Jump to content

User talk:Republic of Texas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Republic of Texas (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 30 August 2010 (→Note with another note,). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Republic of Texas! 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 loving 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! -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

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)[reply]

Civility

Please do not call other editors "vandals" for removing questionable content, as you did here. It is a violation of the civility policy, and if you keep it up may earn you a block. For more, see the policy on vandalism, especially what is not vandalism. Also, please read up on assuming good faith. I hope those policies will make clear to you why it's a bad idea to call other editors vandals for disagreeing with you.

I explained when removing your addition that it seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE as well as a possible WP:BLP violation. You have responded to neither claim. The latter (BLP) is particularly important on Wikipedia -- see, for example the Siegenthaler controversy and its real-world consequences. Your edit to Anti-pornography movement in the United States appears to be a direct result of your threats (reverted by multiple others) in this edit. There is absolutely no reason to publish such detailed information about barely-notable people, especially when you have an avowed quest to cast aspersions on them. Let me repeat: There is no call for doing this on Wikipedia.

I realize that we have disagreed previously at Talk:Erin Andrews, but I am sad to see that you have not taken to heart the advice of other editors. What can we do to help you understand Wikipedia better? You seem like an intelligent person who could become a productive editor. I'd like to see that happen. -Phoenixrod (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi! Actually I had no recollection of the talk on Erin Andrews because I had forgotten the issue and moved on. When I saw that a whole section of an article was removed I assumed that someone was just vandalizing stuff - not you in particular, but just some random person, as I failed to associate your name with the Erin Andrews talk. The fact that false anti-pornography movements exist is, I believe, a significant issue. This is similar to 'false-flag' operations conducted by governments / military, and political groups. (Check out the link!) People do those things to try to discredit an organization or movement. The example that I used - and cited - was the best example that I could find that was well documented and well sourced. The false anti-porn group tried to use the example of diminishing property values as a reason to run those 2 people out of the neighborhood. The link I provided to the property tax office proves that this is not the case, that property values actually increased - and increased greatly, and that the recent reduction in property values was simply the result of the downturn in the housing market as a whole, not something that was the fault of these two people moving into the neighborhood and making porn in their house. Since I cannot use 'original research' I had to provide links to the relevant newspaper articles and tax records to prove this up.
Regarding the so-called threats, the context of that statement was entirely different than this matter. It was the result of the possible discovery that - several years ago - these people (and others) were purposefully trying to scrub Wikipedia of any reference to these two people. Had the 'threat' been followed through, it would have (as stated) taken place on file sharing sites such as The Pirate Bay, et al., in which ALL of their information would have been released in a comprehensive and complete form. (All of said information is already publically available online; it is just scattered about in different places.) In any event, that matter has nothing to do with this new article.
If you can come up with a better example of a false flag operation in the anti-pornography movement, by all means, list it. But this was the best documented - and sourced - example that I could find. It doesn't do any good to talk about false flag operations in the anti-pornography movement if you cannot provide actual examples of such a thing. Republic of Texas (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the false flag link—interesting reading. (And it reminds me of the firestorm that was ignited by Alvin Greene's Senate primary victory a couple months back, with some commenters wondering if Greene was a plant from an opposing political party.)
I realize that you cited two sources in Anti-pornography movement in the United States, which is good, but I believe you are missing the intent of the policy against original research. In particular, there is a part about synthesizing sources that reads, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Your edit took publicly available information about property values and formed a conclusion about the "false anti-pornography groups" that the cited sources did not discuss. If there are sources that explicitly discuss false anti-pornography groups or false flag operations, then by all means that information could be added. As editors, though, we have to stick to what others say about the issues. That short Arizona Republic article isn't focused on anti-porn groups at large, false or otherwise.
I agree that the phenomenon could be quite interesting. I just can't find much about it that's been published in a cursory search. Until it's written about by secondary sources, not much can be written about it on Wikipedia.
As for the "threat", I'm not going to debate semantics or split hairs. All I'm saying is that it doesn't look good that at one article you wanted to expose these people's information, and at another article they are the example you chose to focus on. But as you suggest, let's just drop the matter. It's only indirectly related.
I agree with you when you say, "It doesn't do any good to talk about false flag operations in the anti-pornography movement if you cannot provide actual examples of such a thing." That's a big part of why I reverted originally, since the example didn't have much substance. But by all means, if you find more information, especially with more detail specifically about false anti-porn groups, it could help the article. Happy editing! -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please only mark minor edits as minor

