Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike18xx (talk | contribs) at 01:20, 22 August 2006 (→Mind your behavior). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I Have The Power Fri, December 16 2005 - 07:58 AM by: Tycho

As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages has some issues. As a model of how and where distributed intellect fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.

When we were first considering making Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs available as a publically manageable satirical metanarrative, we dropped the basic timeline on Misplaced Pages because I liked the way their software went about things. Of course, a phalanx of pedants leapt into action almost immediately to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data - our revolting fancruft.

That's okay with me. I wasn't aware they thought they were making a real encyclopedia for big people at the time, and if I had, I'd have sought out one of the many other free solutions. I had seen the unbelievably detailed He-Man and Pokémon entries and assumed - like any rational person would - that Pokémaniacs were largely at the rudder of the institution.

I am almost certain that - while they prune their deep mine of trivia - they believe themselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working.

Reponses to criticism of Misplaced Pages go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.

Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Misplaced Pages, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.

The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.

Past Spleenings of the Discordant Mob

Current Spleenings of the Discordant Mob:

Jihad/Dhimmi Watch

Let me explain my contention with quoting selections from the site into the Misplaced Pages articles. When half of the content of the stub is quoted from the site itself, it creates a POV issue, and it also illegitimacizes the Misplaced Pages articles, and on a stretch, all wikipedia articles represent wikipedia. I also don't feel they add anything to either article. For example, the quote on the Dhimmi Watch page just basically explains what a dhimmi is. However, why can't an editor just write it into the main paragraph and eliminate any copy issue. You wouldn't open up an encyclopdia, say Brittanica, and see half of an entry quoted from the main source. Pepsidrinka 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, those stupid things should have never been created in the first place, because they really aren't "entries" per se, but just attempts by people to end-run the consensus-agreed "short" Robert Spencer entry (which put an end to endless wrangling over interpretations). Quotations are NOT "POV"; they are merely factual recitations of the opinion of the subject of focus; however, when "an editor just write(s) it in", then everybody has an opinion regarding the POV of the editor -- leading to afore-mentioned endless wrangling.

I say either nuke the turkeys, or let Spencer have a tiny paragraph. Otherwise, they're just not justified.--Mike18xx 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with having two headings in the Spencer article, one for Jihad Watch and a subhead for Dhimmi Watch (seeing how Spencer himself creates Dhimmi Watch on the Jihad Watch webspace)? Pepsidrinka 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it -- as long as it doesn't become an excuse to bloat out the Spencer entry into a corpulent monstrosity again. Alternatively, just replace the whole dhimmi watch and jihad watch entries with redirects.--Mike18xx 06:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hi, can you check your email?--Pecher 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

be nice

"...al takeyya clique buddies..." Please don't make personnal attacks. It can result in your being blocked. I don't see how you not being able to edit will help make the article better. Tom Harrison 20:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd make a lousy dhimmi.--Mike18xx 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you make any more personnal attacks, I will block you. Tom Harrison 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but I fail to see how that even qualifies as a personal attack; if it is one, it's about the mildest I've ever seen. Rogue 9 13:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A "personal attack" is generally something which involves a slur or a lie, not a pure confinement to an accurate description of willfully-indulged in spirit-of-Wiki contrary behavior. E.g., various people are labeled "vandals" all the time at Wiki if they're vandalizing, and it's not considered a "personal attack". Regards this particular case, if what's consciously being committed across the various Islam-relating entries does not qualify as whitewashing and propaganda, then nothing does.--Mike18xx 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your e-mail addy didn't work

Yeah, no go on the e-mail. Failed delivery. Tried to send one to you through the "e-mail this user" link. If that doesn't work, you can reach me at renegade.paladingmail.com Rogue 9 13:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilco.--Mike18xx 13:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Amy Goodman"? --Mike18xx 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Momentarily confused with another page under attack from a PoV-pusher. The points stands. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

People of the Book changes

The edit summaries are not the talk pages. We can't carry on an discussion through edit summaries. I don't know if you bothered to look at Talk:People of the Book, but I did post to the talk page regarding my changes and I asked you to do the same with your changes. joturner 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(Mirror of my response:)

1. It is "backwards" to approach any controversal subject by first listing the defense of the perpetrators -- can you imagine how jarring it would be for you to read an account of, say, the Antebellum South, which began by listing "choice" quotes regarding lenient recommendations plantation owners gave to their overseers concerning the treatment of their subjects? It's utterly bizarre.

