User talk:Wwdamron

Would it be a good idea to put all this in a table (in both articles), similar to the List of known accusers? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, it's an idea. I would have to think on that and how to implement it. Honorayr Degrees Rescinded the number, why. I am not sure I know that one of Cosby's Attorney's responded to a statements of the degree a university said, that was very damaging to Cosby and how they perceived to know Cosby is without a doubt one of America's Greatest serial Rapists..

I will think of how to do this and incroporate the different stories surrounding his Honorary degrees..Wwdamron (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of a table where all the content for the degrees could be placed, with a "Rescinded" column for the date, and one could also have a "Details" column for the commentary, all based on content and sources found here: Bill Cosby#Honorary degrees and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations#Institutions. It would start with the earliest and end with the latest.

It could look something like this: -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is easy to do and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to work on something. I may very well do this. But I want to preserve the university's responses as to why they rescinded the degrees through their direct quotes and COsby's own attorney who responded to at least one of the University's responses which was very deflamatory but yet seemed very accurate as it contained truth's since it was related to his own deposition. You don;t rescind a degree without a very SERIOUS reason, and explanations are good to know.

I am having a hard time figuring out how to incorporate that into this table.

I think this is probably best suited for Cosby's own wikiped page "BIil COsby under Honaroary Degrees". This to me does not seem to fit in with what I would completely expect on "Bill COsby : Sexual Assault Allegations" page under "Institutions sever Ties" and rather just under Bill Cosby's Main page.

Also in a related topic it lists Bill COsby's years actrive from "1962 - present" This in my opinion should read 1962-2015 , since his career is over. If he rebounds , it could read 1962-2015 , 2018-2019 for example. The last known appearance by Cosby was the Slema March, The last known Interview was before the Selma March and the last known COmedy was in Atlanta. All of his knew tv shows and movies, etc.. have been scrapped , so his career ended months ago.

back to the list, I can work on it, but I only want to put it under his 'Bill COsby" main page it will also include degrees that have not been rescinded. But his Alleged Sexual Assault page, like i said before, needs to contain the stories behind the University's as to why and include , Cosby's and his Attorney's etc.. responses. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY about this.

Wwdamron (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

All that content goes in the "Details" column. You can pack a whole lot in there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to work on this table, another University just revoked Cosby's degree today, making 8 and I know there are at least 10 more that are going to vote on it in the next few weeks and months.Wwdamron (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks good! Here's an idea you can play with. In the "Details" column you could write less and place the rest (like long quotes) in a "Notes" section. That will make the table a bit leaner and easier to read. It's just a thought. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll play around with it. until we can get something looking alot better.Wwdamron (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's Now up to 11 Rescinded degrees (I think) and the work Begins Wwdamron (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with some history before I ask my question. I'm trying to figure out what all went down during all of Hamster's disruptive actions at Talk:Bill Cosby. Here is some of it:

1. Hamster deleted my subheading;
2. Hamster refused to accept a consensus that was explicitly stated above;
3. Hamster started an improper new section;
4. Hamster removed Wwdamron's carefully placed comment. (note the edit summary(!!));
5. User:Jumplike23 objects to Hamster's creation of the new section;
6. I restored my improperly deleted subheading;
7. I protested his deletion of the subheading, told him I had restored it, and protested his hijacking of the discussion;
8. I added another subheading to note actual beginning of discussion and to make it clear that discussion should stay below, and !votes above;
9. I replied to Hamster's lame excuse;
10. Cwobeel notes the existing consensus;
11. Jumplike23 notes the deletion of his edit (What was that about?)
12. Hamster comments and reveals he has not read the actual suggested wordings or he is just refusing to recognize them. It's a form of stonewalling;
13. Wwdamron states the discussion should be closed;
14. I agree with Wwdamron and Jumplike23 and hat the discussion;
15. I added a subheading to identify the actual content;
16. Hamster removes the hatting. Claims I'm closing the discussion, but the discussion in the section wasn't fruitful, unlike the discussion which had been occurring above the section. Anyone was still welcome to discuss there;
17. Hamster again refuses to accept the consensus and makes more false claims, even claiming I'm hijacking the page;
18. Hamster makes the improper and unproductive section an RfC;
19. Hamster makes the most bold and absurdly false claims yet:
    "User:BullRangifer, you have edited this entire talk page to change the order in which things were said and the titles of the sections in which they were said. This section here is completely new and you have moved all these posts from the section above. Now some of the comments have been placed under a much different context than when they were originally written. This is creating a lot of confusion at best and is dishonest at worst. Stop editing other people's entries and sections."
    (Those claims are ALL totally false and made out of whole cloth!!!)
20. Hamster vandalizes my subheading in preparation for reordering sections;
21. Hamster moves the whole RfC above the sections above it. Now everything is out of whack and not chronological. This is a total hijack of the discussion by Hamster. He has done what he falsely accused me of doing.

