Hello, WeldNeck! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

My apologies and glad to see the Usercheck outcome. I hope you can see the other side of it that given the continuing problem it is better that any potential question be cleaned away. Best wishes with your editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry about it. Judging by Kaufners abuse of multiple accounts, it was a prudent move. The guilty flee where no man pursues. WeldNeck (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to apologize. The worst side effect of long-term sockpuppet abuse is that innocent people can get rolled over by it. I'm glad to see the investigation turn out the way it did. Cheers, and happy editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry about it, its like I said it looked to be a prudent move. WeldNeck (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Theme (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WeldNeck (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported to ANI. Charles J. Hanley 13:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No Gun Ri Massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page F-80 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at [1]. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There seems to be some debate over your edits at Deepwater Horizon. Let's not have repeating reversions of edits, per the three revert rule WP:3R. There seem to be some issues on the content that we can discuss on the article's talk page. Geogene (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your notes in the edit summary are completely invalid. You don't get to decide who is a reliable source based on a personal opinion, and there is no valid reason to remove the notes from the 2012 inspection of the Fort Calhoun facility. This is considered POV and disruptive editing. Please see WP:RS. petrarchan47tc 00:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Budget sequestration in 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Mercer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WeldNeck, I removed that last comment of yours--that brand of sarcasm is not acceptable; it's a borderline personal attack with no discernible intent toward article improvement. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But accusing other editors of being on some grand double secret conspiracy is? WeldNeck (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether it is directed at anyone in specific and on whether it is done in offensive language. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted me again by saying that I need to find better sources. And again, I tell you, provide evidence that the sources are junk. Just because you don't like them its not an enough reason to remove them. That's how Wikipedia works. These sources have been used by Wikipedia for the last eight years. One source does not trump two. Still, I am going to try and compromise with you. I have inserted BOTH points of view. This would be in line with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality where we don't favor one view over another. I sincerely hope you will be satisfied with that. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LeBleu's book is a biography and its not appropriate for a claim like this and Scahill's book is a polemic. WeldNeck (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not exclude them as sources. Wikipedia is clear on this that we need to stick to a neutral point of view per which all views need to be presented. I tried to compromise with you. At this point I am obliged to advise you against further reverts of my edits because you made three full reverts already on the page. With a fourth you would break Wikipedia's WP: 3RR rule which can get you blocked. Fair warning. I really hoped we could discuss this and find a compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf was right when proposed you compromise because if you continue just reverts editings which he made you just will be punished for provoking the war of editings. And administrators can either just block you for a long period or even put for you the ban on the editing of all articles related to the war in Iraq. Therefore, a compromise that offers EkoGraf be the best solution in this situation. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you've been making at GSL are WP:DE. If you look at the talk page history from the past few weeks, you'll see we've worked together to get past stuff like "pejorative" and we sure don't need someone stirring up the pot calling others "hoplophobes." Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary is considered WP:UNCIVIL, as you seem to be using the term hoplophobe in a derisive manner. Darknipples (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] This investigation has been started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.36 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I reverted someone impersonating me on this page by posting one of my old messages/signatures. Chillum 23:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism.