2. It is grossly POV as well as inaccurate to portrary the perpetrators as "giving rights" and "protection" when they are doing precisely the contrary. The whole turgid mess is an appalling whitewash, despite a few throw-a-bone references in the links, and everyone involved in whatever horrific "consensus" (if any) Hell-spawned it ought to be very ashamed of themselves.--Mike18xx 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Email

Done. I am at yalto1 at gmail --Yalto 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please learn to abide by policy and contibute to the project in a more constructive manner. FeloniousMonk 06:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you should learn to count. He made precisely three reverts, and was entirely within the rules. Rogue 9 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is just the latest casualty to "O'Sullivan's Law"; and the double-standards and oily patrician-like attitudes of some admins are blatant. I expect the whole place to be thoroughly dhimmi within a year -- what else is possible from a "tragedy of the commons" train-wreck built on a premise that a jihadist jackasshole stands on equal-footing to a studious researcher? The "fix" is already in with "anonymous editor" and his Islamist buddies Yuber & Co. --Mike18xx 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Monk should not be an admin, as I believe he abuses his tools on people. You should complain on ANI and other places. --Candide, or Optimism 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a lost cause, guys; power-trippers, pointy-haired clueless bosses, unveiled al-takeyya propagandists, and assorted other lying assholes and "fact-massagers" run this place now. And Feloneous? Your suggestion of servility danged on your own talk page merits a "You can suck my cock--once more, with *feeling*" rejoinder. The *mechanics* of the thing mandate Wiki becoming just another place with inmate's-shit-smeared walls; and there'll be no great loss in just blowing the place off because, unlike REAL earth-space, the internet is infinite. When it bellies-up, there will be a dozen better replacements for it.--Mike18xx 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That earned you another 24 hours. Respecting the project and the community would be a good place for you to start when your block expires. FeloniousMonk 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect the "project", as it were, far more in principle than the propagandists and tin-star troglodyte sheriffs who've hijacked the thing.--Mike18xx 13:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Personnal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Tom Harrison 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's de facto policy on personal attacks is that one may make them if one is an administrator (or administrator's pet) and goes about it snarkily.--Mike18xx 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the RfA process. Thank you, Makemi 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Mike18xx, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Misplaced Pages, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution, etc...

I've moved it to Wikisource, since it's a historical text document. See wikisource:Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973. 68.39.174.238 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• You don't say....--Mike18xx 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally raw documents of value to articles (Like things from a legislature) are stored there and linked to with {{wikisource}} and is not considered "vandalism". 68.39.174.238 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalism when an anonymous IP address zeros the piece without a forwarding link when I'm in the middle up updating a half-dozen Wiki entries that reference it. If you want to MIRROR it at Wikisource, be my guest.--Mike18xx 22:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, there, the pages link to the Chamber of Deputies... page, which explains it, and then links to WS for the text of the whole thing. 68.39.174.238 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No time or desire

Re:

I have no time or desire to fight you on your edits, except the Project FUBELT edit which has nothing to do with your historical interpretation. I find it facinating that you consider the removal of a democratically elected president in a coup "legitimate". Based on the comments above, I have no desire to talk to you further about this.Travb 09:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my above tone was uncivil. After looking at your edits on the Chile coup pages, I felt it was better to discuss them. I look forward to your comments and working with you in the future.Travb 11:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

skeletor image for deletion.

The skeletor image Image:20051216h.jpg (which is used on your user page), has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Please use Image:Penny Arcade comic-20051216h.jpg instead. Oshah 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you advocate a Second Holocaust against Muslims?

What a laughable title you have chosen for this, given that the *actual* Holocaust is simultaneously denied and applauded in places like Turkey and Egypt. I suggest that you ought to be more incensed about the fact that "Mein Kampf" is a contemporary best-seller in Turkey, rather than wasting your time with seldom-posting Misplaced Pages scribes. That is, of course, if holocausts are actually your concern here.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that anti-Semitism in the Muslim world was not home-grown, but a European import.