Up to this point there were only four editors, with three against Hamster. He was the only one objecting, and also the one making all the disruption.

After this radical change, editors who had been forum shopped began to appear. They hadn't a clue that things are out of whack, so they were easily confused and deceived by Hamster, but they didn't know it, so some started believing him and blaming me.

Nowhere in all of this did I change the order of comments or sections or block participation in discussions. Everyone was welcome to keep discussing.

Those are the main problematic edits, although there is more deception on other pages as well. The more I look, the more I see manipulation of content. He has deleted at least one of my comments on his talk page, and totally refuses to provide any evidence backing his false claims. He repeats those claims in several venues, thus making me look bad. Maunus (who is not an admin) has defended him, so I'm backing off from getting justice from that corner.

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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit deleting the section that said charges from the Goins case could not be made at this late date. The citation I had provided for that section, LA Times, says:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-bill-cosby-allegations-venue-20151230-story.html In most other adult sex-crime cases -- including the type Goins is alleging -- the statute of limitations is generally six years. But legal experts said there are other reasons for the LAPD to investigate, especially if Cosby is charged with a crime. California law allows victims to testify as witnesses even if their own cases never result in charges. The evidence is admissible because of a 1996 change in California law that allowed witnesses to prove a pattern of behavior or propensity to commit a crime.i.e. She clould testify in other charges (Such as the one in PA re: Constand but that does not mean that Cosby could be charged in the Goins case in CA).

I read the citation you provided www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/12/30/chloe-goins-wants-her-case-against-bill-cosby-to-spur-criminal-charges-too but I could find no mention that the Statute of Limitations might be longer than 6 years in CA. It just says Goins would LIKE charges to be laid in her case but then just discusses the Constand charges in PA. (btw, the statute depends on the state; it is longer in PA and that is why they were able to lay a charge in Dec. 2015 re: an incident that occurred in Jan. 2004. It is 12 years in the state of PA)

If I am wrong, I would delete the section about the Limitation in the Goins case. But I would need to read an article that says so in a reliable source. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's okay, but I think it needs to be edited that the case might still fall under the statute of limitations, since certain sex crimes can be up to 10 years. Why would Goins say this about her case after she has to know the statute of limitations has expired on the six year period. And why does the LAPD NOT say specifically that GOINS case CANNOT be prosecuted now ? I understand that they can investigate beyond prosecutable cases , but know one of proper authority has confirmed without doubt that Goins case cannot be tried Criminally. Wwdamron (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you leave a message on my talk page 4 or 6 months ago regarding Dahmer? He confessed to 17 - as proven in the text (and referenced at that). If you read the article you'll see his ONLY Ohio victim's pulverized body parts were recovered and identified. The murder was further proven by luminol stains beneath the house corroborating his confession to where he stored/dismembered the corpse. As for the only victim dropped from the charges at his Wisconsin trial - the message is still on my talk page as to why (sole reason dropped Dahmer was so drunk he couldn't recall the actual murder itself). It's 17 - but could have been as low as 12 had Dahmer not confessed. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of serial rapists by number of victims, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from the copyright source web page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wwdamron. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of serial rapists by number of victims".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Few, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Weber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Meters. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Anthony Weiner seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have had this edit undone twice, and multiple other editors have remove similar edits. Either discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anthony Weiner, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk) huh ???? its already in the page, it totally contradicts what i already said in the page on Anthony Weiner --->>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Personal_life Wwdamron (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You should probably read the cited sources more carefully. The case was withdrawn from public court to be negotiated privately, but the sources are clear that they will be divorcing each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Vinatieri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: this edit. Please see WP:SOURCE and WP:BLP. Those are very important and bedrock policies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you have participated in editing the page before, your input on this discussion and the relevance of including this info is welcome here: Talk:Madison Cawthorn#Use of white nationalist symbolsEccekevin (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello do you have a reference to confirm your figure: 675.92 km. Bob's last publication is dated March 13, 2021 .

Friendships --Biboc (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not update player articles during a game with anything stat related, including adding records while the game is still going on. Other updates are fine, just not anything stat or record related.--Rockchalk717 23:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I don;t understand ? The Game ended on NOvember 26,2022 I updated it on December 20, 2022 ? Wwdamron (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Might you be able to recall the source of data that you provided on the Adolph Rupp page, regarding his winning record? Your data has been taken down, not because it was not truthful, but because it lacked a footnoted source. We can get your data re-published, if you can recall the source of your data that you published. Was it from a book about Adolph? Was it from the NCAA accessible records? Was it from a newspaper article or magazine article? Hopefully, you can give me a hand in this matter, and I can get it re-published. Beaconboy (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)