If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Response to above paranoid schizophrenic behavior. Not an account holder nor am I a boggy man and never made any claim to be a new user so that makes you a liar as well. It seems your paranoid behavior has led to a knee jerk paranoid action. Sorry but that is the truth that you cannot handle. Hey go ahead and range block, as it a cellular IP you will only block a few million of a major provider. It would be another ignorant but predictable move. Your online friend also salted the well laid out SPI investigation about an obvious sock or meat puppet of RGlouchester and a brand new account Jobrot. [3] Don't worry I saved it and will post elsewhere as more evidence of you get what you pay for which is not much when it is free. Interesting cultish behavior where without any evidence you make false accusation and attempt to bury well founded evidence. Keep up living in your little world of make believe. More evidence that project is failing to come close to its stated goal. Thanks for the evidence and your behavior is a bit rich. 172.56.15.217 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Your use of the new IP for block evasion and impersonating me on several talk pages is very telling. Chillum 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Outsmarting a paranoid schizophrenic is quite easy and if you link my edits to other edits with a similar IP you will see I have been editing for years so your paranoid behavior is just that. I have been fighting spam, promotional articles, COI, and unprofessional admins for years and quite successfully. Sorry I have to call out unsophisticated foolish behavior but you did it to yourself Chillum. And again no one impersonated you, they just reposted you elsewhere to highlight your paranoid behavior. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: (and @Mike V: as well I suppose), could someone please tell me what the fuck is going on? That would be great. WeldNeck (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ignore this IP who has been posted messages with my signature to other people's talk pages. The message I have struck out was from me to the IP on another page from another day, they though it would be funny to switch IPs and post it on a bunch of random talk pages. I suggest you revert and ignore any future attempts to impersonate me. Sorry if this was concerning to you. Chillum 16:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. WeldNeck (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Chillum is trying to cover his ass here so for your viewing pleasure I present this long record of events that I posted at Jimbo's page

I got blocked for starting a SPI

I started an SPI about an article I came across that was around since 2006 and deleted and salted after a few attempts by User:RGloucester and some new accounts like User:Jobrot which is a SPA that states they are "noob" but then first edits in December 2014 in a discussion to delete the article using very sophisticated alphabet soup. Clearly not a noob and the edit analyzer shows a remarkable number of edits with the above sock master even though the sock only has a few hundred edits of which most show up in the edit analyzer with RGlocester who avows to be a Marxist on their talk page. The subject cultural Marxism in an modern American use does not say nice things about Marxists or cultural Marxists. It was nominated for deletion and theatrically argued for deletion by RGlocester and then a new SPA shows up arguing for the same thing out of no where. I do acknowledge it may be a meat puppet recruited by the sock master but a meat puppet is to be treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I was accused of pretending to be new by Chillum but he fabricated that and accused me of being a sock and then blocked block me based on his ridiculous claims. I previously argued against User Talk:John Foxe for COI and his previous use of a sock. That will demonstrate that I always use an IP to edit and not what Chillum falsely accused me of. And John Foxe edits on behalf of Bob Jones University a very politically conservative fundamentalist school. That demonstrates I go after both extremes of the political spectrum. Cultural Marxism in an American sense reflects a conservative use of the philosophy. It was a valid article with 9 years of existence that was salted for Marxist ideological reasons. It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins. One reasonably would question if they had COI or in my opinion acted foolishly. If you got the time look into the salted SPI about RGloucester and check out the case I made. It demonstrates meat puppetry at the best and a sock puppetry in the worst. The edit analyzer and Jobrots contributions are very clear. It needs to see the light of day and not be immediately salted without examination. Again a foolish or malicious move by an admin. Thanks for your time 172.56.6.142 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This note has also been posted at WP:ANI where it is being addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Depth Highlights

• 1. 1. A fight (not a discussion) to delete Cultural Marxism article initiated by User:RGloucester a self avowed Marxist. The article's modern American usage negatively portrays Marxists and big government control as a form of Cultural Marxism. The term has been around some time and is currently seeing a resurgence to describe big government or a nanny state. I found that out using google. The term is notable and its modern rendition is much different than the article it was merged into and the history shows many editors brought that up. The article is deleted and salted after a prolonged war but it was save and placed on several other web sites decrying abusive practices at Wikipedia. I found them when I googled the term. A new account User:Jobrot shows up claiming to be a Noob on their talk page and then edits their first day several times to delete the article wiki lawyering with sophisticated wiki alphabet soup language. I will later begin reviewing the closed AFD fight and I am shocked at the level of discourse concerning an article that is notable, well sourced, and that article that has been around for 9 years is deleted. There are claims in the AFD about socks and I begin looking into account histories and discover user Jobrot. I run the editor analyzer on all involved parties and only two accounts have a very high interaction. Here are the results: [4] User:RGloucester who started the AFD and the new account have almost all their edits in common and they both are strongly arguing for its deletion and subsequently on the related new drafts especially the new Draft:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which tries to use a great deal of negative ideological sources to paint the use of the term as a crazy fringe theory by right wing nut jobs.

