User talk:Republic of Texas

Attention:

This user uses an IP address that is registered to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, and may be shared by multiple users in the United States military. Because the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block shared by many.

---

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.

IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

About Me

Beware, this is a parody, but so is life. I'm 44 years old and work for the U.S. Government in law enfrocement. I am also in the U.S. Miltary. I am a Lieutenant Colonel and a military police officer in the U.S. Army. I often times find that I am the senior U.S. law enforcement official in many regions of the world. The U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command has world wide jurisdiction - every country, every person. If you are doing something that could negatively affect the United States of America or any one of its citizens, you are probably already on our radar. We might not get to you right away, but get to you we will. Now, that being said, I am a HUGE believer in civil liberties and individual rights. I hate the USAPATRIOT Act and I hate NSL letters. I think that EVERYBODY - and I do mean EVERYBODY (except for the crazy people and drunks) should be allowed to own and carry the firearm of their choice without the need to get any kind of state license or paperwork.

Just think of this for a moment. Think of all the shit that you see in your city. All the rude behavior, people being jerks, disresptful crap. All of that shit. Now think of a city in which everyone has the ability to carry a gun at will in any location. Are you going to drive recklessly and cut people off in traffic just because your 'running late?' Are you going to cut in line for movie tickets? Are you going to act like an asshole and treat everyone around you like shit?

I think not.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

What I think Wikipedia is about

A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/ Since I try to view the articles as they would be seen by someone NOT a part of this demographic, I try to include information relevant to them. If these non-demographic members are searching for, say, Erin Andrews, why do you think that is? They don't care about her sportscasting "career" or that she once worked for "the Sunshine Network." They want to know what's up with the naked tapes, and the who, what, when, where, why & how of the matter.

We have got to remember - the people who edit Wikipedia are NOT the people who use Wikipedia. And if we wish to remain relevant and interesting, we must keep the non-user demographic in mind. Republic of Texas (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wifey's World

I've reverted you addition of their real names - see the article's Talk page here for why not. Tabercil (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

okay, I read that stuff. But to my analysis it seems to be nothing more than an 'argument' amongst sockpuppets on behalf of Kevin & Sandra Otterson. These people have put themselves out into the public eye. Their full names, dates of birth, current home address, and social security numbers are all out there on the internets. It is a famous website and I see nothing wrong with putting names to the faces involves. One would guess that if they didn't want to be personally identified then they probably should not have put naked pictures of themselves on the internet for all the world to see - including neighbors, co-workers, family, and friends. (And God Almight would I hate to be one of their children!)Republic of Texas (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter - if they do not wish to have their names on Wikipedia, we have to try and honour their request. This is from WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. " See the Flower Tucci article history for a recent example of this principle being applied to an article. Since there's just one reliable source so far for the names of the people behind Wifey's World and it hasn't been publicized further than that, I don't see how we can add it. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that they do not wish to have their names on wikipedia? Have they sent a letter or something? I am not trying to be funny here, it is a serious question. Unless someone has proof that this is their wishes, it sounds like more of an assumption to me - and assumptions have no role in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. In addition, I do not see how such a thing can be optional. I am sure that there are a lot of people who have articles about them here who wished to have them removed, too. But personal desires play no role in an encyclopedia, as far as I can see. Regarding you claim of 'one reliable source', I don't see what that has to do with anything. The realibility of the source is the issue. And just because it is not constantly republished over and over should make no difference. I haven't seen too many news articles about Rudolf Hess lately. But he still gets an article here.

The fact that they might not want their names here is a 'so what' issue to me. If you don't want people to know who you are you probably shouldn't be posting naked pictures of yourselves on the internet for all the world to see. I am going to read those links that you put here. But, really, all of their personal info is already out there anyways.Republic of Texas (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit on Talk:Wifey's World and re-removed the statement you left on the webpage about their real names on WP:CIV grounds. Also, take a look at WP:BLP, which is the policy which is applicable in this circumstance. Tabercil (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how BLP is applicable. There is nothing that I could find within BLP that says that you are not allowed to reveal the names of people. Why are you trying so hard to keep these peoples' names off Wikipedia? I do not understand. Republic of Texas (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP is clear in that it says we have to respect their privacy - if they don't want their name on the article, we pretty much have to pull it off. That's non-negotiable and thus the Flower Tucci edit I mentioned above. Now, on reviewing back, I don't see anything to indicate that the original people wanting the name removed were indeed the subjects of the article, and I don't remember any communication off-wiki on this particular article. So for now, I'll allow the names to stand. Tabercil (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning regarding several policies you have broken,

WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and most of all, WP:NPA. This edit is completely unacceptable. You do not own the article, or the edits you make to that article; other editors are completely within their rights to revert you or alter your edits. I suggest you strike your personal attack calling another editor a fool and a douche, and learn to communicate in a civil and adult manner. If you can't, I'm bringing your behavior to ANI. We can do this the easy way, or the hard way, but your current behavior is unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with the above policies before continuing to edit here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So why am I the bad guy when it is clear from the evidence that the other people started it with their edit warring? Since I happen to be in Phoenix right at this moment and heard of his death firsthand on the local news, I know what the real deal is. You can follow along by listening to the news on the local radio here http://www.kfyi.com/main.html Republic of Texas (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about content, this is about your behavior, and your issues with ownership. You don't own your edits, and your act of calling another editor that name is completely unacceptable. Retract it or I can bring up your policy violations to people who will do something about them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well when I put a lot of work into putting something together, I certainly feel that I do 'own' it - after all, but for my hard efforts it would not exist. So when some random dude comes along and erased my work I was just pretty steamed. Then some other dude claimed the sources were 'not good enough.' And yet, I find myself sitting in front of the radio listening to the guy say that Schimmel is dead. When you put a lot of work into something, you take ownership of it. That is only natural and it should be respected. I guess a part of the problem is that there is no way to have real time communication between all of the people involved with this particular matter. After I do 20 minutes of work, and then to see it all disappear for no reason, I got pissed. Republic of Texas (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't own your work on wikipedia, as clearly stated in the policy I linked you called WP:OWN. At the bottom of the edit window, you will find the following text:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.

I bolded the relevant details. You don't own your edits here, and you agree to that contract every time you edit here. I'll warn you one, last, time. Retract your edits calling another editor a fool and a douche, or I'm taking you to ANI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, pissed or no, you are responsible for your edits. If something happened that upsets you, and you feel the need to insult the other person, stop yourself from doing so, take a breath, and talk it out civilly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the boilerplate legalise. But you know what I am talking about anyways. With regards to the 'retractions', I have already attempted to do so before you made your post and I realized I was in the wrong. I am just trying to figure out how to do it. Republic of Texas (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are also correct about being responsible for your edits. To be honest, this is the very first time a situation like this has happened to me. I was quite shocked when I found all my hard work suddenly gone for no good reason. Republic of Texas (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Replace 'douche', 'fool', and 'chicken shit' with '<personal attack redacted>', and then apologize to those you insulted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and please do not forget about calling an admin's edits(bongwarrior) chicken shit. I'm heading to bed now, goodnight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just left a message for him on his page. Thank you for your help here!!!!!

A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/

I am 44 years old, with a Law degree for Harvard, and a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. I am also a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S Army, so I get a bit upset when I see uneducated kids running around acting like they are in charge editing pages left and right.

I haven't exactly gone to sleep yet; I've just been tidying up things. That aside, however, it isn't fair to judge people solely based on their physical age. Everyone here is equal, and everyone here needs to be treated with respect and civility, even if they don't show it in kind. This is a collaborative project, and creating a poisonous atmosphere is only detrimental to the work being done here. It isn't fair to judge people just because you are reverted; read their edit summaries, read our policy. We cannot use original research, and all content must be verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Especially biographies of living persons articles. Our BLP policies are very strict, so we cannot source a death unless it can be sourced to a reliable source; radio stations and blogs don't fall under our reliable source policy. Uneducated in this sense of the word, is in the eye of the beholder; sure, many of us haven't completed college. I haven't myself, I just can't write an essay to save my life, and I'm terrible at math when I have 3d animation on the mind(which I do constantly). College or no, many people here have put much time and effort into this project, much time and effort learning it's rules, and learning how to abide by them. Learning the importance of abiding by them. Learning why they must be followed.

On wikipedia, it isn't about one's background, it's about one's ability to write in a neutral manner, source statements and information to verifiable reliable sources, and when there are conflicts with other editors, discuss them out in a civil manner that doesn't devolve into mud-slinging(which of course gets nothing done but a block party).

I'm at least 20 years younger than you, by the way. I am not perfect, and I have had my fair share of blocks for incivility, but I am trying to change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

Your comments

I did ask you to back off on the talkpage but you continue, your last comment about other contributors telling them to get a life is uncalled for and leaning on our civility guidelines, please discuss content and not contributors. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:137.56.163.64. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ishdarian|lol^wut 06:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

that guy is nothing but a vandal. But I don't see you trying to warn him off, kid. In fact, you did nothing. Republic of Texas (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)