User talk:Nysus

Hello Nysus and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

O'Reilly edit

Re: the Bill O'Reilly page, I only had a problem with the implication that political independents are not controversial. I think your new edit is good, and an improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if another editor objected to the word "controversial" in the introduction. We'll see. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. Rhobite 01:49, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I originally didn't quite say what I meant.

If someone challenged the word "controversial," I wouldn't be surprised. However, I think it would be an unjust challenge. A controversey is merely "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" according to Merriam-Webster. There are many opposing views to O'Reilly and he draws quite a bit of lightning. Hence, I think he can properly be described as controversial. In fact, he feeds off of controversey to make a living. I think he himself would consider it to be a compliment.

O'Reilly 2

Hi, I've reverted your changes to Bill O'Reilly (commentator)--see the edit summary for my justification. Feel free to take it up on the talk page if you disagree--I'm happy to work with you. Just didn't want to drive you off--you've been doing some fine work (I logged off this morning, logged on again at midnight, and you were still here). Cheers, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:12, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

OK, I will add a comment on the talk page.

Thanks

And actually, I've been meaning to drop you a note about how impressed I've been with your editing. Wolfman 20:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SBVT

Oops! My bad - link has been corrected - here it is here also

Rex071404 20:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops! My bad - link has been corrected - here it is here also

Rex071404 20:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, sorry for the accidental revert. I was just about to fix it when you did so. This kind of thing is likely to happen when Rex is making so many edits. JamesMLane 06:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was an error. --Nysus 06:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see you like my USA flag .gif

I've moved on to "happy joe", but please don't be offended if I use USA flag again from time to time.

Ps: Kudos to you GW1, vet!

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your repeated vandalism at SBVT

As promised, I have reported you for vandalism. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think that charge would stick. Thankfully, someone had the sense to remove your baseless charge from that page. But I was hoping you did the honorable thing and removed it yourself. Nysus 19:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SBVT

copied from user talk:Mirv

Hi, Mirv. I've tried and tried to get my compromise langauge discussed so we can move forward but I am having little success. I don't know what else to do. Please advise. --Nysus 03:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, you've requested comment, which will help get other editors involved and perhaps break the deadlock; if that fails you can ask for a mediator. —No-One Jones 03:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Nysus 03:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You asked, "I am wondering if others are finding Rex's edits as disruptive as I am or if I'm the only one?" My answer is that I find Rex's entire editing style to be extraordinarily disruptive. The only advice I can give you is that you not try to explain Wikipedia procedure or the process of collaborative editing to him. Based on my experience, I'd say such efforts are a waste of time. JamesMLane 06:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well James, I would agree with you except to say that the only thing we have in this world is hope. I can only hope that one day Rex will come around. Otherwise, we are all doomed to beating our heads against the wall forever. That's an outcome I'm doing my best to try to avoid. --Nysus 06:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A month or so ago I was in exactly that position with regard to trying to work on the John Kerry article. I finally decided that to continue to hope was unrealistic. Others came to the same conclusion. The result was an arbitration proceeding, and although it's still ongoing, the ArbCom has temporarily blocked Rex from editing John Kerry and two related pages. So, at least to that extent, we've stopped beating our heads against the wall. We may need to consider going back to the ArbCom to ask them to expand the remedy. JamesMLane 14:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize he had such a track record. Thanks for letting me know. It's guys like Rex that raise a question in my mind about what will happen to Wiki as it gets more popular and attracts more and more folks who have similar tendencies toward disruptive behavior. Right now, he's outnumbered. But what happens when more level headed folks get outnumbered? I fear they will throw up their arms in frustration and find something else to do with their time. I think eventually, the wiki software will have to introduce some kind of rating system for editors to keep diruptive folks in check.

Wiki is a lot like e-mail and is based on a system of trust. And we have all seen what happened as a result. It takes just a handful of bad apples to ruin it for everyone. Cliche but true. --Nysus 16:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the early stages of the discussion about how to handle Rex's obstructionism on the John Kerry article, one of the editors involved told me gloomily that the ArbCom had the power to issue a temporary block, but probably wouldn't do it, and that the full proceeding would drag on for months, during which we'd have the choice of (1) spending huge amounts of time in constant fights with Rex over the tiniest detail, or (2) abandoning the field to him and letting him turn the article into an anti-Kerry rant. Well, it turned out that the ArbCom did impose a temporary block. More generally, I think other people are concerned about the tendency you describe. There's a growing feeling that we need to do more to curb abusive users. For example, a pending policy proposal to facilitate blocks by a single admin garnered majority support, though not enough to be called consensus; I think it may be modified, to take account of the objections voiced, and presented again.

Returning to the specific case of Rex, my concern has been that the ArbCom still has before it the original RfAr. (See the links on my user page if you want to wade through all that's gone down in that proceeding.) When Rex began exhibiting his same old style on the SBVT page, it seemed better to let the ArbCom finish chewing over one set of problems before going back to them with a new complaint. Also, Rex will of course return to his cherished theme that other people are "ganging up" on him. At this point, I'm still inclined to wait. I fully recognize, however, that, unpleasant and time-consuming as it would be, we may find ourselves with no realistic alternative to starting another arbitration proceeding. JamesMLane 01:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Texans

Well, I just removed the links, independently of the rest of you..... read the talk page, saw the discussion, and before I could get to my watchlist again, Rex had reverted it. Lyellin 03:06, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to send you a thanks before I got caught up responding to Rex. We are making progress. He is at least trying to justify his reverts. Thanks for the help. --Nysus 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vulgar Language

Nysus, you said this "this fucking bullshit needs to stop" here. Now I know you probably regret saying that, but all the same, by any interpretation, that comment must be at least as bad (or worse) than the "feces" nose-tweak I made against Neutrality (on my personal talk page - since deleted). Especially if you are trying to paint me as the "loose cannon" you'd probably do better not to swear. That and the fact that you obviously have a wider linquistic panoply than mere vulgarity - I'd expect better from you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

In case you missed it, I have answered your question and have posed (2) questions for you [1] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

fyi: User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Rex071404 asks you to read his comments implicates you as a sockpuppet

Welcome back!

Hi, Nysus, I'm glad to see that your absence was only temporary. JamesMLane 03:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, did you ever get that e-mail I sent you?

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Rafe Pomerance

Hi, I'm Doomsdayer520. Nysus, thanks for creating Rafe Pomerance!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for your new article on Rafe Pomerance, but more evidence of his notability is needed, such as commentary on his influence over lawmakers and the public, beyond merely being questioned in a few news articles. Good luck.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doomsdayer520 and Nysus. I respectfully disagree with the notability tag and have removed it. The New York Times article goes pretty in-depth into Pomerance's work and his role in history - it's a lot more than just interviewing him as a subject matter expert. This is a very long article that was on the home page of the New York Times. I'd never heard of Rafe Pomerance until I saw it there. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nysus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)