| Revision as of 13:23, 10 April 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits Indefinite block← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:04, 12 April 2007 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits blanked page (community ban discussion complete, DFTT now applies)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Original Research== | |||
| There are a couple of non-robin related points I'm trying to make here. One is that policy states ]. Your premise 'Robin is gay?' is fine, but it's just not something that belongs on Misplaced Pages. You're not offering any citations to back up your comments, you're not pointing to articles or third party sources to support your claims. Therefore what you've done is original research. Again, that's fine. Just not for the wiki. | |||
| Secondly, 'assume good faith' means I assume you're trying to make this a better site (and I do), but it doesn't mean I can't think you're going about it the wrong way. | |||
| Third, Misplaced Pages is not ] or a ]. | |||
| There's nothing wrong that you've done, but you're going about it in a way that gets you looked at like a possible troll. I was serious when I said to go read the Batman page, and the ]. If it helps, in good faith I put a link on the Robin page to the Batman homosexuality section. If you want to go forward with your theory, keep all that in mind and you'll do fine. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you what policy here is. You can violate it all you want, though I don't think that would be helpful. -- <font color="Green">''']''' ''(]|])''</font> 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why is it acceptable to discuss Batman and Robin's sexual orientations in the Batman article but not in the Robin article? Silliness. | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages discussion pages are chock full of the kind of the thing you and your cohorts are railing against, so I guess you had better crack down and make sure no out-of-the-box discussion of any kind occurs. Especially if that discussion is well-stated but lacks immediate and perfect documentation, apparently a double violation of your personal interpretation of the Holy Writ. | |||
| ::But I encourage you to embark on a War on Violations. Your first target, Agent Ipstenu: ]. That ought to keep you busy while I enjoy the newly included section in ] on his possibly being a gay character and wait for the FBI to disclose their role in sabotaging ''Detective Comics''. | |||
| ::] 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of cited material == | |||
| In this edit you deleted an existing citation. You neither supplied a reference for the changes nor discussed the deleted citation on the article talk page. Be aware that the ] policy applies in that situation. Please provide references for you edits and gain consensus in advance on the article talk page before removing existing references. You may be subject to a user block if the problem continues. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not delete the citation, I merely moved it to the bottom of the page, to the section titled "References". Please do not come on my talk page and threaten me again or you may be subject to death squads and torture chambers. | |||
| :] 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Fatawa of Osama bin Laden == | |||
| You can visit http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html | |||
| --] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Nope, nothing there substantiating the fatwa as having been the work of Osama bin Laden or anyone connected to him. One would think that, if a private war on America had been declared '''by fax to a private newspaper''' , the parties responsible would not have been shy in acknowledging they sent the fax and the Bush administration and various media outlets would not have been shy in letting us know. Certainly, 9/11 and Osama's avowal of responsibility for it made clear that al Qaeda was in the midst of a terrorist campaign, on a scale never before attempted by a private organization, against the U.S., and to many Americans that is the same thing as al Qaeda delaring war on us as people and representative government. | |||
| However, that view is grossly incorrect, since lawful governments the world over frequently engage in military actions without declaring war, and the fact that war has not been declared is given a great deal of weight by the public and international community in judging a conflict's legality or illegality. When the Clinton administration carried out the 1998 bombing campaign of ] in Iraq, war was never declared, yet I am certain there was substantial damage to both military and civilian life and property carried out by U.S. armed forces. Yet no great crying of "illegal war" was heard then. Only when a war is obviously being fought, as in ], the ], and other conflicts, do people outside of the affected region seem to care. In fact the last U.S. declaration of war occurred in the 1940's. Yet as soon as a terrorist group attacks American territory on 9/11, we hear all over the media that terrorists have declared war on America! And all these ace journalists have to back up that claim is a fax to a London newspaper? How can that be verified? You can't do voice-print ID on a fax or even dust for fingerprints. I bet it wasn't even a handwritten document, so you couldn't even trace it to a secretary taking dictation in a cave somewhere. | |||
| All anyone could do would be to get some kind of warrant to trace phone-line records for the fax's origin, and I've never heard of that being done. I'm sure someone out there in some spookhole knows where that fax was sent from, but any other source for that information other than a legal search and seizure (sorry I don't know Britishese for this) would be the kind of source that is not to be trusted by the public anyway. If the source of the fax is known to the British, for instance, and they are keeping it classified, it's quite disloyal of them as an ally not only of the U.S. government but also of the American public. And, since the fax was apparently sent to London, I would expect that anyone who knew its origin would have let the authorities in the U.K. know. | |||
| This is all basically immaterial now, since the United States clearly has shown that the president can carry out a huge and costly war across many borders for a long time, call it a "War on Terror", invade a sovereign state in violation of the U.N. charter, and never formally declare war on anyone. The upshot of U.S. military action since the Vietnam War has been that declarations of war have gone the way of the dinosaur, and now and in the future there will already be a sizable war effort underway before the public ever knows about it through congressional authorization, presidential address, or any other form of communication between government and people. | |||
| To be honest, in my opinion, having read the fatwa ''A Declaration of War...'' prior to 9/11 and before that having heard and read lots of coverage of al Qaeda since around 1998 when Osama first popped up on American TV, that fatwa has got to be a hoax. Even if al Qaeda was already planning strikes as substantial as the 1998 African Embassy Bombings that were al Qaeda's "news breakthrough", it would have been a ridiculously juvenile mistake for all those terrorists to have two years previously issued a declaration of '''total religious war on Jews and Americans''' to a journalistic destination they knew would publish it very quickly where it would come under American scrutiny. And, even though I have no idea what the real motivation in the al Qaeda jihad is or was, the fact that I believe the fatwa is a hoax leads me to question whether Osama and the rest ever intended something like 9/11 but rather were incited by a belief that someone out there (guess who they would have suspected) was trying to start a larger war between Islam and the West. I see the conflict between the U.S.-led War on Terror and Islamist terrorists as being kind of like Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Europe before WWII. In between those two radical poles you have propaganda like ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' against Jews that appears to state a Jewish viewpoint (i.e. "this is how we Jews will secretly control the world") that is actually the image of Jews in the minds of anti-Semites, in that case the Czarist Russian secret police, the ]. That's all that stupid fatwa probably is, some third party trying to start shit so they can get two of their enemies, Islam and America, fighting each other, and then that third party doesn't have to worry about Muslims or Americans for a long time. | |||
| And, for the record, there was no second gunman on the ], but there was a guy in the crowd who heard Oswald's shots and triggered a remote-control explosive device implanted in JFK's head under the pretext of a surgical operation on his brain. And O.J., Ron, and Nicole were in a ] before O.J. killed Ron and Nicole because he didn't want anyone to know he'd engaged in sex with a man and a woman. And ] started the flying saucer phenomenon by animating eyewitness U.F.O. films for the U.S. governemnt so the Soviets would think the saucers were antigravity bombers. That's about all you need to know about Arkhamite. | |||
| == 1 week block == | |||
| Per ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey look, I can still post! I guess the First Amendment applies to Wikipredators too! | |||
| :] 11:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Indefinite block == | |||
| The block on this account has been extended to indefinite. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||