Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clubjuggle (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 5 August 2008 (wikify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 01: 5-Nov-2007 to 9-Jun-2008 Archive 02: 9-Jun-2008 to 16-Jul-2008

Republican party

Hi, thanks for your message. I thought it belonged there to be honest but fair enough :) Tangola (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You obviously have a valuable message to get out, and I would recommend blogging. My own blog is here. I have found it to be very satisfying to communicate with like-minded people. If you sign up, please send me a "friend" invitation, and I'll accept it immediately. I look forward to future communications. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage

The information which you included on these three pages (all of which was identical) is only remotely related to the subjects, and therefore violates WP:COAT. Just because some person was reading someones book doesn't imply the controversy back upon the person that wrote the book. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

After considering your point, I agree that the information belongs in the articles about the books themselves. Please advise if you have a problem with that, and if so, why. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think it belongs in the books as it still falls under WP:COAT. If this information belongs anywhere it belongs in the article relating to the shootings, where it already is. I see that you already added it to at least one of the books, along with a "Current Events" heading, which doesn't follow WP:MOS in that articles are to be written with a historical perspective. Furthermore it violates weight issues in the book article. I suggest you focus on the shooting article for this information. Filling up ancilary articles with this, which is only a guilt by association link, does not adhere to WP:NPOV policies. Arzel (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Let's take this up on the respective talk pages of the authors and their involved books. It is quite clear to me and the KnoxNews author that Adkisson was inspired by the writings of specific authors. I consider it POV for you to try to sanitize that fact. --Art Smart (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sanitize? So you would blame the book and not the person? You do realize that this type of belief is what gets books banned from libraries. This guy likely had a number of mental problems before he bought those books, to say that these books have blood on them is quite a leap. Arzel (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would never ban those or any other books. The solution to bad speech is to shine a bright light on it, not hide it under a rock like you seem to be trying to do. For example, by calling liberalism a mental disorder is clearly an attempt to whip up the very kind of hatred felt by Adkisson, but with tragic results. Why do you want to hide that obvious connection? --Art Smart (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to stop the connection you are trying to make, only that it doesn't belong in those articles per WP policies. This story is about Adkisson and his crazy view of the world, not about the books of Savage and others. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Millions of Americans own the books written by these authors. But the question is if there is any plausible connection between the actions Adkisson commited and the words written in the books? Furthermore the person may have had many books in his possession, why did the newspaper choose to emphasize the books written only by these authors? Dock 04:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The connection isn't just plausable, it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain, unless of course that brain has been thoroughly washed by the same gun-loving arch-conservatives who so thoroughly inspired Adkisson. --Art Smart (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And the truth comes out. You realize that it is this kind of attitude that cause people like Savage to write books like that. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason people like Savage write their books is to inspire the very kind of hatred felt by Adkisson and millions of liberal-haters like him. The only difference between him and them is the violence. Adkisson ended up killing some of the most peaceful people in all of Knoxville (and I know first-hand how peaceful Unitarian Universalists are). The irony is that Adkisson was the beneficiary of the very liberal programs he so hated, like unemployment benefits and food stamps. If Savage et al. would have had their way, he would have starved to death. --Art Smart (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Who asked me? I did not understand the edit summary you left with your last message. Dock 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the facts, I believe that the incident does not have a place in the authors's biography, as they have no responsibility for someone going crazy reading their books (besides, it is not yet established whether it was reading those books which made him crazy) May be the person was already crazy. But, since it is well cited, it can certainly be included (as it is now) in the book article as a related current incident. Dock 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the books made Adkisson crazy. I think he was already crazy, and the books inspired him to act out violently on his craziness. They were his inspiration, not the culprit. He was the lone culprit. --Art Smart (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

signature change suggestion

I am sure you have thought aboout changing your signature to just "Art". I changed mine recently. Dock 15:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like "Art Smart" better. It rhymes! Even better, how about something like "Art Smart /Chart"? :-D --Clubjuggle /C 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I didnt realise he has his signature already changed to Art Smart. Sorry. Dock 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Not knowing what "LART" means, I slightly adapting Clubjuggle's ideas: --Art Smart /Chart 08:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found LART. Very apropos. I may start using it at some point in the future. Thanks again. --Art Smart /Chart 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. To avoid the connotations of an EKG, here's my latest version: --Art Smart /Heart 08:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Childish insults

This and this are the kind of things I'd expect from a seven-year-old. It's pointless antagonism like that which gets people blocked for incivility, and it is rather harder to improve articles if one is blocked. Next time, think whether it is really necessary to annoy editors you disagree with rather than just dropping it. The same applies to incrementing your userpage vandalism counter for edits which evidently aren't vandalism. As for the userbox, if you're going to wave it in people's faces then I can hear WP:CSD#T1 calling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Methinks the userbox hits more than one person too close to home. Who'd a thunk it? --Art Smart /Heart 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This happened just up the train line from me. Your tendency to assume that people who disagree with you are your political enemies is also something which I'd have hoped you'd have grown out of by now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, aren't handguns wonderful? Don't you just love them? I simply can't imagine a world without them — it would be dreadful. --Art Smart /Heart 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You aren't helping to rid the world of handguns by making poop jokes on people's talk pages. What you are doing is discrediting yourself and inviting a civility block. Regardless of how you feel about someone's politics, upholding a basic level of civility when engaging them on WP is not optional. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The person who seems to need your help defending him is well aware of why the "f" was missing. Every time he disregards my polite good-faith request, he can expect another missing "f". Toughsky shiftsky. --Art Smart /Heart 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Art, there are more constructive ways to handle this than disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. --Clubjuggle /C 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I don't need anyones help in defending anything. But it is nice to see 2 editors that I've never seen before call you on your playground antics. Kind of a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that I got under your skin so bad that you have to lower yourself to that. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift, my advice applies to you too. Namecalling is and attempting to get under another editor's skin is unacceptable. --Clubjuggle /C 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Clubjuggle. Now gentlemen, if you'll excuse me, I have tropical storm Edouard to deal with. Wiki out. --Art Smart /Heart 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stay safe. --Clubjuggle /C 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Club, I'm not sure that calling his tactics "playgound" qualifies as name calling. In any case, Arthur seems bound and determined to ignore your advice, so it probably won't come as a surprise if anyone else does. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Art seems to have dropped it. Please do the same. --Clubjuggle /C 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)