The-Expose-inator

Hello The-Expose-inator, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Thought I'd add a full welcome message. You can remove when you no onger need it. Good luck, and have fun. --Fnlayson (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Beau Biden

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Beau Biden, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. In addition, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the information you are adding is not encyclopedic in nature, not to mention that you added duplicate information in your most recent edit. You also added commentary to the article that would actually belong on the article's talkpage. Add to this the fact that on your userpage you have made it known that you have an agenda against the Biden family, and it actually presents a dilemma of a potential conflict of interest. Atlantabravz (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Biden issue

My responses are after yours that have been transposed from my talkpage for ease of understanding:

"I have nothing against the Biden family except he was a Draft Dodger that let some other less eligible, less qualified and probably less educated individual go to Vietnam in his place." This is called POV writing and is not neutral. This is not a blog or an op-ed page.

"He did everything short of maiming himself to dodge the draft and, if he hadn't been able to get a letter from his family physician "discovering" a disqualifying "illness" and made a big enough issue of it to get his induction cancelled, he might have tried maiming but I doubt he had the guts." This is slanderous and pure POV speculation.

"As a draftee from Scranton, PA, I have a little experience with how the draft worked and how physicals were conducted. Joe would have had to have made quite a stink to beat it. I took Joe's place in Vietnam and ended up serving an extended tour to make up for him not going!" This has already been dealt with, and you need to understand that your first hand anecdotal knowledge is not all-encompassing, nor is it properly sourced. That is just not the way Wiki works. The investigation by the reporter was done and you were advised on how to follow through with questions to him. I suggest you do so instead of using Wiki as a soapbox. See WP:SOAP for details on that.

"As for Beau, the entry on his page is INCORRECT but I notice you did not comment about that. Here is the truth: Beau Biden's unit did not arrive in Iraq in Nov 08, they arrive on 22 Dec 08, according to the Delaware National Guard official website (http://www.delawarenationalguard.com/home/new/content/dngnews/2008/Dec/261st/2008decDJvolume2.pdf )." You have been out of the military a long time if what you say is true. However, there is something called a "left seat-right seat ride", or changeover, that occurs when two units overlap in country that typically lasts 3 to 4 weeks. Therefore, the date of the handover was not the date of their arrival. However, I have removed it from the article since it was not properly sourced. Have you also never heard of OPSEC?

"He did come back TDY on 13 Jan 09, 22 days later according to Lt. Col. Len Gratteri, a Delaware Army National Guard spokesman. He said "CPT Beau Biden began a temporary assignment at the Pentagon on Thursday,15 Jan. Details about the assignment or how long it will last weren't immediately available" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSHFhLebRKfuSV_xdz1v...cY2sQD9 )." That article was not available when I clicked on it. You should find a better link for sourcing. It would also be appropriate for you to do some editing rather than commenting on talk pages involving the Biden family, which is bordering on you being a Single-purpose account. I suggest you read some of the articles about what Wiki is and try to contribute more positively to the project.

"Without Dad's help, he (and any other soldier) would not have been eligible for leave until midpoint of his tour. In Vietnam when someone had only been in Country 22 days we used to say he was "still pissing Stateside water!" Regardless, he did NOT come back on leave, he returned TDY which meant he flew back on "duty status" so had priority and bumped a soldier returning on R&R who would have been in-country between 6 and 7 months. Nice move Beau!" You gave more POV and opinions, but also offered more speculation regarding him "bumping" a soldier, which I can tell you from firsthand experience is more than likely false as he could have taken a commercial plane through Kuwait City which would not have interfered one bit with the R&R leave program. The difference is that I'm not trying to include anything in the article to dispute your accusations based on my personal knowledge, and you should cease making inferences about things for which you have no proof. Atlantabravz (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Beau Biden. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. This has already been discussed in the talk page for Joe Biden, where you were advised of proper sourcing of material among other things. Please use that advice. Atlantabravz (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