Wrong. The reason the Grand Mufti of Jerusalim got along so well with the Nazis was because they already shared common interests (which the Nazis were quick to realize and exploit). That there are no Jews or Christians (saved scattered, underground remnants) in Saudi Arabia isn't a result of adopted Nazi mentality.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, where is your source of information on sales of "Mein Kampf" in Turkey? --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a handy little tip that ANYBODY can do: Whenever you see anyone make a claim that you feel is particularly outrageous or unbelievable, you find your way to a search-engine and type in, say, turkey + "mein kampf", and see what happens.

BTW, when replying in-line, please make sure the appropriate number of colons are present.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When on the archive.org comments about The Nazis Strike, another pro-Iraq war poster "esalkin" queried why a similar pro-war propaganda film had not been made for that war, I responded:

Hitler was the popular ruler of a heavily industrialized nation of 80 million people, who controlled a military which man for man was the world's best by a wide margin (thanks to the Prussian military tradition), and who invaded many major Western countries which the Americans held dear (because many Americans had ancestors from those countries).

Saddam was a two-bit thug who shot his way to power in a country of 15 million people with almost no industry (and no resources except oil). Unlike Hitler (and like Stalin) he was an ogre ruling by fear alone and for this reason crippled his army (which wasn't much good to start with, due to Arabs losing their military traditions during the centuries of Turkish rule) by murdering all its best generals (popular generals would be a threat to Saddam's rule, you see). His only foreign wars were against the Islamic Republic of Iran - a country with very few friends in the West - and against Kuwait - a pipsqueak country originally carved artificially from Iraq by British imperialists.

It sickens me how right-wing warmongers accuse their opponents of "appeasement". "Appeasement" means giving concessions to an adversary (as Chamberlain did with the Sudetenland) so they don't attack YOU, not merely the act of abstaining from attacking THEM. If you always reject "appeasement" as defined by the rightists, you turn not into Churchill, but into Hitler.

In response, you wrote:

Hitler's Nazi party bullied its way into power via assassination and intimidation, and maintained itself thusly for nearly ten years before proceeding to overt war. Hussein (who had a soft spot for the Nazis) was an even closer parallel to Joseph Stalin, who assassinated and intimidated his way into power, killed all his best generals, lost a way against a "pipsqueak" country (Finland), and still managed (after getting caught with his pants down in Operation Barbarosa) to field enough men and tanks and planes to have crushed the Nazis in the end even without his allies creating a two-front war via D-Day.

Oh, and the poor, oppressed, "colonized" Arabs? You witless git: It ain't called "Islamofascism" for nothing; and it's been on the warpath for 1,400 years since L. Ron Muhammod formulated divine justification for pillage, homicide, rape and slavery. Welcome to World War IV, stupid.

My reply to this in turn is the Red Army 1941-1945 weren't fighting for communism - they were fighting for sheer survival against a genocidal enemy (and later on for sheer revenge against said enemy).

A splendid example of a false-analogy: Islam doesn't have any genocidal enemies and isn't being attacked. Rather, it is, as it has always been since its inception, the attacker.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you liken Muhammad to the infamous Scientology leader L. Ron Hubbard...

Why does Hubbard (but not Muhammed) rate the label of "infamous" when he hasn't killed anyone or porked any 9 year-old girls?

...and describe "Islamofascism" as having being on the warpath for 14 centuries, it seems like you advocate a war on Islam.

The "war", as it were, is already in progress. The decision which remains is to either respond, join the enemy, or die. Mayberry may be the last place on earth to have to deal with that decision, but it will come nonetheless.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But Islam isn't a tyranny which rules only by sheer terror (like Soviet Communism), or a pure ideology of conquest which is only popular for as long as it is militarily successful (like Nazism).

If that were actually true, apostates from Islam wouldn't have to worry about fatwas authorizing their executions.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of Muslims only practice for fear of execution if they abandon Islam?

I maintain the the "vast majority" of any faith only "practice" due to social ostracism if they do not. In faiths where little if any ostracism exists, the "vast majority" is religious in name only. In places like Saudi Arabia, where the Mutaween (religious police) prowl the streets, you "practice" -- or else.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is your belief, I may rescind the accusation that you are a genocidal maniac. --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is probably the most tenacious ideology which has ever existed, more so than Communism, Nazism, democracy or even Christianity.