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Alvin Greene, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed 'minor' to me, so I labeled it thus.Republic of Texas (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

hI please take care with your additions this was recently at the BLPN noticeboard, if you think something is worthy adding and is notable try adding a comment to the talk page or the noticeboard WP:BLPN and waiting to see if experienced users agree with you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi back - I have no clue as to what you are referring to. what is the BLPN notice board and what comments? Republic of Texas (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPN stands for "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard" - basically where folks go to discuss issues regarding a biography article. I believe the recent discussion that Off2riorob is referring to is the one about Jeffrey Jones which can be found here. Tabercil (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was an issue that I started on account of a complaint I made (before I registered my name). My complaint was that people were trying to white-wahs, minimize, and/or remove references to this guy's history as a sex offender. This guy, Rob, seems to be some young guy from the UK who thinks 'anything goes' and that it is no big deal to not register as a sex offender. As a federal law enforcement offical I take strong issue with that. This is especially true with the civil lawsuit that was filed against the guy for molesting that 14 yr old naked boy! What justification can there be for not adding the civil lawsuit information? Republic of Texas (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link you posted to The Pirate Bay download of the nude video of Erin Andrews. You can see my reasons why I did so on the talk page. Pirate Bay is highly illegal and I recommend refraining from adding links to there, as most of what is on there site is illegal in most, it not all countries.--NavyBlue84 00:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the Pirate Bay is not illegal. It does not host any files; thus, it is protected under the Safe Harbor provisions of US Copyright law (which I am assuming that you are referring to). Only the act of downloading a pirated movie (which is done by the individual) is illegal, and those videos come from individuals on the P2P network - not the Pirate Bay. if that is your only reason for taking the link out, then I shall replace it. Republic of Texas (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the link again because of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization. It's pretty clear that it's a bad idea to link to the video, which was taken without her consent. I'm not going to get into the issue of whether it's a reliable source; it probably isn't, but even if it were, the BLP issue trumps it. We have to be conservative and realize that our actions as editors have real-world consequences for people. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading that cite you provided, you are correct. The only reason why I put the link there to begin with was because someone had come along and changed the article and said that the videos had been removed from the internet. So I put the link there to show that is not the case. So what about changing the language while still getting the point across? Republic of Texas (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Republic of Texas, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to claim that you represent the entire Republic of Texas. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thats really nice of you.... to be worried about something that totally does not concern you at all and about something that you obviously know nothing about. Just to set you straight, there is no such a place as the Republic of Texas. Look for it on a map and you won't find it - I dare you to. lol While there is a state of Texas, one has nothing to do with the other as one obviously exists in real life and the other does not. Republic of Texas (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Texas certainly existed from 1836 to 1846. Its flag is one of the six that have flown over Texas. Didn't they teach you that at Harvard?  :)   — Jeff G.  ツ 07:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Texas so I am familiar with its history. The point I was trying to make is that it does not exist now, 160+ years later. Just like the CSA doesn't exist anymore either, since the end of the Civil War. It is not a legal entity. Your beef above with my name is because it appears to claim that you represent the entire Republic of Texas, which is ridiculous. There is nothing on my talk page that says or claims to say that I am representing the entire "Republic of Texas" or that I am the Mayor of Springfield. Again, you are worrying about things that do not concern you. Republic of Texas (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Prison Legal News. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude - are u stalking me online? I have not even finished with the article and the cites, so stop bothering me. And not every sentence needs a citation. Republic of Texas (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Prison Legal News. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! As I said above, I am not even done with the article yet. So keep your nose out of it till its finished, then you can offer your comments.
You seem to be the kind of guy who likes to think that he is in charge, running something. You are not in charge of me, and you are not running me. Stop stalking me --its creepy! Republic of Texas (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Prison Legal News. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 07:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, kid. Do what you gotta do. You have no authority over me or what I do. As i explained to you above, I am still working on the god damn article, so stop being an ass and quit trying to dick with me. You are NOT in charge of me.

