User talk:TAway

Hello TAway, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –  LATICS  talk  20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Jesus myth hypothesis

User:Akhilleus is an administrator who unabashedly engages in edit warring and is attempting to own an article comprised of his theological original research. I am unapologetic toward attempting to rectify the situation at Jesus myth hypothesis (or "Christ myth theory", or whatever Akhilleus is now calling his article) and reject any one-sided chastising issued on his behalf. TAway (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I don't blame User:Akhilleus as much as I blame the source material. Depending on what you were exposed to first I can see how one could read of the authors a certain way. There seems to be problems with the majority of the source material on BOTH sides of this mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL

Note: Please see User:Jm131284's illuminating comments on food stamps, welfare, and "that terrorist piece of shit barack Osama."

I am writing this message to you as a notice of my withdrawal from Wikipedia following the recent events/edits on the CNN and Susan Roesgen pages – events that you were involved in. Never in all of my years in academia (the better part of a decade) have I been privy to such patently-insincere and downright academically-fraudulent work as that which I have encountered on Wikipedia.

While I was initially willing to set aside all of the negative things I had heard about Wikipedia in an effort to contribute to a seemingly beneficial project, the actions of editors and administrators on the Susan Roesgen and CNN pages has made it eminently clear that “scholarship” and Wikipedia truly are mutually exclusive – propaganda has carried the day.

My failure to grace the project with some actual academically-sound work was not made in vain; with every neutral editor that you drive out of the project with your blatantly POV-pushing agenda, you further bolster your reputation as nothing but an unreliable propaganda board. Your reputation for unreliability was perhaps best captured in a recent statement made by my corporations professor: “I decided to make myself more ignorant on the topic by looking at the article (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company) on Wikipedia.”

I strongly encourage you to alter your course, set aside your agenda, and reverse your – and Wikipedia’s – reputation as a laughing stock. This will not only benefit the public in general, but will, I submit, actually make you feel better about yourself. Best, J.M.Jm131284 (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Regarding this, perhaps your persuasion and argument would have been better expressed if you hadn't resorted to ad hominem attacks. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Courtesy

Please do not be a jerk to Ryulong - or, indeed, to any other editors. Repeated being-a-jerk can and will lead to your being blocked. DS (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Drop it.

I'll spare you the templated warning for personal attacks. Quit harassing Ryulong. --Versageek 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:TAway

User:TAway, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TAway and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TAway during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Boothroyd

A tag has been placed on David Boothroyd, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2008

Do not recreated problematic biography of living persons articles. If you dislike the results of a deletion discussion, go to deletion review. Don't just do an end run around consensus by recreating the article. Jehochman ^Talk 08:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Taking a deleted WP:BLP and posting it to your user page instead of going to WP:DRV is classic WP:POINT behavior. If there is an unblock request, the reviewing administrator should discuss with me the full facts of the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)