• 1. 2. User:Jobrot history shows an SPA account only working on Cultural Marxism drafts and the redirect Frankfurt School. User:RGloucester starts another AFD [5] to delete a new Draft:Cultural Marxism but is unsuccessful. Chillum States in the new AFD: I would support deletion then. Too soon. Chillum 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) He is the same admin who has suspended my account for starting: 17:46, 22 February 2015 Chillum (talk | contribs) blocked 172.56.15.36 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Obvious sock puppet is obvious. See deleted contribs. Logged out user. I am not logged out as I have never had an account. Chillum accuses me of being a sock for starting a SPI. Chillum never does a SPI on me just cast an aspersion to justify blocking me. That is an abuse of admin privileges and he assumes no good AGF. I am wondering about his motive as to whether he is paranoid of IP's, resents IP's or is acting maliciously because he disagrees with my edits to the original article. He also salted the original deleted article that I have now used (found when researching Cultural Marxism with google, check it out) as a starting point and improved.

• 1. 3. I attempt to work on the article under a slightly different title Cultural Marxist and I am unaware of the draft at the time. I add much new material with many reliable sources here:[6] In the middle of working on the new article I am reverted by DD2K who states:where the Hell is the protection to this? here: [7] I am unaware he has done this while I am researching and adding to the article until I try to submit again which comes up as an edit conflict. I work around and improve article but I have lost much of my previous work and write this in the edit summary: (Improving references and adding a few, still working on article that is already much different and is undergoing much, discuss on talk page and please do misuse speedy delete to eliminate dissenting schools of thought) That is my only revert. DD2K puts a speedy delete tag while I go back to researching and working on the article. DD2K then does his second revert of everything on the article except his speedy delete tag and then requests page protection. DD2K has clearly been watching the page and reverts 2X to my 1X. I place a notice on DD2K's talk page for blanking the page. I check his contributions and see that he has requested page protection and I go there to argue against it stating: User:DD2K nominated the article for speedy deletion then immediately deleted it without any discussion. I was working on a substantially different article than the last known article. here:[8] I add more to the page protection here: [9] I argue that I am substantially improving the article. I lose and the page is protected and DD2K has only edited in the draft article since then, here is his contributions: [10]

• 1. 4. I go edit some other articles but I decide to go back and start snooping around to see why all the bugaboo about the article, I find the draft and edit there instead here: [11] I am reverted again within 45 minutes by User:RGloucester. [12] Compare the two articles. It becomes clear there is some ownership issues going on here and the level of article improvement is irrelevant. I never reverted there. No edit war.

• 1. 5. I go to the draft talk page to post my concerns about an article that has been ignored for 2 weeks until I show up. It is clear there are ownership and Push issues. I post this here:
• Article has been vandalized back into a WP:PUSH political diatribe

"Amazing, no one has work on the article for 2 weeks and I spend hours adding sources from subject matter experts and RGloucester shows up and simple reverts to an agenda pushing political diatribe article that is designed to advance a left wing agenda. RG also fought long and hard to eliminate the real article because it did not fit their brand of cultural Marxism. The more neutral editors have all left because of the tendentious editing WP:TEND. More evidence that Wikipedia has become more extreme in promoting left wing ideologies and cannot be trusted as a source for anything political. The project relevance will continue to decrease if balance is not restored. Just compare the one RG reverted to and the one I did. RG eliminated info boxes, references, noted experts and replaced it with a political rant. I have no doubt that when they get the article to fit their politics (left wing cultural Marxism) they will be ok with putting it back up. It was there for years and after constant demands they got it deleted and salted as well. But a google of the title Cultural Marxism will bring up the preserved article and some very interesting commentary about what happened and where this project is headed. The current article is in no way encyclopedic and is now only an political diatribe to grind an axe. 172.56.7.197 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also post in reply to Jobrots commentary: Jobrot-So it seems this is an American phenomena that Europe (the apparent origins of the movement) view with apt derision whilst the rest of the world is for the most part indifferent. --Jobrot (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me- It is not amazing that an American political philosophy that criticizes Europe's drowning in Cultural Marxism and Europe's downfall and current has been status that are only a shadows of what they once were does not want to talk about it. Europe's downfall is illustrated as what happens when countries are greatly influenced by the far left (Cultural Marxists} and what America will become as the yoke of political correctness (Cultural Marxism) suppresses the people. 172.56.7.197 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Less than an hour later DD2K reappears and deletes both of my posts as I challenged his speedy delete and page protection on the page I originally began editing earlier. It appears as tit for tat?[13] (Reverted to revision 647604569 by Jobrot (talk): Rv -- ffs -- This is not a forum for political rants. We all know it is generally best to leave talk page comments alone. I reinstate my post and state this in the edit summary: Have you read the posts? It just does not fit your ideology so you delete comments about improving the article, recuse yourself if you cannot apply commonsense. So far everything I have tried to add has been deleted by some of those previously involved in an ongoing tendentious edit war. Yet later I will be accused of edit warring. Ironic[reply]