August 2010

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Tommy Lee Jones ‎. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The-Expose-inator. You have new messages at CutOffTies's talk page.
Message added 20:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CutOffTies (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Dutch Ruppersberger. Thank you. Sorry this warning is so late CutOffTies (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Draft dodger. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. CutOffTies (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The-Expose-inator. You have new messages at CutOffTies's talk page.
Message added 15:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CutOffTies (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:The-Expose-inator reported by User:CutOffTies (Result: ). He argues that you have been edit warring at Draft Dodger. He says you have ignored the feedback from a Third Opinion request and from WP:ORN that your material does not belong in the article. You may respond to the complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Dutch Ruppersberger. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CutOffTies (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dutch Ruppersberger, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CutOffTies (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and topic banned

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You see the warnings above. You have ignored them, apparently, so here comes the block for serious and inveterate infractions of WP:BLP. When you return after the block, you are topic banned from contributing to Biographies of living persons for three months. A fuller explanation of the reasons for these sanctions can be found here. Note that, while you are now blocked from editing Wikipedia, this page, your own talkpage, is an exception; you can still edit it. You can ask any questions about the block and ban here; I'll be watching the page. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The-Expose-inator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am absolutely astounded that Wikipedia would take this rash action before even asking for my side of the story. Rather than collecting the facts and making a decision, it appears the Wikipedia process is to declare the accused guilty and then allow him to appeal. Am I correct or has there just been some mistake. In this instance, in the final analysis it boils down to my adding a rather innocuous and totally factual and cited (with reference) edit adding: “Despite having never served in the Military”, as a lead in to the rest of the paragraph touting his support for soldiers: Ruppersberger founded the “Operation Hero Miles” program ….” which was in included in his U.S. House of Representatives Party Leadership section. I also pointed out that his support for this community service project had nothing to do with his Party Leadership or his Congressional duties so if included, it should be in its own section. This entire entry is so flattering that it appears to have been written by his campaign manager and, as I pointed out, at the time of my edit it was almost the only item in this entry that wasn’t followed by a (citation needed) notation. I also added this cited passage directly out of the Washington Post to a description of the Congressmen’s Md-2 Congressional District: The Washington Post described the Md-2 district as “curlicue territories strung together by impossibly delicate tendrils of land — is a crazy-quilt confection drawn for the express purpose of ousting the incumbent at the time, Rep. (and later Gov.) Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, and installing C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat who still holds the job.” CutOffTies took umbrage over my totally accurate and well referenced edits and persisted in deleting them. Responding to his criticism, I reworded my edits to, like I said, what was a rather innocuous lead-in or as a compromise, I suggested the entry reference to the “Operation Hero Miles” be deleted. As a Vietnam Vet, I take exception to people born in the same year as me but avoided serving, now try to “tout” their support for the troops. If they couldn’t bother supporting us back then, it should at least be noted. - In the end, CutOffTies did move the “Hero Miles” out of the Congressional Leadership section into its own section. - He added my description of how the MD-2 District was formed to the district description. - But removed my “lead-in” of “Despite never serving in the Military, …” in front of his “Hero Miles” entry. Finally, I did call the folowing to CutOffTies attention because he seems to “follow me around” tweaking my always factual and footnoted edits: The-Expose-inator responds to CutOffTies: I notice that CutOffTies is only diligent in “protecting” pages that exhibit a liberal bent, regardless if the information is patently false or misleading. While deleting my footnoted entries to Democrat Congressman Ruppersberger’s page about his National Guard’s Dick award, I would note that Maryland Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett also received a Dick Award but CutOffTies never added that to Bartlett’s page. Also, the Bartlett page contains derogatory statements and erroneous entries such as he is the only Republican in the Maryland Congressional Delegation when anyone that follows Maryland politics knows that Republican (and US Navy Reserved Commander and Medical Doctor) Andy Harris represents MD-1. Now after my Wikipedia “conviction,” you’ve finally listened to the defense and I hope this was just an oversight and is not the way Wikipedia normally adjudicates disagreements among contributors.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but to be unblocked you must show that you understand why you were blocked and how you will correct your behavior going forward. Blaming others will not get your block lifted early. TNXMan 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The-Expose-inator (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock | Need an explanation of what was "defamatory" about my edit?