Christianity originated as the faith of the persecuted; Islam originated as the Arab-nationalist faith of plundering warmongers. Today, both religions maintain the same roles in Asia and Africa, where Islam attacks while Christians worship in hiding, fearful of the mutaween's breaking in the door. I make the following wager as an atheist: Christianity will outlast Islam because its founding prophet preached virtuous living, while Islam was invented by its founder to justify conquest and slavery).--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that there was no slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia? --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It it obvious that I haven't "told" you that at all, so I fail to see why you're asking me to confirm it.--Mike18xx 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since abandonment of Islam is almost unknown (even the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition failed to convert Muslims in Spain to Catholicism,

This is abject nonsense; see the links below.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

...forcing the Spanish monarchs to resort to massacres and expulsions), how would you propose to win a war on Islam short of exterminating a fifth of the world's population?

So I repeat my question again. Do you or do you not advocate the genocide of Muslims? I'm waiting for your response... --GCarty 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What a duplicious question -- It's like asking me if I advocate the genocide of Germans should I maintain that Hitler's Nazis be gunned down as expediently as possible (except that you slyly, in the wording of the question, conflate the identity of both Germans and Nazis into solely the latter term in an attempt to trap me into appearing desireous of murdering innocents).

German military defeat fatally discredited Nazism.

It is truer to say that most Nazis were killed during Germany's military defeat. Aryan supremecy as an ideal, however, remains strong. For instance, it is easy enough for any contemporary Aryan supremacist to argue that Germany was destroyed by other white powers, and that the Russians would have been pushovers if not for Lend Lease.

Aside from that, this foray evades the point I made above.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam isn't so fragile - why didn't French colonial rule end Islam in Algeria, or Russian and Soviet colonial rule end Islam in Central Asia?

They didn't follow the advice I list below. There's also the factor of they're not offering anything "new & improved" to the inhabitants of the region. I.e., neither communism nor French colonialism are marketable selling points. Additionally, they made the mistake of assuming that Algeria, Afghanistan, et al, were individual nations rather than merely appendages of a Shariah octopus.

Aside from that, extremism *is* fragile as a dominant ideology -- it must continually "make examples" in the forms of beatings, executions, etc., in order to remain dominant, rather than a softer, more tolerant (i.e., less "faithful") version become adopted by peoples more interested in the affairs of their lives than those of insane mullahs. The Aztec cult had survived for centuries; it did not survive a few years of the Spanish killing its priests and razing the temples across all of Central America.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons why denazification was successful was because the West Germans couldn't defy the Western Allies without throwing themselves into Stalin's jaws. Methinks we need a "Soviet Union" - in this case a superpower ally so viciously anti-Islamic that Muslims would accept Western occupation as the lesser evil. --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

History affords no example of a totalitarianism more extreme than that Islamic totalitarianism; it's brutalities (most barely documented, such as the horrific slaughter of millions of Hindus and Buddhists during the conquest of the northwestern Indian subcontinent) are unmatached. Literally, it represents a de-evolution of homo sapiens in that anyone with a spark of independence, creativity or initiative is liable to be murdered, hounded into exile, or crushed into silence. It's as if a farmer destroyed his best seed, leaving the worst from which to plant next year's crop.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regards Islam itself, it is an excellent example of what happens when a supernaturally-obsessed Hitler wins his wars of plunder and supremacism while declaring himself the agent of divinity, and his psychotic followers have 1,400 years to polish his lying, murdering, thieving, slave-mongering, pedophilic image in their taqiyya propaganda marketed to kafirs. There is, to be sure, plenty of lingering shiny, happy "religion of peace" Islam out there (mainly as a social-inertia remnant of civilized attitudes among conquered populations), but the jihadis are doing there damnedest to stamp that out now in dozens of countries. They, after all, know their religion a helluvalot better than you do.