• 1. 6. I am reverted again by a hit and run editor (they never came back to the talk page) so I give up for 10 hours (I got better things to do) and do not reinstate my talk page commentary. I return and remove this rant using the same basis as used against my post. [Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim] Personally I believe the appeal of the Cultural Marxism theory is that things like, Feminism, Gay Rights and Civil Rights have become somewhat sacrosanct. In many spheres of life it's not really considered socially acceptable to criticize these movements (and doing so often garners emotionally visceral reactions and rhetorical vitriol). It would be much easier to explain this all away via a communist plot indoctrinating everyone, but unfortunately the reality of these movements is a lot more emotionally messy than that. --Jobrot (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If that is not a soap box statement then clearly my statements were valid as well. Jobrot restores himself Jobrot (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 648309581 by 172.56.15.36 (talk) it seems we have a vandal IP.) User:Jobrot edit history shows a SPA account only working on Cultural Marxism drafts and the redirect Frankfurt School. Jobrot poisons the well by calling me a vandal IP.

• 1. 7. I began more looking into the history of those involved by running edit analyzer. Something seemed amiss and there were other statements to that affect in the AFD. Two names exhibited an amazingly similar editing pattern. That is the AFD initiator User:RGloucester and User:Jobrot a self described Noob who says they did not know what they are doing but on their first edit appears in a very contentious discussion about deleting an article and using some sophisticated wiki terminology. Cleary not a noob which Jobrot later admits in the ANI I started about myself and those involved in this fiasco. Jobrot and RGloucester both furiously argued to delete and salt the article. It looks very suspect and the analyzer supports that so I start an ANI where I lay it out in depth. No reasonable person would question whether I am detailed oriented or not based on my edits. I also notified many of those who seemed very involved in the AFD as they would have great interest in a meat puppet being used to eliminate an article including Chillum and another admin. Both parties suspected of being socks or at the least puppets are informed.

• 1. 8. The SPI is quickly closed within 3:20 hours and deleted by User:Mike V here: [14] I am then blocked by Chillum here: [15] 17:46, 22 February 2015 Chillum (talk | contribs) blocked 172.56.15.36 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Obvious sock puppet is obvious. See deleted contribs. Logged out user.) Chillum accuses me of being a logged out user of which I am not. Why did he do that? Chillum had closed the AFD and salted the article. Chillum would later state that I edit warred which I did not and the long response here makes it easy to see that is also a false accusation. I point out Chillum's action to everyone involved and start an ANI about me. This is when the real circus begins. Chillum repeats his lies and then bans me again for bringing all this up because I evaded his unjustified ban based on based faith and no evidence. I reasonably questioned Chillum's motives as they seem rather suspect. Whether he is attempting to cover up his original bad faith block or something greater I do not know. Things heat up after several exchanges and several more lies from Chillum stating I was edit warring and editing logged out. Nothing surprising there. Many others come in to the ANI. One admin lays out the issue pretty well but he is mostly ignored, I thank him for being fair and he in no way praised my actions but he had the balls to address Chillums short comings in all of this. Chillum and some others continue to attempt to block me from speaking up which is an exercise in futility. I will not be silent about being blocked for starting an SPI. That is what this all about.