{{unblock | Your posting on my Talk Page was simply: "to be unblocked you must show that you understand why you were blocked..." but before I can respond, I need you to provide me an explanation of why I was blocked, what my "offense" was, and what you based your decision on. In the final analysis, ALL I added to the Ruppersberger entry was the phrase: "Despite having never served in the Military, ...." in front of an out of place sentense touting his support for service members. For some reason CutOffTies felt that was "defamatory." Although someone like me that was born in the same year as Mr. Ruppersberger and was Drafted and sent to Vietnam might think less of someone that avoided service, I hardly believe that pointing out that a Congressman had no Military Service (despite serving on the House Armed Services Committee I might add) is "defamatory."

Can I get an explanation of what my offense was? THANKS (The-Expose-inator (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC))}

Reply from Bishonen

Your questions seem to be directed partly to me, who blocked you, and partly to Tnxman307, who reviewed your unblock request. I will reply to the parts involving me. Did you read my explanations on ANI, which I linked to in my block message above, of what was wrong with your edits? Here is the link again. Note also that Elen of the Roads, in expressing her agreement with my block and ban, refers especially to your edit of the article lead, which I quoted in toto.

Neither I nor Tnxman307 have used the word "defamatory", as far as I can see. What word CutOffTies used is of limited interest as far as your block goes; we don't take his opinion as gospel, but review your editing independently. I blocked you for inveterate BLP violations and ignoring the warnings you received. Seriously, The-Expose-inator, do read WP:BLP. With attention. All of it. It's a very important policy. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Blocks and bans: explanation

Your block was for 31 hours, and has now expired. Your topic ban is in force. The difference between a block and a ban is that a block is a technical measure which prevents an account from editing Wikipedia. A ban, on the other hand, is a social construct: a revocation of editing privileges on one or more Wikipedia pages — in your case, on all BLP articles. You must not edit them at all. You're free, so far, to use their talkpages, as long as you do so in a responsible way. (I.e. not disruptively.) Your ban is for three months. The ban doesn't in itself disable your ability to edit any page. But violating a ban is a very bad idea; if necessary, it will be enforced by an escalating series of blocks. You can appeal the ban by contacting the Arbitration Committee by e-mail at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Violation of topic ban

Well after I topic banned you from all WP:BLP articles (see above), and explicitly noted that "your topic ban is in force", you edited the BLP Dick Cheney. By rights, I should block you for that, but I'll AGF that there's some misunderstanding. Was there something unclear about my statement that "A ban .. is a revocation of editing privileges .. in your case, on all BLP articles. You must not edit them at all" ? Your edit may have been harmless, I don't know; that makes no difference. "Not at all" means not at all. If you have a problem with the terms of the ban in some way, please explain what the difficulty is. And note that ignoring your talkpage while editing Wikipedia isn't on: as long as you edit under a ban, you need to keep au fait with messages here. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Chaney Edit

(I have moved your reply and the following conversation from my talk to yours, because it's easier to follow that way. Especially if you should get blocked in consequence of the ban, because then you'll only be able to edit your own talkpage, not mine. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC).)

Whoever wrote the Chaney article obviously didn't know much about the Military because they referred to the Bagram base in Afghanistan as Bagram Air Base. Having been there last year, I know it is an Army Base commanded by the Army Divisional Task Force Major General and is officially Bagram Airfield (BAF). Army airstrips are called Airfields, e.g. Davison, Godman, etc. It was a simple correction. An article that makes an error that basic loses all credibility. Even the Wikipedia Bagram entry knows it's an Airfield. Why doesn't Wikipedia have software that crossreferences entries for consistency? (The-Expose-inator (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC))

Please don't bother to defend your edit, because it's irrelevant whether it was good or not. You are banned from editing biography articles. I feel like a broken record, telling you this again and again. If you see an irritating error in a BLP article, big or small, point it out on the talkpage and request that somebody correct it, as you yourself are banned from editing BLP articles in any way at all. But my advice to you would be to ignore all BLPs: unwatch them, don't even look at them until after your ban expires.

