This user may have left Wikipedia. MisterDub has not edited Wikipedia since 29 January 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Is there a way to expedite resolution at the NPOV noticeboard? I feel there are serious NPOV violations occurring, but no admin has yet replied on the matter. The editors in question are now requesting a removal of the NPOV template despite this lack of resolution. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators don't resolve disputes about content. Discussion is still underway on the article talk page and the NPOV notice board. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dianaa, I am not asking about the content, but if there is a way to speed up the process at the NPOV noticeboard? Is there no other option but to wait until somone finally gets to it? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the NPOV noticeboard does not have to be closed by an admin. In fact, looking through the archives of the NPOV noticeboard, it looks like very few of the discussions have official closure. Discussions just taper off when people are finished discussing. A new comment was made at the notice board on 9 August. There's a parallel discussion happening at the article talk page, where an RFC just closed on 25 July. It's best to consolidate discussion at one venue. - Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to silence others because you disagree with them
Yeah, that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Your incivility in trying to silence me because you disagree with me will be reported if you persist. Remember: just because you disagree with someone is no reason to attempt to get that person blocked. In fact: that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND. So please: desist in your effort to silence me simply because you disagree with me. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theories Don't Have to Be Scientific
ID is a theory about the origin and progress of the Universe. Any person can have a theory ... it doesn't have to be a "scientific" theory to be plausible. We must remember that scientific theory is not the same as truth.
I think that ID began because of concerns that evolution was being taught (essentially) as fact in the schools. Nobody should object to the teaching of evolution as a THEORY, but one should not ban other theories (ideas that can't be proven false).
"Pseudo Science" has a negative connotation (I've often used it myself... shame on me). It doesn't bother me if one does not want to put ID in the science category (there are lots of conjectures in there now that need to be taken out). But please don't denigrate what many thoughtful, experienced, and well-educated people believe to be at least plausible.
Dfwlms 22:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwlms (talk • contribs)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Please, I am seeking assistance for an issue with other editors who, I submit, are POV warriors protecting the Anarcho-capitalism article.
I have been awaiting admin assistance at the NPOV noticeboard, but apparently that's not where I should be for admin attention. I also have a request at the admin noticeboard to review one of the editors in question, who is frequently uncivil. I don't want to start another discussion and appear like I am shopping around (or whatever the term is); I just want to stop the disruptive editing.
You need to stop your POV-pushing, battleground behavior, incivility, and attempt to silence others just because you disagree with them. I think the issue will be resolved then. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
September 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Anarchocapitalism. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You do not own the article. Please stop holding it hostage.Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been patiently awaiting admin assistance for a POV dispute that's continued for months now. I opened a case at the ANI, but it has been relegated to an Incident Archive—do these still receive admin attention? If not, how can I get this unresolved issue somewhere an admin will see it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm just not asking the right questions, but I do not see this as a content dispute. This is a problem with POV editors. Where do I go to receive admin attention for blatantly biased editors? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