• 1. 9. Jobrot does something very decent the day after I start the SPI when he realizes the point I made and restores my talk commentary.' I believe that says something good about him to be fair, I am assuming good faith. Jobrot states: Jobrot (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 648261825 by Saddhiyama (talk) Reverting back even further in the interests of having an open discussion.) I just noticed this now as I left the talk after being reverted again. It was however the day after I started the SPI investigation. Up to that point everything I did was reverted in this contentious article discussion that is full of political push. I never exceed 3RR and mostly did only 1RR but somehow I became an edit warring sock. I used the talk page to address my concerns but was repeatedly reverted by those who had practiced tendentious edit warring here for a long time. My posts that were restored after I brought attention to my block at ANI have received quite a bit of discussion which was my intent.

• 1. 10. Another commentator wrote this recently after my original post was restored by Jobrot here [16] Raquel Baranow (talk | contribs)(→‎Article has been vandalized back into a WP:PUSH political diatribe: agree with the IP) Raguel states: I totally agree with the IP. I've been following this since it was mentioned on Jimbo's Talk Page. (As you know, the original article was deleted through "consensus" and then restored by Jimbo.) I became aware of the right-wing use of the term from reading Anders Breivik's Manifesto and think it's an important concept. I also consider myself a Marxist because I believe in eliminating money but I'm not a cultural Marxist and disagree with the redirect to the Frankfort School, this should be a stand-alone article. I'm glad someone is volunteering their time to do something about this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC) She recognizes the differences in the use of the terms. This encyclopedia project was here to be reasonably inclusive and cover notable topics.[reply]

• 1. 11. Why do the editors who wanted to delete the article fight so hard in editing it. That seems strange. Why spend time trying to improve something you argued had no relevance? I believe the intention was to delete an article because they did not like how it was written as it offended their ideological beliefs. That is my opinion and others have their idea as to why the article that stood for 9 years was deleted. One things for sure is that there was a great deal of POV going on both sides but that is no reason to delete an article and there was no consensus to be deleted so it should of stayed. The salting was also a very poor decision. Talk about trying to hide information. Thank God someone saved it and posted elsewhere. They are making a great deal of justified negative comments about Wikipedia over this AFD. This an extremely bad example by many involved including admins.

• My intention is to inform here. Banning my IP is not a concern of mine at this point. It will hurt Wikipedia more than me. Besides that I need a break as all my free time has been dedicated to this over the last three days and even time I should of been taking care of other things. I am bold and determined as I spent much of my adult life as a Marine. I am tenacious as a bull dog when I feel passionate about something. Chillum brought the worst and the best in me by pulling that admin stunt of his. SEMPER FI Jimbo! 208.54.32.236 (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. I made an earlier edit to this page, which was since deleted, explaining why I edited WeldNeck's Cultural Marxism page. All of these activities pertaining to User:WeldNeck have surfaced since my edits, and I want to clarify that this was not my intention and this was the first time I had ever considered editing a Wiki page (I even created this account in order to do so). My intention was to neutralize the Cultural Marxism article, and my efforts included very minimal deletions (usually in the form of word changes) and what I hoped were benign but factual additions about Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School and the Birmingham School. I did this because of my suspicions concerning WeldNeck's association with another blog that was obviously anti-Cultural Marxism; this blog was called detroyculturalmarxism.blogspot.com, which has very recently been changed to destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com, a change that I think confirms my suspicions that WeldNeck is not only associated with that blog but is also a White Supremacist in line with that blog. Until I edited it, WeldNeck's user article on Cultural Marxism was essentially a copied/pasted version of that blog and predisposed against the entire field of Cultural Marxism. However, given these issues with WeldNeck's White Nationalist stances and his willingness to use his/her own blog as a reference for his/her own Wikipedia article, given the (above) willingness to factually assert that Europe is "drowning in Cultural Marxism", and the numerous "paranoid schizophrenic" references on this talk page, at the very least and for what it's worth I support the Cultural Marxism AFD initiative. Oilyguy (talk)Oilyguy — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Rather than complaining and conspiring about this SPI nonsense, why don't we revisit the idea of deleting your entire CM page, since its text and references (before I edited them) were facsimiles of a decidedly non-neutral blog titled "Destroy Cultural Marxism" which includes images like http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7beZdnkPaCg/U9msc2z20XI/AAAAAAAAAB0/KNzjcelzmvI/s1600/BhEpuYjCcAEQgiy.jpg_large.jpeg and http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RhglxfEvgyo/U9mtCgSHAkI/AAAAAAAAACM/dXErBrtoUzc/s1600/BsyEbIfCQAAqrV_.jpg_large.jpeg? The entire premise of everything WeldNeck says is, "If I agree with it, it's neutral." Oilyguy (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Oilyguy[reply]