Regards what ought to be done? Why, that's the absolutely easy part -- and the examples of how to do it, easily, are already a matter of historical record (e.g., the destruction of the Thugee and Aztec slavery and murder cults). Namely, round up and execute every so-called priest preaching slaughter (with that being the litmus test), and raze their temples to the ground. The present business in Iraq is an exercise in complete imbecility -- akin to playing the computer game "Gauntlet" and trying to win by never destroying a "generator", but only the endless stream of monsters they spew.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=apostasy

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=apostasy

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004748.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005050.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005051.php

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm --Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the company you keep.

I fail to see what you mean by that crack. Jihadwatch is run by Catholic theologian Robert Spencer; FaithFreedom is run by irreligious apostates. While opposed to Islamic depravities, they have little in common otherwise. If you were truly interested, you'd pop the hood rather than being fascinated by the paint.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong about "no group of people abandoning Islam" - the Gaugaz of Moldavia converted to Orthodoxy in order to settle as refugees in Russia. But the rule "no de-Islamification without ethnic cleansing" is still true in general. --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the jihadis are concerned, anyone not following strict Shariah has "abandoned Islam". In a strict sense, that means every "Muslim" on Earth who isn't dressed properly at all times, down on his knees five times a day, and doing his (violent) part to establish the Universal Caliphate. Essentially, the great bulk of "Muslims" are de-facto "de-Islamified" at any given time, and the task of the Mutaween and the Jahidis is to beat and murder them back into compliance.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi talk page

Mike!!! What are you doing? -- Szvest 23:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, the Sphere intersects the plane of Flatland.--Mike18xx 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just be carefull. I am sure you know where the sandbox is ;) -- Szvest 23:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you're being inflammatory in your commentary on the Dhimmi talk page? (→Netscott) 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re "pedophile warmonger's cult". This is your last warning. I am sure you know the rules and ask you to abide by them. -- Szvest 23:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, of course, Misplaced Pages is no longer (was it ever?) concerned with disseminating unpleasant truths. No, now it's all about groveling and apologizing and appeasing the learned judgement of a pack of Hitler's supporters in an alternate-history post-WWII fiction novel where the Nazis won and now squat over a third of the world. --Because getting to the nitty-gritty, as they say, isn't what encylopedias are for, but rather instead providing canned spew for listless-eyed elementary skool chill dren writing dull 3rd-grade reports.--Mike18xx 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like historical revisionism, eh? Interesting how there's an hommage to Muhammad prominently displayed on the façade of the United States Supreme Court building. Apparently historians think otherwise of his societal contributions. (→Netscott) 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy tagged 'n bagged.--Mike18xx 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion of the authority makes the conclusion more likely to be true. tagged 'n sunk. (→Netscott) 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, that is the very archtypical structure of an argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy; and only a goddamned moron would be incapable of recognizing it when it's been dissected under his nose. (My, aren't I a cuddly ball of fun today? If anyone ever said education was a friendly process completely devoid of embarrassing episodes, they were lying.) --Mike18xx 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a user page, Nescott

Stop deleting Skeletor.--Mike18xx 00:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages F.U. policy (Fair Use) does not allow for the utilization of "Fair Use" imagery in user space. If you continue to revert my commenting out of such imagery you will likely face blocking. Do not display "Fair Use" images in your user space. (→Netscott) 00:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable incivility

This kind of inflammatory behavior is never permissible on Misplaced Pages. Ever. Stop. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Whereas articles which are 50% wholesale rubbish are perfectly permissible on Misplaced Pages. Always. --Mike18xx 00:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. Given your re-establishment of your inflammatory comment, and the further unacceptably inflammatory material on your user page, and your edit warring over the removal of unlicensed images from your user page, I'm going to block you for forty-eight hours. Think for a bit about why you're here on Misplaced Pages. If at the end you still think it's about having the power "to PILLAGE and DESTROY facts and history on the internet", don't come back. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the SARCASM was completely LOST on you, Sidaway. Meanwhile, the Takeyya Obfusication Squad continues its merry march -- which is pretty much the entire flippin' *point* of the *sarcasm*.--Mike18xx 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Suffice also to say that Nescott's curiously timely removal of the "Skeletor editing Misplaced Pages's 'He-Man' entry" picture was, shall we say, helpful in nudging you past the SARCASM.--Mike18xx 01:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked! Blocked for TELLING THE TRUTH!

