done. Another note - if you wish to use an RfC or join arbitration it would be best to pick a username for your wikipedia edits. Many other editors tend to treat usernames with more credibility than IP address editors. It's very simple to do this and doesn't even require providing an email address or any personal information - you just pick a name and password and that's it.

The real key to this situation, however, is not giving in. Willmcw is just about the worst that wikipedia has to offer in terms of an abusive left wing point of view pushing stalker who thrives on personal harassment, agitation, and badgering other editors, and if you can stand up to him you can truly hold your own around here. He does have some friends and loyalists in the admin pool, but he's also rubbed quite a few people the wrong way and should not be thought of as above the rules. The more conservatives that stand up to his bullying, the harder it is for him to stalk everyone and the more energy of his own it will take to push his POV or slip it into articles unchecked. So hold your ground, document the evidence of his wrongdoing, and when the time is appropriate don't be afraid to make a case against him. Rangerdude 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd hardly call Willmcw "left wing", he's actually one of the more conservative/fascist editors on wikipedia based on my experience. zen master T 14:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sign up an account?

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to upload images
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in votes and elections
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian! --Vsion 03:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever. Get well soon, you poor people.

I know you mean well, Curps...but you're missing the mark.

[edit] Talk:Israel

Please come to Talk:Israel and discuss whether your Gematria paragraph belongs in the article. Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

More than happy to. Thanks for the invite.--66.69.219.9 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consider creating an account, it's free and safe. In addition to all the perks listed above, your contributions would be taken more seriously. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but I choose to limit my time spent on Wikipedia. It's anyone else's choice -- for better or for worse -- as to whether or not to take my contributions seriously. I tend to steer very wide and clear of banal arguments these days. Life is too good, and too short, to be spent arguing. Blessings and good health, --66.69.219.9 02:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hymn and faith

I am appalled at your poor grasp of comparative linguistics. The Greek word υμνος means a 'song of praise'; the Aramaic word ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ means 'faith'. The Aramaic root ܐܡܢ is the source of the latter word. No word derived from that root in any variety of Aramaic means 'song of praise', and the Greek word has a sufficiently lengthy history within that language (as demonstrated by the citations in Liddell-Scott that I gave you) that it is not considered a borrowed word. Would you so easily link the Aramaic word for 'son' and the English word for a place for a drink just because they are both pronounced 'bar'? I hope you wouldn't, but that has the same strength as your argument. Now, show me documentary evidence for the use of an Aramaic word of the root ܐܡܢ to mean 'song of praise', or give up on this one. — Gareth Hughes 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I say again...slowly, as you clearly do not process information well: phonetically, the first four letters in the Aramaic for faith are h-y-m-n. Reference and citation: the last word in Matthew 6:30 of the Peshitta. --66.69.219.9 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are becoming quite insulting. Neither Aramaic nor Greek is traditionally written in the Latin alphabet, so there is no h-y-m-n. That Bible verse has ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ as its last word, it means 'faith' not 'hymn'. What do you think it means? Still no documentary evidence... — Gareth Hughes 17:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You are the one that started with the insults, "priest", and the record will show this. And I say yet again, "phonetically, the first four letters in the Aramaic for faith are h-y-m-n." --66.69.219.9 17:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
There are Wikipedia policies agains personal attacks and original research. You are now violating both of them. I have been trying to point out to you that the passing resemblance between these words in nothing more than a coincidence, but you are too stubborn to admit that your wishful notions are wrong, and you keep recycling the same empty arguments. — Gareth Hughes 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
And do those same rules apply to administrators such as yourself? Because you are the one that started with the insults, as the record will show. Please call in another Admin to review my arguments and very specific citation, as you are the one that started this edit war, and are in fact not acting as a fair-broker administrator. --66.69.219.9 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The failing grasp at an "original research" violation is a flawed argument, as using source documents is hardly "original research" as described in the Wiki guidelines. Nice try. --66.69.219.9 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Your appeal to the Peshitta does not make your argument. The last word of Mt6.30 is ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ. As it is unlikely that you can actually read this, it says haimānuthā. This word means 'faith', and there is nothing controversial there. What you are arguing is a link between this word and the Greek word υμνος. The appeal to Peshitta says nothing to support this claim. I can tell you that there is absolutely no documentary evidence to link these two words, and that is why your innovation is original research: it cannot be supported by the information you have provided. I have reverted your edits on the pure fact that they are wrong. You have done nothing to prove your case. Instead you have set about insulting me. I have told you that you might want to rethink your approach because I am an expert in the field, but you have told me that your inspiration is divine revelation or something like that. You must know that your invented etymology is seriously flawed and without support. How do you think your little creative etymology will fare when other Wikipedians start to give their input? They'll ask you how skilled you are in the subject field and what evidence you have for it. Let's see it. — Gareth Hughes 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, as I have politely requested, please call in another Admin. I believe that you're way too emotional to cope with this matter, which is quite simple and straightforward. --66.69.219.9 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am emotional it is because you keep going without evidence. Tell me what Mt6.30 means, because it has nothing to do with the word 'hymn', not a bit. — Gareth Hughes 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself yet again: refer to the last word in Matthew 6:30 in the Aramaic Peshitta, where you will find that the first four letters of the word "faith" contain the phonetic word "h-y-m-n". You will also find these same letters in the Aramaic word "belief." Perhaps you believe that this is a coincidence, also, but that takes nothing away from the fact that it is a literal citation, also, of a source document. --66.69.219.9 21:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Was mistaken - did not know that you made an applicable talk comment. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Glover