I started the ANI so others could look at the block I received for starting a SPI. Chillum blocked the IP I submitted the SPI with. I have a cellular IP and it changes frequently, that is how cell towers serve many customers. Chillum specifically said I logged out from an account and was a therefore a sock. What account did I log out from, what evidence was there? Did he start a SPI on me? No he just used a convenient excuse to block me. It was malicious at best. I believe he has a low level of respect for IP's and was not AGF. He has made up lies after that to defend his block. He says I edit warred. That is a lie. Show where I did that? The only thing I have done is turn off my device for 5 Minutes to get a new IP to respond to the ANI I started. Why did I start it? So his actions and my actions would be scrutinized. I could of walked away but I am tired of the abusive atmosphere here towards IP's. I will stand my ground on this one. I started the ANI and I will participate in it and see it out. The hell with the catch 22 when you have been maliciously abused by an admin. 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I left a post at Jobrots page and I am no longer seeking a SPI. It has plenty of merit but if it is a sock or meat puppet I like Jobrots attitude better than the sock master. It could be a friend or even a sophisticated sock but it is no longer my I ntention to pursue it. My main concern is the abuse from Chillum and all the lies he has been telling to cover his tracks. He makes up stuff or misrepresents it by twisting the facts. His reason he posted on the account he blocked is that I was editing logged out and a therefore a sock. I have nothing to log into as I will not register due people like Chillum. Besides that it would be ok to log out to start a SPI if they thought they would face retaliation and considering User:RGloucester is involved that would be likely. It is your call about the SPI but it does not matter to me anymore. There are so many editors with sock accounts and friends battling for them what is a couple of more. 172.56.8.17 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant the SPI then go for it, I certainly think there's something to it. Just because everyone does it doesnt mean we should let people get away with it. WeldNeck (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the abusive atmosphere here by some admins towards IP's does much more damage to the project and I have to pick my battles. I originally started the SPI which was deleted and then Chillum who was deeply involved in the article came along 5 hours after I started it and blocked my account here: [17] Chillum wrote: Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism. If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What account did I log out from? Having knowledge makes me guilty? Having cellular service that randomly changes IP's is now a crime? Discussing on a talk page about a bias and push in an article is now forbidden? Reinstating my deleted comments 1 time is an edit war? Making false allegations about someone who is an IP is accepted practice?

What is troubling is User:Chillums amount of lying to cover up after I self reported myself at ANI to get the matter scrutinized. The evidence speaks for itself but so do the reactions. It seems there is little accountability for admins abusing other editors especially the IP editor. There is probably a process to take this higher/further but very few know about it and are willing to go there. The catch 22 of being abused and then being blocked so you cannot make a report without being accused of evading a block is severely flawed as well. I have let enough admins know so at least their is more information about it.

Thank you WeldNeck for looking into the matter of the original SPI. The evidence is strong and I believed it deserved more attention. I would of been ok with the SPI going nowhere after the process which was very short and deleted, why? The clear abuse of someone who started a SPI has become a bigger issue for me. I did not even know about Chillum's block until I went back the next day to look at the SPI. My IP had already changed when I turned on my Cellular device. Chillum has tried to use my changing IP as evidence. That has no merit as cellular networks continually change IP's to allow more people to use the network than they have IP's allocated for. Take your cell phone for example (same type of network) and google "my IP" and then turn it of for awhile or go somewhere and google "my IP" again and it likely changed. The bigger the population of people the more likely it will change faster. I could of said oh well to Chillum's block and went on about my business and no one would of known or cared.

