mNo edit summary |
Andrew Zito (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
Feel free to dive into [[MediaWiki:bioguide]] any old time you want... :) [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 00:59, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC) |
Feel free to dive into [[MediaWiki:bioguide]] any old time you want... :) [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 00:59, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC) |
||
== YOU ARE AN IGNORANT BIGOT == |
|||
In your saying that my "intemperate response does not inspire any confidence in your contributions and you do yourself a disservice with such outbursts." emotion and passion in actuality does not diminish accuracy (but in your pigheaded brain it does). Though you tried to give yourself creditibility by saying self-servingly "If your contributions have merit, then they'll stay, and if not, they'll be edited." when in actuality you did not go to the subsatnce of the articles in questions and merely deleted with discussion everything though you continued in profession of you IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY "Speaking for myself only, I saw no easy way to separate the bogus self-serving parts of what you write from anything that might be of value."; and in fact continued saying you had no basis on which to judge matters saying "I'm not an authority on Deism and so did not want to try to edit the article"; whereby you continuation that you "could very easily spot the self-serving and inappropriate nature of your contributions."; FOR WHICH YOU HAD NO BASIS THE "the revert"; at which point with little else you patronizingly and condescendingly |
|||
stated appologeticly |
|||
"Sorry if that offended you, but you might want to learn how things work around here before you get all huffy and start calling people name." |
|||
TO which I responded "OH SO YOU ADMIT YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING BASED ON MY MENTION AS AN AUTHORITY? THEN AREN't YOU THE IGNORANT PARTISAN SINCE YOU CAN"T DISTINGUISH ONE FROM THE OTHER? Doesn't that show how faulty your belief that every thing should be objective? But you wouldn't admit that? By the way my foul mouth and Fin temper and mood has nothing to do with it as John Lennon said you learned to "smile as you kill" and are as phony as they come. BY THE WAY THIS IS THE FOURTH OR FIFTH ATTACK ON MY PERSON WITHOUT YOU ASSHOLES ADDRESSING THE SUBSTANCES OF ISSUES AS YOU ADMIT YOUR IGNORANCE SO YOU ARE MOSTLY DECEITFUL BASTARDS. AND AS I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO WASTE TIME WITH." and to which I ADD FU.[[user:Andrew Zito|Andrew Zito]] |
Revision as of 20:34, 25 April 2004
User talk:Bkonrad/Archive1 February 2004 to 1 April 2004
I prefer having discussions occur in one place, so I will generally respond to comments on this page. Please let me know if you want me to respond on your talk page.
This is my talk page and I reserve the right remove abusive comments without any response or regrets.
Who rocks?
You do! Great job on Province of Carolina—I'm going to try to do my share on Province of Georgia when my books come in at the library--everything else is quick and dirty off the web. Anyway, just wanted to compliment you on the awesome work. :) jengod 05:43, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, Dec's maps are such an unbelieved "added value." I don't know how he does it. But anyway--great job! :) ~j
Salem, MA
I think that even "mistakenly" may be too strong. Someone—I probably won't time for a while—needs to check the basic facts about just what took place where. I don't have them off the top of my head. The accused witches did live in Salem Village = Danvers, not Salem, but Salem apparently did play an important role. Dpbsmith 01:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not an authority on this by any means. I just saw some language that didn't seem to clearly express what was intended. It could probably be rewritten without the "mistakenly". Maybe I'll have another go at it. Bkonrad | Talk 01:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your contributions in reverting vandalism. :) RADICALBENDER★ 01:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
McClellands
That would be fine. I recall an Arkansas Senator McClellan, but not a Robert McClelland. Who is he? Adam 16:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia's nomination for admniship
Since my question made you support the nomination, may I ask why you think someone who includes lengthy paragraphs about French and Russian financial interest in Iraq in an encyclopedia entry about George W. Bush should be an admin? Get-back-world-respect 19:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I have not followed the edit wars on GWB very closely. But from what I have seen, C is attempting to preserve some element of fairness and NPOV in the article, which is something I fully support. Even though I despise GWB, I do not think it serves the democratic process or the credibility of Wikipedia to fill the GWB article with all variety of unchallenged slander, conspiracy theories, and half-truths. As I said before, I have had disagreements with C, but I have always found him easy to work with and have been able to reach a reasonable compromise. To me, this is an essential part of achieving NPOV. Bkonrad | Talk 19:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, BTW your question did not make me support him. I had already indicated my support for C's nomination. Your question only prompted me to articulate why.Bkonrad | Talk 19:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- That does not answer my question why you think someone who includes lengthy paragraphs about French and Russian financial interest in Iraq in an encyclopedia entry about George W. Bush should be an admin. The quote was given in the nomination discussion, you did not have to follow the edit wars on GWB. If you "do not think it serves the democratic process or the credibility of Wikipedia to fill the GWB article with all variety of unchallenged slander, conspiracy theories, and half-truths" you just support my point. But too late now, and hopefully not too much damage will follow. Maybe he has already learned a lesson. Get-back-world-respect 23:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- And what lesson is it you suppose I have learned? Perhaps you have learned that you mounted a major personal campaign against me, and it caused many people to look harder at my nomination and produced a flood of positive votes in addition to the negatives you desired. Cecropia 00:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- That does not answer my question why you think someone who includes lengthy paragraphs about French and Russian financial interest in Iraq in an encyclopedia entry about George W. Bush should be an admin. The quote was given in the nomination discussion, you did not have to follow the edit wars on GWB. If you "do not think it serves the democratic process or the credibility of Wikipedia to fill the GWB article with all variety of unchallenged slander, conspiracy theories, and half-truths" you just support my point. But too late now, and hopefully not too much damage will follow. Maybe he has already learned a lesson. Get-back-world-respect 23:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I really appreciate all the people who supported me. Thanks especially for taking the trouble to explain on the admin page your support after GBWR queried you. Cecropia 12:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You could knock me over with a feather. When I saw that Ed Poor archived the discussion, I thought that someone had finally at least taken the initiative to put this to sleep, but it seems I've been promoted. Thanks again for your kind support! Cecropia 19:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate you
