User talk:Nicodemus75

You were blocked by A Man In Black for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Chronic civility and battleground violations

High schools

Please note that the article on Arbor View High School, which was improperly deleted despite a clear majority for "keep" was restored on a deletion review. If you had taken the trouble to get you facts straight, I would not have posted here. Landolitan 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ownership of talk pages

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Removing warnings, a related discussion regarding personal/community ownership of user talk pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. :-P Silensor 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

I was forced to reconsider the value that schools added to the encyclopedia when I ran headlong into other major school proponents using the encyclopedia as a platform to cause real-world injury to another person. I reevaluated the schools debate in light of other contributors to the debate treating Wikipedia as an internet game, and determined the same was being done with schools. They had won the internet war, as opposed to actively trying to make an encyclopedia better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of the same baseless rhetoric I've come to expect from Hipocrite these days, unfortunately. The specific "real-world injury" he is referring to is the inclusion of the name of a prominent blogger from Daily Kos, who had gone on record using his full name with several major news organizations about a year ago, then decided to "quit" blogging after someone printed that name recently on Wikipedia. The matter is still pending mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Armando/Daily Kos. This is not a war, this is not a game. I believe we all want to make this a better encyclopedia, but we will not always see eye-to-eye on how that should be accomplished. Sincerely yours, Silensor 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre

I replied on my Talk, but to repeat: I see no benefit in the two of you fighting. You're never going to agree and it's pointless upping the stakes. It's not as if Geogre is some petty vandal, he is a long-standing and excellent editor. So are you. You have very different views on what amounts ot a religious matter on WP and the best thing is just to leave each other alone. I ahve given Geogre exactly the same advice. Don't pour fuel on the flames, eh? Just zis Guy you know? 09:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

(copied from the Hillel Day School AFD) Notability within a community or limited group does not imply notability, and, as stated above, is mostly irrelevant. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, notability is irrelevant. WP:NN is an essay and "notability" is nowhere listed in WP:DP as a valid criterion for the deletion of a school article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicodemus75 (talk • contribs) .
- As I have been talking about in recent AFDs (check my contribs), it is disingenuous to say that notability is irrelevant to Wikipedia's deletion policy. Primarily I refer you to the Wikipedia speedy deletion policy on groups of people and not-for-profit organizations, in which it plays a major part. Notability is not only an important standard in these CSDs, but it remains a vital tool for determining about what subjects an encyclopedic article can be written. As per my example on another recent school's AFD: Having a large, complex amount of data on a topic of only personal interest to a limited group, for example, pets, does not mean that it is appropriate or necessary to have an article about that subject. This database from a national veterinary service may give detailed, verifiable information on the pet's past, detailed biological information, and so on and so forth, but that nonetheless does not mean that that lets an article about one of these pets, regardless however well-sourced, verifiable and non-original-research it is. This is because Wikipedia is not an arbitrary storehouse for information, as per WP:NOT, which lists a few examples. It is notability/importance that gives us this critical threshold, and the fact that the subjects are detailed only by a census or database, however detailed, is evidence that each of the subjects in the census are not important enough to merit their own independant study. That, if nothing else, is why notability is a vital tool to determining what should or should not be the subject of an encyclopedic article in the Wikipedia. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month