However there are people out there who use an IP that does not regularly change (unless they unplug their modem over night) who have been targeted by an abusive admin and I stood up for the community. It is possible Chillum thought I fell into that category and would be an easy target to abuse. Maybe he acted maliciously due to his involvement in the very controversial Cultural Marxism AFD. Maybe he has an dislike of IP editors or is paranoid about them. I do not know his reason and it does not matter so I fought against the abuse and false allegation. I forced the issue rather than just walking away which would of been easy. I knew I could fight him at ANI as blocking my IP is pretty much a waste of time unless admins are willing to go nuclear and range block millions of cellular users. That is unlikely to stop someone who has other access and knows how IP's are assigned. I pointed that out to Chillum on his talk page in a smart a$$ way to prevent such a meat head move on his part that would do a lot of collateral damage. I was successful in preventing that.

I have been very determined and sometimes a little to much of a smart a$$ towards Chillum as he has been towards me. Chillum's lying, false allegations and twisting to cover his a$$ did not bring out the best in me at all times. However as an Admin Chillum is the face of Wikipedia and he needs to exercise better judgment and that is my reason for not ignoring it. 172.56.8.17 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. I posted this to Jimbo's page as well to highlight some of the concerns. Thanks for your professional behavior.[reply]

Some friendly advice: be extra careful about the language you use in gun control article talk pages. Things are generally heated enough without adding that sort of stuff to the mix. Even if it doesn't actually cross the line, it's still distracting from the actual article discussion. Please feel free to delete this comment if you'd like - like I said, this is meant as friendly advice, not an accusation. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. WeldNeck (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is probably useless, because it appears that a conversation is already ongoing. I didn't realize this until I had already posted. But I'm supposed to post this anyway, so here it is. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, I would greatly appreciate it if you would please stop making substantial edits to the NGR page until we can sort things out in the talk page. You've been on this article for two years, it isn't going to be the end of the world if you wait a week or two to make an edit. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. WeldNeck (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, this the kind of thing that can help this be productive. You can "edit" this section of your talk page to see the syntax I use to separate everything and make it appear like it is a cut-out section of an article. This kind of thing ensures that we're focused on individual edits and keeps us from rabbit-trailing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we change the following line:

One study by Smith showed that 151,228 golf balls can fit in a school bus. ^[1]

References

1. ^ Smith, J. (2010) Bored man fills school bus with golf balls. Journal of Things 4(9) pp. 277-285

Instead it should read:

One study by Smith showed that 151,228 golf balls can fit in a 40 ft. school bus.^[1] However, Jayce and Widget's research suggest that this number on average is 185,789, and contend that "It's widely accepted that Smith was quite drunk throughout the course of his study, and lost count several times."^[2][3]

References

1. ^ Smith, J. (2010) Bored man fills school bus with golf balls. Journal of Things 4(9) pp. 277-285
2. ^ Jayce, J. & Widget, W. (2012) A meta-analysis of filling things with golf balls. International Journal of Stuff 33(7). pp. 7-356
3. ^ Garcia, E. (2012) We've literally run out of things to write about, so here's a study about golf balls. The New York Times. Retrieved 28 May 2015 from http://www.nyt.com/god_help_my_career.html

We all know Smith was groundbreaking in the field of school bus stuffing. JSTOR and google.scholar show he's been cited over 300 times in each database. But Jayce and Widget's meta-analysis was much more comprehensive and compares Smith to a number of similar studies. Also, their research was notable enough to be the source for a piece in the New York Times. We should also specify that Smith is working with a 40 ft. bus. Stuffing short busses (20-25 ft.) is a completely different field. GolfballZRule 19:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. WeldNeck (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a new approach. That we create a space where yourself and Mr Hanley can find the points on which you agree on. Maybe we can then build from there. Small incremental steps. Irondome (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. Yunshui 雲水 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article arbitration case request has been declined and removed. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]