User talk:Grifspdax
Problems with upload of File:Donald Trump AFPI Portrait Cropped.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Donald Trump AFPI Portrait Cropped.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Donald Trump AFPI Portrait Cropped.jpg
[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:Donald Trump AFPI Portrait Cropped.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation of https://imgur.com/gallery/enemy-combatants-mexicans-guest-starring-bernie-red-sanders-game-by-republican-party-of-america-QCM7Rm4 and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheSavageNorwegian 16:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
[edit]Your behavior at Talk:Trump International Golf Club shooting has been unnecessarily confrontational and belligerent towards your fellow editors who have a different perspective. Exercise some self restraint. Cullen328 (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
February 2025
[edit]
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Kash Patel. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have not attacked anyone, you are most likely mistaken. Grifspdax (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- here and here... please read WP:NPA, you have already been warned about commenting on content, not other editors... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- My contributions addressed content disputes under WP:CONSENSUS , not personal conduct, and critiques of systemic editorial bias—when supported by sources—are well within project norms. If you struggle to differentiate such discourse from personal attacks, I suggest revisiting WP:NPA with greater care before admonishing others. Thank you :) Grifspdax (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- NPA point #3: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden." Saying Leftist editors currently locked down the article ... how evil they are trying to make this guy out to be, when you don't know the political affiliations of the protecting admin, or the other editors of the article, is only detrimental to the project. Instead of blindly making such POV based comments, you should be working to improve the article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your fixation on semantics over substance is precisely the obstruction to balanced discourse. The article’s protection by editors actively suppressing dissenting, well-sourced perspectives—regardless of their unverified political leanings—epitomizes systemic editorial bias, per WP:NPOV . Until such gatekeeping abates, “improving the article” remains futile when one faction enforces a singular narrative under the guise of neutrality. If you find this critique inconvenient, perhaps reflect on why WP:CONSENSUS so often falters under entrenched, ideologically rigid stewardship. Grifspdax (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- You made no attempt at all to improve the article, to discuss the consensus. You chose to attack others instead, to make an uninformed biased statement about other editors. Either you can follow the five pillars, or you can go somewhere else, that's it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your conflation of critique with attack betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of editorial dynamics. The call to “improve the article” presumes a functional consensus process. Editorial inertia—not my engagement—is the obstacle here. If you wish to invoke the pillars, apply them equitably: WP:NPOV requires addressing systemic imbalances, not silencing those who note them. Constructive dialogue demands introspection from all parties—yours included. Grifspdax (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Gotta love new editors who think they are going to play lawyer... I am done trying to explain this to you, you are free to think whatever you want, so long as you follow the rules... do not attack other users again, or assume their political affiliations... have a nice day... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your conflation of critique with attack betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of editorial dynamics. The call to “improve the article” presumes a functional consensus process. Editorial inertia—not my engagement—is the obstacle here. If you wish to invoke the pillars, apply them equitably: WP:NPOV requires addressing systemic imbalances, not silencing those who note them. Constructive dialogue demands introspection from all parties—yours included. Grifspdax (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- You made no attempt at all to improve the article, to discuss the consensus. You chose to attack others instead, to make an uninformed biased statement about other editors. Either you can follow the five pillars, or you can go somewhere else, that's it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your fixation on semantics over substance is precisely the obstruction to balanced discourse. The article’s protection by editors actively suppressing dissenting, well-sourced perspectives—regardless of their unverified political leanings—epitomizes systemic editorial bias, per WP:NPOV . Until such gatekeeping abates, “improving the article” remains futile when one faction enforces a singular narrative under the guise of neutrality. If you find this critique inconvenient, perhaps reflect on why WP:CONSENSUS so often falters under entrenched, ideologically rigid stewardship. Grifspdax (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- NPA point #3: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden." Saying Leftist editors currently locked down the article ... how evil they are trying to make this guy out to be, when you don't know the political affiliations of the protecting admin, or the other editors of the article, is only detrimental to the project. Instead of blindly making such POV based comments, you should be working to improve the article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- My contributions addressed content disputes under WP:CONSENSUS , not personal conduct, and critiques of systemic editorial bias—when supported by sources—are well within project norms. If you struggle to differentiate such discourse from personal attacks, I suggest revisiting WP:NPA with greater care before admonishing others. Thank you :) Grifspdax (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- here and here... please read WP:NPA, you have already been warned about commenting on content, not other editors... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)