bird: i see you too have suffered at the hand of the wikopedia fascists. they are evil. they are the great shaytan. they pretend to be the high and mighty "oh we are for free exchange of information. we even have a gpl liscense nonsense, but they practice the most subtle form of censorship. kepp on fighting the good fight. - User:sayyed al afghani
Have a look at that guy's record. Subtlety is definitely not his strong point... - Mustafaa 23:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've seen some of your contributions, mustafaa- objectivity sure isn't one of your strong points.
Whomever last reverted this page to a March 8 version may please now go do something productive and allow this contributor to manage this contributors talk page. Previous versions of this page are available in the Page history and are widely available at several other user sites.
Hello, "bird" I am User:Plato, I have noticed that you are another victim of the "Wikipedia Witch Hunt," trust me, its quite comman...here's an offical policy on it:Wikipedians should generally refrain from witch hunts of users who may be reincarnations of banned users. My suggestion to you is to talk to User:Jimbo Wales, trust me, he will solve most of your problems...If you are banned E-mail me, I will respond.--Plato 05:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Plato, but I'm sure most of my problems will be solved within the next nine or ten decades by my inevitable death, so there is nothing so urgent taking place here as to warrant bothering Jimbo. Many of the aggressive responses I get from other users are helpful to me in sorting out the various behaviors typical of various users. I also am observing the development of a type of neural network at Wikipedia. I notice that the network is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear. Bird 05:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Interesting....sort of like our MTV Culture in America (as I jokingly put it), it seems even wiki (which i thought was above the Fray is not) gets afraid of "gadflys" such as yourself and I.--Plato 06:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hello Bird. I'm not sure if you've seen, the thread of our discussion on the Wikipedia board was inadvertently deleted. I would have asked for it to be deleted shortly anyway so in that sense it doesn't matter, but I got a message notification from that thread and didn't get a chance to read the message. If it was from you, and you want to repeat the message, I can be reached on the board, my talk page or by e-mail as usual. Regards -- sannse(talk) 23:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Bird, Thanks for warning me about Jimbo, its evident to I that he and his syops are bothering me only because i used to be a vandal. You and I will always be viewed with suspicion because of our backround.--Plato 00:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
Bird, I will get banned from wiki eventally because no one on this site (expect you and few other) like someone who speaks the truth. You where right no one on this site thinks highly of anyone who doesn't fit into there mold--Plato 03:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is easy enough to avoid conflict with other writers. You really don't need to have any conflicts other than those you choose to engage. But it might seem lucrative to engage in conflict to resolve disonance this document tends to create. This document can tend to create disonant cognition by its encouragement of faulty, substandard information produced by writers of unreliable commitment to the credibility of their work. Bird 03:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Bird, if you want people to read and understand your views, write them in common language. Many of us can decipher it, but if we can't, we just won't read it. Plato, us sysops are not a band of people plotting against you, trying to stamp out all dissonants. We are simply attempting to keep the peace on Wikipedia; otherwise, it would run rampant with vandalism and other such actions. Because both of you have partaken in such actions, we are inherently more suspicious of you than others. (I used that language because you guys like verboseness...) ugen64 04:04, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Ugen, I have no problem explaining my views to intelligent, articulate and interested individuals. If you are unable to understand this simple language, I am certain you are unqualified to contribute to an encyclopedia. Your distrust for this username is a product of efforts by the creator of this username to undermine your trust. I have manipulated other user names to demonstrate continued niave trust among this juvenile group. And while you claim sysops are keeping the peace, evidence suggests they are practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including hazing, peer pressure and class-hatred. If you want to repair the ignorance you discovered in yourself reading my repoly to Plato, and to which you intervened in my conversation with Plato to suggest incoherence, click on this link, cognitive dissonance since apparently some Wikipedia editors are unable to use their own neural networks and cannot funciton without a hyperlinked neural prosthesis. From the tone, stance and approach of your writing, Ugen, I beleive you have failed to comprehend basic personal boundaries, such as in your creation of "if-then" orders that assume I have no intelligence or agency as an individual. Put simply, Ugen, your psychopathology is evidence of the reasons much of the world hates Western culture.
What's more, since you demonstrate no interest in the way this contributors views of Wikipedia developed and then were infected by a realization of the harm and innacuracy of this pseudo-encyclopedia, I can only conclude your reply to me is an act of personal hostility intended to colonize my thoughts, and to imply to other readers that your niave view of why people persue sysop privilages here is the only correct view. I trust your habits will cause you repeated problems as you continue to live. Bird
Haven't talked in a while Bird, I feel you deserve a Barnstar for being brave in standing up to the wikipedia establishment--Plato 15:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Plato. I am currently contemplating whether I wish to help repair damage to Wikipedia's evolving jurisprudence that presented when one admin arbitrarily and permanently blocked this username, after I contributed comments and a vote to the Quickpoll page. You can see my statements that apparently led to that unilateral action by reviewing the user contributions I attributed to this username. But there is only so much one person can do to remediate an unrepentant group of antagonists. Sometimes, especially in the past week, it has been easier to assume that Western culture will have an opportunity to learn the futility of unilateral, vigilante jurisprudence in the context of more significant conflicts elsewhere. At this juncture, the function of this emerging network more accurately demonstrates the disfunctional aspects of the human brain better than anything I could contribute to the articles I donated on the subject.
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
Thanks for uploading Image:Atmospheric radiation to man.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr09:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