I've reverted your edit b/c it had no citation (and I can't find one); see Talk:Danny_Glover. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 18:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Your revision is correct, as clearly it is the broad political spectrum -- including elected representatives -- that denounced Hugo Chavez, not the American public per se. My mistake. Danny Glover is entitled to whatever mistakes he chooses to make in terms of guilt by association, but there has been no broadly stated public denouncement of him. --66.69.219.9 20:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rickover

a) Considering your previous removal of the tag, and assessing an article as FA when it is not FA, it's hard for me to detemine what your intent was. FA is for articles that have passed an FA review by the community at large, not by the project. "FA" and "Good" are made based upon what the larger community deems to be at those levels. Calling it vandalism was a bit harsh, for that, I apologize. b) Inclusion in a project is by the nature of the article, not by consensus of people who have edited that article. Once the article is up, it is no longer anyone's exclusively. As he was a 4-star admiral with around 60 years on active duty and played a huge part in the transition to a nuclear navy, he definitely qualifies as being included in the project. c) As you have some interest in the military topics (judging by your edit history), I invite you to join the project, and help us improve articles. --Nobunaga24 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Let's talk facts: You have no knowledge of this subject. You are making claims regarding "task force" support for the article that are plainly outright lies. I've contributed substantially to this article, with quite a bit of research, including nearly all of the references. Y'think you might just be pissing people off instead of actually accomplishing something worthwhile? Given all of this, what is the VALUE of "your" ideas of the article's quality, and why should anyone care? What is this...the Emmys?? Seriously...what's the purpose of what you're doing? Are the article's authors to become all a-twitter when they get ranked high or low by someone who has no knowledge of their contents? It's silly. --66.69.219.9 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Y'think you might just be pissing people off instead of actually accomplishing something worthwhile?" Actually, you are the first, and probably will be the only, person to be upset about the tag, so no, I don't think it pisses people off. You don't understand what these projects are about. It's not that we are saying that we know more about it than any other editors, or that the people in the different sub-projects have been editing it. Sub-projects are based on the subject matter. I make no claims to having deep knowledge about Rickover (however, I do know quite a bit more about him than you suppose), or about the subjects in many of the articles that are included in the project. Including them in the project accomplishes a few things - 1) brings it to the attention of those that might have particular knowledge or interest in a subject (say, perhaps, those knowledgable about the navy, or maritime warfare, or U.S. military topics) 2) allows for cross-checking factual accuracy of various topics - many military articles have been written by people who don't know anything about the subject 3) helps to build a bit of community among those with a common interest. 4) By bringing the article to more people's attention, more people can keep an eye on it to prevent the insertion of POV, or vandalism, or what have you. Another goal of the tag is to help bring new people to the project where their contributions can be incorporated into a larger context, and can see what particular conventions (such as unit names, infoboxes, etc) people involved in a particular project have developed. As far as assesments, it is not based so much on particular knowledge of the subject, but style, amount of content, quality of prose, references, etc. Looper, who you denigrate, has been assessing articles (literally thousands) across a broad spectrum of topics. It isn't based on his factual knowledge of a topic, but upon guidelines established by the project and the community at large. Anything above "B," if I'm not mistaken, will require a review by more than one person. So in short, this is not an FA article yet. --Nobunaga24 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more points that may be of interest to you:

  • Tagging of articles for both the project as a whole and for specific task forces is based entirely on scope, not on editing activity (as the tag suggests—"is within the scope of..."); in particular, the "supported by" wording is not meant to necessarily imply that members of the task forces have edited the article—if it were supposed to do that, it would say something like "improved by" or "written by"—but merely that those task forces have an interest in the article, and are therefore available to provide support for the article's editors (mostly on request). I don't think this is really an issue; with ~300,000 articles so tagged by a variety of WikiProjects, there hasn't really been any significant number of complaints about the wording.
  • As far as the assessment, it is not intended to be a slight to anyone (and indeed, as the FAQ points out, has no official standing beyond the project itself). As a general rule, individual reviewers can only assign levels up to "B"; anything higher than that goes through a more formal process (GA, A, FA) to ensure that those levels represent consensus opinion of the article more rigorously. If you feel that the quality of the article is sufficient for any (or all) of the higher levels, please feel free to submit it to the corresponding process(es) at your leisure, and the rating can be changed based on the result.
  • (Finally, some more specific thoughts on this case: it's not a bad article by any means, but articles that lack an appropriate level of inline citation are generally in need of further improvement before moving up on the scale. We're undergoing a strong push towards ensuring that article content is accurate and sourced from reputable refrences, and thorough inline citation is now seen as a critical component of article development.)

Thanks for your patience, and sorry for any misunderstandings here! Kirill Lokshin 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion from a friend: you've made many valuable edits to Hyman G. Rickover, but I'd hate to see you melt down, then get booted, like another valuable and prolific Rickover contributor AustinKnight. Can I ask that maybe you just rise above the whole Wikiproject controversy and tune out that stuff? It does not affect the content of the article at all and the editors of this article are free to use or not use its output. Encyclopedia users will still be reading our material, not the Wikiproject's.
Besides, your salty bluntness is likely to upset the skimmer pukes.
--A. B. 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Aren't AustinKnight and 66.69.219.9 the same editor? -Will Beback · † · 07:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awikibreak

A "wiki" break is a "quick" break in Hawaiian. Since I have no intention of taking a short one, or a quick one...and am already over the hill and far away...let's just call this awikibreak. Relevant citation here

"Aloha" --66.69.219.9 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

One last thought...borrowed from a friend (A. B.):

  • "It's the content, stupid"

Content contributors are the most valuable members

"In the time I've been involved with Wikipedia, I've noticed a preoccupation in the Wikipedia community with formatting, rebuking new users, etc.

"The broader world that uses Wikipedia as a resource comes for the content, not the community. While these other community-oriented things are important, even critical, they are still secondary to Wikipedia acquiring more good content." --66.69.219.9 18:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)