I've blocked you for a month for chronic, unrepetant civility and battleground violations, while contributing little other than acrimony. When the month expires, I would hope that you would return to help work on the encyclopedia, rather than diving right back into seeking conflict with other editors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This block has been brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nicodemus75. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this is an unwarranted, unwarned, undocumented abuse of power, which does not surprise me in the least. I obviously intend to appeal this abusive act which is obviously being perpetrated because you disagree with my positions. I do not see as I have been uncivil, and certainly not in an "chronic" fashion.--Nicodemus75 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While hardly "unwarranted" or "undocumented" I agree with "unwarned." If you could simply agree to tone down the rhetoric and take a somewhat less agressive stance, I'd support a lifting of the block. - brenneman ^{L} 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a block for something I did SIX MONTHS AGO, then it should have been clearly stated. I have attempted to be as civil as possible since returning to editing in the last week or so, and I hardly think that [1] which is the incident being cited is very uncivil. I consider that one citation with a lack of others to be a demonstration that this block is largely undocumented. Whatever the case, in all sincerity I can't see how any of my recent remarks were any more "aggressive" than some of your own in the same conversation. Is a month long block "warranted" for any paticular edit or set of edits I have made since returning to editing? I don't think a fair-minded person would think so, but I suppose I could be wrong. If anyone should be sensitive to old, regretted actions being dredged up against them I would think it would be you, Aaron. I mean, did you get a MONTH LONG BLOCK for blatant vandalism across wikipedia? No, you were (almost instantly) forgiven and shortly thereupon awarded with admin privledges even though you had committed one of the most blatant acts of revenge-based vandalism that a long standing and otherwise constructive editor has likely ever perpetrated at WP. I suppose I will "tone down the rhetoric" and "take a less agressive stance", but I do feel that this block is unreasonable, unwarned and part of a pattern of abuse of admin power that AMIB has engaged in recent days including violations of WP:3RR, repeated blanking the contents of pages which were under MfD at the time of blanking and other policy-violations. Irrespective of being unblocked, I think that some sort of dispute resolution and other steps are in order in the near future because the actions taken are so questionable, and many are clear breaches of policy.--Nicodemus75 06:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness... You did notice that I was trying to get you unblocked right?

The simple fact is that you tend to turn up to an unacceptable level the heat in any discussion in which you are involved. Ok, you're cranky about being blocked, but having a good go at me when I appear to be the only person suggesting you get unblocked? C'mon, does that make sense?
And yes, while there is some justification to your suggestion that time should heal all wounds as it were, I personally have found you to still be abrasive and confrontational, just as you were months ago. You've arrowed straight back to deletion issues and schools, had a blue with one of our most respected editors, and for what?

So I'll ask again, and please try to give a calm, concise reply: If unblocked, can you give up on the idea that there are warring camps here? Can you stop personalising everything? Please?

brenneman ^{L} 07:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nah - fuck it and fuck the lot of you. The hypocrisy here runs so deep that I'm can't help but choke on my own vomit as it gurgles up. Further action or comment directed towards me is pointless. I've just finished using a random generator to generate a password that I promptly deleted from the generator so even I won't be able to access this account from now on (just in case I stupidly change my mind again) - if someone has the power to check that I did this, so much the better. Since I never validated an email address on this account, it won't be possible to re-access the account (as far as I know - anyway). It really is unfair and outrageous that hypocrites like you people have basically get away with actions that are far worse than anything I've done in the past week or so but I am blocked for what is essentially a content dispute. I have reviewed most of my recent contributions and I honestly can't find any example of anything that is excessively uncivil with a couple of exceptions which I quickly recanted by strikethrough or reverted. Sysops such as AMIB and others, feel they can violate the POLICIES at will and the issue me a MONTH LONG BLOCK where there isn't even cause for it stated in the blocking policy! I am the first to admit that the personal attacks I engaged in SIX MONTHS ago required some punitive action, but I can't frankly see that I've been uncivil to anyone in any excessive manner (certainly no more so than I've been treated), and I really think that hypocrisy here speaks for itself. When I mentioned your past history, Aaron, it wasn't a fucking attack, it was pointing out A FACT. You engaged in a serious disruptive and childish act of vandalism (by your own admission), simply because you were pissed off at another editor - did you get blocked at all? NO. I point out that other editors who happen to be admins have come extremely close to personal attacks by calling people with obviously legitimate opinions as "non-rational" and "religious" and THAT GETS A BLOCK? Get serious. The inconsistency is galling. To be met with charges that I've never contributed anything to WP is just an added insult that shows the clear partisanship of those involved. Not only did I frequently edit articles outside of schools in the past, I even created some articles that have no relationship whatsoever to schools. It's insulting and yet another example of the HYPOCRISY around here to personally attack someone who has created legitimate, encyclopedic articles and improved others as someone who doesn't contribute anything except acrimony. It doesn't really matter what you all decide to do with this account, I won't be able to access it after this rant. I know that getting me to leave the project is the point of some of these actions, but I so far past caring that I'm surely not going to carry on trying to defend myself to hypocrites such as yourselves. I'd be just as happy if the account was somehow deleted altogether (I don't know if it's possible), but I frankly couldn't give a shit as I'll never be able to access it again anyway (unless there is some way for me to get the password that I don't know about).

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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:FatherLowder.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FatherLowder.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]