Colonel may I suggest that perhaps the edit could wait until the ref's are in place? I'd hate to see one of the good guys blocked...uhh.. Sir! :) - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim to be anything but another guy trying to fix up an article so it looks good and is more complete. Nothing is special about me. I just hate for some fool to be fucking with me over something that I have not even finished it. I don't understand what you mean by waiting till all the references are in place. I just had a little time this morning to dick around with this, so I was going to work on it piece by piece. I'm siting here listening to some asshole on the radio trying to explain how the WTC was actually brought down via controlled explosions. The problem that he is having is that he cannot explain where the necessary amount of explosives were that would have been needed to cause such complete destruction and the turning into dust all the concrete and steel (its a ridiculously HUGE amount of explosives that would be needed. Not just one semi- load but many multiples of trucks and certainly someone would notice! Anyways, I am not done yet so I would appreciate it if everyone would wait for the bullshit comments. Republic of Texas (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position sir and that's why I stopped in. Some Wikipedians however may misunderstand the plain spoken speech of a regular army officer. Basement dwellers may tend to shudder (read block you) at your various creatively employed words...? Get my meaning? As to the references... We do not work on a deadline here as you are so familiar with in your line of work. Perhaps it would be best to save your work and come back and add it when you have the appropriate verifiable references to add. I mean no disrespect of course sir. My intention is simply to see a fellow doggie on his way peacefully - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to butt in here, RoT, but if you have references for the disputed changes, perhaps you could satisfy Jeff G. if you use the show preview button and make all your planned edits in one fell swoop. That way you get your planned changes and he gets the citation(s) he wants. Everybody wins, and no one needs to get riled up. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do that. My plan was to just start writing and saving my work as I go along in the article itself since I do not know of any other way to do it, and I don't have time to just sit down for hours at a time and do it all at once. So I was just going to do it a bit at a time. But now I see it is not obviously worth the effort or headaches. Republic of Texas (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link I included explains about the "show preview" function. Alternatively, you can always work on an article in your user space without interference. For example, you could create User:Republic of Texas/Prison Legal News, copy and paste the real article into that, and work on it until you are satisfied with the changes. Then you can migrate those changes to the real article when you're done. A fuller explanation is at Wikipedia:Subpages. -Phoenixrod (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working on an article in user space rather defeats the whole point of Wikipedia. It's a next-to-last resort for dealing with disruption. The last resort is to leave Wikipedia. We don't want that. To add citations, you generally want something like <ref></ref> and inside that you put the citation, formatted. See Template:Citation for one way to format the citation. If you want to use a source more than once, you enter the citation just once and give it a name in the ref tag, like this: 

<ref name=Jones99>{{citation
|author=Dana Jones
|year=1999
|title=Thesis on whatever
|publisher=Proto Press
}}</ref>

Thereafter you use <ref name=Jones99/>; note the /. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add text to WP articles that you have copied from elsewhere, as you did here, copied from here. You must rewrite information in your own words, per WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM. As I also mentioned on the talkpage, I also believe your inclusion was too long and detailed, which is particularly important as this is biography of a living person. --Slp1 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having been to law school, it is my expert opinion that my useage is covered under the 'fair use' provisions of US copyright law, as only small portions from many seperate articles were used. Republic of Texas (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<remove copyvio again>

Since we can have absolutely no idea whether you are a lawyer or not, I'm afraid your expert opinion posted above is of limited value. In any case, as a private website we have our own standards, and per the policy and guidelines noted above copying and pasting material from copyrighted material is not permitted or acceptable. Please do not reinsert it again. If you continue to question my opinion, please feel free to ask other administrators about this matter. You could post a question about my determination at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, for example. --Slp1 (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on Talk:Maulana Karenga. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note with another note,

Finding an IP-centered template on your user talk page, I removed it, but after wondering why it was there, I did some research and found when you originally added it. I have since reverted myself, but with a caveat for the sake of other users: I've modified the notice to say that you use an IP address registered to 'so and so', versus the 'this ip address is registered to so and so', which is not accurate, since you may use this account from multiple locations, along with the fact that the account is not an IP address.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even think of screwing with something on MY user page??? Please do not mess with MY stuff and the way that I have it set up. You have no idea what the circumstances are (legal, procedural, or otherwise) that caused things to be set up the way that they were. There are very good reasons why it was done this way. I am sure you would not like it if I screwed with your user page, so please do not mess with mine unless specifically requested by myself. Republic of Texas (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Republic_of_Texas&oldid=381904063"