Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 16 May 2009

User:TharsHammar Archives
March 1, 2009 – xx/xx/xx

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting a new topic. I will respond to you in here AND copy and paste the thread onto your talk page as well unless you ask me to keep it here only. Thank you.

May 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Media Research Center appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. The Red Peacock (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Note the editor in question initially objected to material and cited WP:RS . Upon viewing the source, and watching the attached video clip and reading the transcript it is clear that the source is reliable for the quotation used, so I reverted his edits with a helpful edit summary . The user has now inserted a templated warning on my talk page about WP:NPOV, which is an asinine response. TharsHammar and 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Prejean

As I mentioned on AN/I, I think your version was good and if you want any help (not vote, but editing) I would be willing (unless you are satisfied with the version currently being used). Soxwon (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BLPN not AN/I? Yes I think the wording is the best we can have in the face of an obstinate editor. Personally I felt that Hilton's full quote should be in there, but in the spirit of compromise I proposed that version. TharsHammar and 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did mean BLPN. Though I think the entire quote from Prejean is a bit much. Soxwon (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I would say its best to air on the side of caution, lest we be accused of taking her quote out of context in a NPOV way. TharsHammar and 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Be a man dude. If you have some beef with me then talk to me about it instead of being a coward filing bogus reports in the hopes of getting me blocked or in trouble over the whole breast image thing. Get off my case. Caden 10:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in dealing with uncivil editors on my talk page and will not waste further time discussing this matter, you have been notified. Caden, Please stay off here from now on. TharsHammar and 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Surreal

Someone was serious about that? LadyofShalott 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

re Wanda Sykes and Rush Limbaugh

Please at least pretend to know what you're talking about. This subject is covered in Rush_Limbaugh#Comments on Obama.27s policies. Note, it's not Obama he's commenting on, it's his policies, hence the name of that section of the article. Regards, Tomer 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From rushlimbaugh.com "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it." . Not really seeing "socialism" in there. Finally do NOT use personal attacks against me again. TharsHammar and 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorize "liberalism" as you please, it was Obama's socialist policies, under the guise of "liberalism", that Limbaugh was referring to, as he has made clear numerous times since. In any case, it was not Obama that he wanted to fail, it was his policies. Ms. Sykes, whether deliberately or not, took the mischaracterization of Limbaugh's statement a step further, asserting that Limbaugh wanted America to fail.

As for personal attacks, do NOT mischaracterize my assertion that you are incorrect as a "personal attack against " again. Tomer 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a mis-characterization, you said, and I quote "Please at least pretend to know what you're talking about." Now we can have disagreements on the gray area of liberalism but personal attacks such as this will not be tolerated. Have a good day sir/madam. TharsHammar and 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack...if anything it was tit for tat. You reverted an edit to Wanda Sykes which was clearly not vandalism, asserting that it was, then accused me of not knowing what vandalism was when I reverted it, observing that it didn't appear to be vandalism. I didn't throw mud in your eye until you'd thrown it in mine...so, unless you're prepared to admit you personally attacked me, I'll continue to dismiss your assertion that I've personally attacked you as spurious. In any case, back to the relevant matter, I've altered the wording of the pertinent sentence in the article to replace the word "socialist" with "liberal". Tomer 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in dealing with uncivil editors on my talk page and will not waste further time discussing this matter, you have been notified. TShilo12, Please stay off here from now on. TharsHammar and 16:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Is my compromise proposal acceptable?. Soxwon (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable, and not worth getting milk spilled over. It is my opinion that Wanda was responding to the more imflamatory quote, Limbaugh saying "I hope he fails." rather than the more neutral, I hope his liberal policies fails quote, if you know what I mean. Limbaugh might have said at another point that he hoped Obama's liberal policies would fail, but he also said "I hope he fails" which is what Wanda was responding to in all sources that I have seen, and the source that I used. But I am sure that would never stand in the article :) so its not worth arguing over. TharsHammar and 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And for record I'm not stalking you, I noticed the Eric Cantor article on the AN/I boards and got curious (he's my representative). That led here. Soxwon (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Stalking applies only to harassment, and you definitely not been doing that. You have provided some good compromise suggestions. TharsHammar and 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar Bias / Repeated POV Violations

TharsHammar seems to be consistently advancing his ideological agenda on numerous articles, rather than following the protocols and decorum expected in the Misplaced Pages community. His repeated and consistent POV violations are extremely damaging to the project and the quality of the work contained within. 98.218.204.115 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note this is about Eric Cantor vis-a-vi VP in the 2008 campaign. I created the discussion on the talk page and have not edited the article since. You on the other hand have reverted the article at least 6 times against 4 different editors. I post this to let the record stand for itself. TharsHammar and 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A simple glance up this discussion page is proof enough of your record and conduct. Future editors who have runs in with you, should take comfort in this record as evidence of your conduct. 98.218.204.115 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in dealing with uncivil editors on my talk page and will not waste further time discussing this matter, you have been notified. 98.218.204.115, Please stay off here from now on. TharsHammar and 16:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting

Please don't spam AfDs which already have plenty of contributors to tangentially related deletion sorting lists. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Was just tryin to help out. TharsHammar and 12:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop

Leave off Collect now... he's stated his opinion, you've stated yours, and the rest is simple disruption. --SB_Johnny | 14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would leave similar messages for both users. Especially since he began the track of commenting on contributors and not content. But it is what it is. TharsHammar and 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He has a history of being warned by me, so shorthand works. You don't, hence no shorthand. --SB_Johnny | 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasoning. It is much appreciated and explains the situation. Thanks. TharsHammar and 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

you have two cows

I've left a historical note on the AFD page regarding this page. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/You_have_two_cows_(2nd_nomination) Manning (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that note. I personally got a good laugh at that joke. TharsHammar and 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —

Filibuster

TharsHammar - you are engaged in a WP:FILIBUSTER here, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party; this is against Misplaced Pages policy.

If you are uncertain what this means, see Filibuster. You, this Flam Warrior is typically, "Like his Congressional namesake, Filibuster attempts to influence the forum simply by holding the floor. His monotonous hectoring and prodigious output of verbiage rapidly clears the field of other Warriors." More details follow, below...

TharsHammar, you are acting like a Ferrous Cranus; where as, Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

TharsHammar, your User page suggests you are openly characterized as Pinko. Pinko has an angry, almost genetic loathing for privilege, greed, social exploitation, racism, sexism, homophobia, pro-lifers, the religious right, environmental degradation, the NRA, US imperialism, multinational corporations, big business, Republicans in general and George Bush in particular. Pinko openly admires Oliver Stone, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and anyone else who is critical of the US government and bourgeois culture. She ardently believes there is no enormity of which the United States is incapable and regards its entire history as an unbroken legacy of avarice, deceit and injustice.

Being a Pinko, TharsHammar uses his Ideologue opinions to support his merely loose collection of intellectual conceits, and TharsHammar consistently shows that he is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The liberal Ideologue trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. To counter opinions--notably articles--that go against his personal opinion, TharsHammar will lob a Grenade into a discussion which instantly blasts civil discourse into smoking rubble. Grenade's explosive content can be adjusted to the forum's interests. Typical detonating materials can be Bill Clinton, George Bush, gun control, homosexuality, Reagan, abortion, taxes, conspiracy theory, the NEA, welfare reform, etc. When facing certain defeat a Warrior can stall even the most determined attack with a diversionary explosion.

TharsHammar's "stall" is a WP:FILIBUSTER.

TharsHammar, don't be a Jerk. The Jerk is sarcastic, mean, unforgiving and never misses an opportunity to make a cutting remark. Jerk's repulsive personality quickly alienates other Warriors. Jerk is very happy to participate in electronic forums because in cyberspace he is free to be himself...without the risk of getting a real-time punch in the mouth.

A Jerk can be attributed as having an apparent Ego. For Ego, the discussion forum is all about him, and he regards discussions that stray from that topic as trivial dalliances. Although tolerant of an occasional shift in focus, Ego grows increasingly restive when the forum's attention shifts away from his interests, and he will often provoke conflict to reestablish himself as the subject at hand.

TharsHammar, your ego is causing you to become a Tireless Rebutter. For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition.

However, as I have found as time goes on while arguing with you over an uncalled for deletion to an article, your Profundus Maximus eagerly holds forth on all subjects, but your thin knowledge will not support a sustained assault and therefore your attacks quickly peter out. Profundus Maximus often uses big words, obscure terms and...ahem...even Latin to bluff his way through battle.. but I am calling out your bluff right now. No longer will I tolerate your Filibuster to an article that goes against your personal, un-sourced opinion.

I will report you if you continue this behavior and cannot, with reliable references and facts, show that you have justifiably strong evidence that suggests the February 27 Chicago Tea Party is the exact same thing as the Tax Day Tea Party. If you can make a strong case using factual evidence that shows me the Chicago Tea Party protests belong in an article covering alleged "astroturfing" protests, and if you can point out to me exactly why you have submitted the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party for deletion (not generalized personal issues that you have, but factual relevant reason), if you cannot do any of these for a discussion you created in the first place, then I will report you for running a Filibuster to block or hide material that is not necessarily in accordance with your beliefs.

Filibusters (who engage in "Filibustering" or "Stonewalling") abuse WP:BRD. You are violating Misplaced Pages policy. Please put forth an effort to end this charade of blatant anti-tea party nonsensical attacks you are engaged in. Thank you. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)