User talk:TortureIsWrong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Antichrist 2 Cool off 3 Dick Cheney 4 Your Comment 5 Accidental block

[edit] Antichrist

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for playin pin the tail on the Antichrist. If there is a serious source (not conspiracy theorist, not some guy's website) discussing speculation that Reagan is the AC, by all means, mention it in the "Contemporary identifications" section. If a major theologian called him the AC or if there was a newspaper article showing that some number of Christians think Reagan is the AC ... ok ... but if it's just message board musings, it doesn't belong here. --BigDT 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case half of the listings under "fictional Antichrists" don't belong there. Most of those listings are completely unsourced, yet you didn't delete them and you're not complaining about them. I suggest your pro-Reagan bias is behind your objection.

I'll happily find a source for the Reagan-as-Antichrist claim and repost it. Since I regard Christianity as pure myth and the Antichrist as a particularly hilarious facet of that mythology, it will be my pleasure. TortureIsWrong 06:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to your opinion, however, Wikipedia is not the place to push a point of view. I have no pro-Reagan bias - I would have made the same revert if the subject were a Democrat. Wikipedia is not a joke book or the place to tag the Antichrist. --BigDT 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing a POV with the edit. The Reagan-as-Antichrist notion, silly as it is, was quite popular during his presidency, and for the reason (six letters in each of his three names) that I gave. Just google "Ronald Reagan" and "Antichrist" and see for yourself. TortureIsWrong 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool off

I figure you have strong opinions, but you mind cooling it off? There's a big difference between having a good, but heated debate, and crossing the threshold. Just saying it's not always what you say, but how you say it. Thanks. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was perfectly cool - and my remarks were general and certainly not a part of an argument with any other user. Dick Cheney is fair game and there's ample justification for eveything I said about him. TortureIsWrong 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, but you may want to look up Libel and Defamation. I understand you weren't part of an argument with another user. The point is that we all need to try and keep from allowing a POV influence a decision or make certain remarks. I hate Cheney too, but one has to be careful. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The standards for libel or defamation are quite different for a public figure like the Harlot of Halliburton, and nothing I said crosses the line. Of course I wouldn't add such comments to an article. TortureIsWrong 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I thought I'd bring it up to you, no need to bring flak to one's self if it's not needed. Peace. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Cheney

Most of the Republicans I know are PROUD that Cheney is an amoral criminal. The name "Darth Cheney" would seem like a badge of honor to them.

ah ha ha -- Touche ;) ~CS 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Comment

Please explain what this means: Brice voted for Bush twice. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Just a little joke. Maybe there's good reason to despise Brice, whoever he is. TortureIsWrong 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't joke on something like RFCN. It's considered disruption. Please be serious about your votes. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • There is no rule against wit, Wiz. Please don't pollute my talk page with authoritarian nonsense. My votes are quite serious. TortureIsWrong 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You just said above it was a joke. And what do you mean authoritarian nonsense? I'm at the same level you are. I'm not an admin. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • I also see you're in the 7th grade, so I won't bother with any further discussion with you. I don't see the point. TortureIsWrong 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What does my age have to do with anything. Your causing disruption. Just stop please. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • It's "you're." And I don't see the need to respond any further to someone who thinks my use of "authoritarian nonsense" means I think he's an "admin." Sheesh. TortureIsWrong 23:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think the editor is trying to disrupt Wikipedia. His/her legitimate position on the matter was just accompanied by a cavalier comment in regard to a recent series of politics-related RfC. It's okay to be light-hearted sometimes, per WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. ;) ~CS 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Exactly. Wiz seems to think making a joke is a violation of some policy. Fortunately, the policy exists only in Wiz's imagination. TortureIsWrong 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So a legitimate position can be: "Brice voted for Bush twice" and followed up by "Just a little joke. Maybe there's good reason to despise Brice, whoever he is." Whoever he is? And having your hate for "Brice" in a username is against WP:U, no matter what? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• General comment I reserve the right to refuse to respond to poorly written, incoherent nonsense. TortureIsWrong 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove comments to an ongoing discussion. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please let's stop this here, okay? Thanks. TIW, please avoid incivil comments or personal attacks. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • I don't believe it is incivil to refuse to continue a conversation with a child. TortureIsWrong 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment you just made was incivil. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your elder here is certainly not setting a good example of recommended behavior on this page, but I would urge for the second time that the discussion stop now. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • That's exactly what I asked for at 22:50, New'brad. The urchin didn't listen. TortureIsWrong 02:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment like many of its predecessors was inappropriate. At this point I consider that you are engaged in blatant trolling and harassment. Virtually all of your contributions to Wikipedia consist of disruptive remarks, including your numerous bizarre and almost uniformly unproductive comments at WP:RFCN. If this pattern of editing continues I will block this account for intentional disruption. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I question your objectivity, of course. Several other users have agreed with several of my comments at WP:RFCN, and I believe I have voted with the consensus there as often as not. I have also contributed useful information to a number of articles. TechWiz's comments to me were patently ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with a little levity on comments pages, of course. Wikipedia would be a better environment if more users would use more wit and fewer threats. TortureIsWrong 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to fight. I recommend WP:DR. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fighting, Wikihermit. But where you replied to my DOJ comment at RFCN with "great political stab," some others think any such comment is some sort of violation. It isn't, and they NEVER make a case that it is - they just come in and threaten me with blocks, etc. There's a tendency on Wikipedia for disagreement to be called "disruption," or for any comment a user doesn't like to be dealt with by threats. I don't get it. I suspect you don't, either. Am I wrong? TortureIsWrong 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think your wrong. It's not like your editing articles inappropriately. All the places were you have been "accused" have been non-articles. Nothing wrong with humor. By adding a humorous sentence into a talk page your not breaking WP:NPOV. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 04:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • That's my take on it, also. The non-article pages disappear into archives. What's the harm in humor, anyway? TortureIsWrong 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that instead of making threats they should inform you of your "violation" and get a Third Opinion. Also, your humor does not appear to break WP:Vandalism. However, I did find WP:TROLL#Misuse of process. It is only an WP:essay however. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, only an essay, and I don't see its relevance. The RFCN page calls for votes and participation and that's all I've done. If Wikipedia standards call for everyone to be happy about everything here all the time then I suggest that something is very seriously wrong - but as I see it, fortunately they don't call for that, even if some users would prefer it that way. TortureIsWrong 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental block

I briefly mistook you for the serial RCN troll and blocked you - I immediately lifted it when I realised my error, sorry about that. Though if you took it a little more seriously it would have been a harder mistake to make. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. TortureIsWrong 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)