Today is your two-month anniversary on Wikipedia. I would like to nominate you for adminship. Your edit history is admirable but many users feel three months is the minimum. However, fabiform was promoted with only two months under her belt. Let me know if you'd like me to nominate you now or wait a month. moink 23:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- FWIW (one vote), I'd strongly support. jengod 23:42, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the consideration to both of you. I think I would like to wait for now. My wife and I are going to be moving soon (probably early-mid May -- only in-town, so it's not such a big deal, though it'll be our first house--which I'm sure will entail all manner of unexpected things to do), so I really really need to start spending a little less time with Wiki (only temporarily though). I'd be glad to help out with admin stuff, but it's just such not a good time to have another reason to obsess/procrastinate right now. Bkonrad | Talk 00:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Ok! Remind me in a month if I don't remember. moink 00:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Pantheism
see Talk:World Pantheist Movement
Thee
I changed the thee back and added the Latin tu. Please modify as you see fit. Jondel | Talk
look closer
Sam Spade 22:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pantheism&curid=23590&action=history I reverted to an earlier edit of yours. I didn't like any of what happened. It had spelling errors, innacuracies, and an unnecessary link to a dubious subject pan atheism. Sam Spade 22:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I would say that those adjectives are indeed vital. What other conception of God includes a non-sentient, unconscious, and powerless being? Its offensive to me as a theist, to be frank, and certainly doesn't have enough to do w my conception of God (and I'm a pantheist, BTW) to warrant the use of either God or Pantheist IMO. I think that using it at all, even w such concerned language, is rather forgiving. On the other hand this wasn't the primary motive of my rv, and I am willing to discuss it in more detail if you like. Sam Spade 22:38, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- naturalistic pantheism? Sam Spade 22:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Am I wrong
'Am I wrong to see this as an attempt to insert POV bias? I might add that the pantheism article also claims that forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism have similarities to pantheism. All of these, by at least some characterizations, could be labelled as "extremely" non-traditional. Who gets to decide what tradition is?'
- From what I can tell you are simply under read. I don't see you as analyzing information incorrectly, but rather to be making assumptions where you have a lack of information, i.e. inductive reasoning. There was a long and intruiging debate regarding this very issue, the naturalistic pantheist conception of God, and it resolved into what you see on naturalistic pantheism. Once you have read the entirety of that article at least once, and compared it to the web site, and other external links like this, for example, I would be interested in what you have to say about this conception of an unconscious 'god'. When you discuss the concievably non-traditional quality of dharma religions conception of God, I suggest you ponder their antiquity. Sanatana Dharma has the longest proven continuous record of its spirituality, and is the most concentrated of all the worlds major religions (the majority of adherents residing in holy India). In conclusion I apreciate your assistance, but I would ask you to spend the time necessary to analyze these issues of such signifigance to so many. Cheers, and welcome aboard this ship of fools, Sam Spade 01:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Green Lake, WI
I've removed the page as per your request. - UtherSRG 19:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks!
Easy, breezy, beautiful
Fixed {{msg:bioguide}}:
This article incorporates public domain material from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
Feel free to dive into MediaWiki:bioguide any old time you want... :) jengod 00:59, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
YOU ARE AN IGNORANT BIGOT
In your saying that my "intemperate response does not inspire any confidence in your contributions and you do yourself a disservice with such outbursts." emotion and passion in actuality does not diminish accuracy (but in your pigheaded brain it does). Though you tried to give yourself creditibility by saying self-servingly "If your contributions have merit, then they'll stay, and if not, they'll be edited." when in actuality you did not go to the subsatnce of the articles in questions and merely deleted with discussion everything though you continued in profession of you IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY "Speaking for myself only, I saw no easy way to separate the bogus self-serving parts of what you write from anything that might be of value."; and in fact continued saying you had no basis on which to judge matters saying "I'm not an authority on Deism and so did not want to try to edit the article"; whereby you continuation that you "could very easily spot the self-serving and inappropriate nature of your contributions."; FOR WHICH YOU HAD NO BASIS THE "the revert"; at which point with little else you patronizingly and condescendingly stated appologeticly
"Sorry if that offended you, but you might want to learn how things work around here before you get all huffy and start calling people name."
TO which I responded "OH SO YOU ADMIT YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING BASED ON MY MENTION AS AN AUTHORITY? THEN AREN't YOU THE IGNORANT PARTISAN SINCE YOU CAN"T DISTINGUISH ONE FROM THE OTHER? Doesn't that show how faulty your belief that every thing should be objective? But you wouldn't admit that? By the way my foul mouth and Fin temper and mood has nothing to do with it as John Lennon said you learned to "smile as you kill" and are as phony as they come. BY THE WAY THIS IS THE FOURTH OR FIFTH ATTACK ON MY PERSON WITHOUT YOU ASSHOLES ADDRESSING THE SUBSTANCES OF ISSUES AS YOU ADMIT YOUR IGNORANCE SO YOU ARE MOSTLY DECEITFUL BASTARDS. AND AS I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO WASTE TIME WITH." and to which I ADD FU.Andrew Zito