You have worn out my good faith on this front. Next time you edit a biography , I won't point out yet again that you're not supposed to; I'll block you for 24 hours. The time after that, for 72 hours. The next time after that, for a week. The next time for a month. The next time for three months. I hope you can hear me. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Also, The-Expose-inator, you might find it enlightening to go look at the past history of the page on the Bagram facility and the discussion that took place at Talk:Bagram Airfield#Air Base or Air Field? and one of the references mentioned at http://www.whitehouse.gov./infocus/afghanistan/photoessays/2006/index.html. Even the White House under Bush got the name wrong. The Bagram article was renamed to say 'Airfield' eventually, but since it had said 'Air Base', that's probably why the person at the Cheney article used that name. You might assume that everyone who edits at Wikipedia is just a dumbass and you're a lot smarter, but relax a bit and realize that everyone here is trying to contribute and being a little less of an ass is going to help you a lot more than acting like a know it all. -- Avanu (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, http://www.hanscom.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123243964

Colonel Echols described how 13 members of his squadron were in Afghanistan as part of the 455th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron providing support to Bagram Air Base when it came under attack. Insurgents staged a complex attack with small arms fire, grenades and mortars on May 19, 2010.

"This was the largest single ground attack on an air base since Vietnam," he said.

Colonel Echols must not know anything since he called the place an 'air base'. Doesn't he know this is an 'airfield', not an 'air base'? My somewhat acerbic point here is that you ought to give people a little more slack and just work together with others instead of assuming bias or stupidity. -- Avanu (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban registered

To make sure everything's clear, I have registered your BLP topic ban at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. You'll find it here. Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Your edit at Talk:Forrest Gump

See Talk:Forrest Gump paragraph titled: Gump's Unit in Viet Nam. You placed your comment of 05 May 2014 in the middle of my commentary. The first three paragraphs are mine, then comes your entry and finally two paragraphs by me. I will wait to fix this error 24 hours, so you can have time to look at it. I will move your comments into a new area with some sort of explanatory note. Best wishes Tjlynnjr (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC) .

December 2014

Regarding your recent edit at Severn School: First, NO Wikipedia school article has a distinguished alumni list and Severn is no exception. Any person, living or dead, that is added to a "notable alumni" list must be shown by reference or Wikilink to be notable. Also it must be shown that they are connected to the school, either by referenced content in their Wikipedia biography or by reference at the list. Medal of Honor recipients are inherently notable, so they should in theory have articles to link to for proof of notability. Your edits have been reverted, but if you would care to take the time to do it right they would be a useful addition to the article. It's not like you are new and clueless. Don't expect others to do your work for you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Belleau Wood article

Hello, I am not disputing 2nd Engineer's participation at Belleau Wood. What I am correcting in the article is where you have incorrectly attributed a sentence in Anderson's article to be a quote by Harbord. I have again updated the article to remove your change and also provided a link to Harbord's speech. I invite you to read it before you change the article again.

I do agree they played a significant role and that mention of it is severely lacking in the article. However, as no one with accurate information and a willingness to put it to print, to include necessary references, has chosen to do so, you should not fault individuals who have contribute what they do know to the article.

Frankly, given the context of that quote, I don't find including Harbord's reference any particular unit will provide value to the quote. He is calling out the valor of all who fought and the significance of the cemetery. He intended the value of the moment to apply to all veterans who choose to visit the memorial, even those who did not fight there. I believe his words are still true to this day.
Thank you, --KMJKWhite (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)