00:50, 12 July 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) (Again removing this unacceptable provocation from the talk page. Editor has been blocked.)
00:33, 12 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) ("Unacceptably inflammatory" is a PURE ARBITRARY. "Warmongering pedophile", otoh, is 100% *accurate* regards the historical personna in question. Is Wiki beholden to those "inflamed" by *accuracy*?)
00:02, 12 July 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) (Unacceptably inflammatory edit removed. Editor warned.)
23:39, 11 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (Do not delete criticisms you disagree with, FayssalF; in a comments thread, one is allowed more latitude than in the main entry. (And don't follow-up censorship with additional threats in user pages.))
23:13, 11 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (→Second class citizenship)
23:12, 11 July 2006 FayssalF (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Mike18xx (talk) to last version by Itsmejudith)

(Am I shocked? Of course not. It was, after all, exactly what I *expected*.)--Mike18xx 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your incivility in your edits and edit summaries are over the top and out of line....

Oh no you don't: Stick to the *specific* instance here: What, in the above, was UNTRUE? How is it possible that what is true is simultaneously "out of line"? I'm going to guess that you'd rather not answer that question, since it would pull off the tarp covering up the whole shabby enterprise of sacrificing accuracy on an altar of appeasement going on around here. Ie. Misplaced Pages is the world writ small: In the "big" world, Islamists bribe governments at the upper levels and kill those who oppose them lower down; on Misplaced Pages, they worm their way into administator positions in order to censor, and otherwise scream full-time when they can't, until the bureaubots (eg, you) are so sick of the noise that they'll give them whatever they want -- chiefly, the silencing of the Islamist's critics. But of course there is no end to the demands of Dar al-Islam over Misplaced Pages, as the latter is merely cyberspace Dar al-Harb.--Mike18xx 18:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We're all supposed to be collaborating here. Tony tried to explain this to you and you persisted. The block is justified, and you could stand to take some time off and grow some perspective. (ESkog) 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Collaborating" at WHAT, ESKog? THAT is what ALL of you censorious crybabies are completely hopscotching right on past. Willingly, I say.--Mike18xx 01:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

re my revert: Mike likes to ramble on Chilean Resolutions, others do so on Islam - both strongly dislike Misplaced Pages. Mike's block is deserved, the blanking of his user page is not. theo

I strongly dislike what Misplaced Pages has become: "Let's put facts and history up for a *vote*!" -- That's all it is now. Perhaps that's all it could have ever been. Who knows. I just call it the way I see it.--Mike18xx 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

FSLN

Come join the fun FSLN. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Power Line

Hi. You recently reverted this edit to Power Line by user Qwertman1 (talk · contribs). I thought Qwertman1's edit improved the article, removing quite a bit of hostile POV. Clearly you disagree; can I ask why? Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed your subsequent edits. Nice work. I've struck out my now-irrelevant question. (If no-one else has spell-checked the article by the time I get OpenOffice 2.x on this machine, I'll have a go at it.) CWC(talk) 09:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Permissions for photos

In order to obtain permission for the photos (and the text as well), you should write back to the Jamestown foundation asking them to explicitly state that the photos and text are now in the public domain, or under the GDFL or another compatible licence. You can then forward the email to permissions@wikimedia.org . Commons has an email template which should be good to use.--§hanel 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility warning

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Specifically,in reviewing (as requested at an administrative notice area) your edits and edit summaries to Chile under Allende and other articles I think you could be somewhat more civil in your word choices. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen additional edit summaries by you and consider them woefully incivil, this one for example: ... this is your last warning. If you continue with these incivil entries you WILL be blocked. I note also that you are sparring with a user giving you a warning, direclty below this. "tattle" is in no way shape or form a collegial remark and is unacceptable if civility is your goal. Consider yourself warned about that as well. At this point this is a formal warning from an admin and removal of it will also result in a block. ++Lar: t/c 07:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind your behavior

I'd like to comment on your imposition of subjective views in a number of articles, which I was alerted of. At the very least, imposing your own views is a violation of the no original research policy; at the most, it qualifies as disruption and can amount to vandalism if it persists. You've already received a warning about the personal attacks on other editors. Noting that you will push your 3RR quota to the limit as much as you can is also not a good idea; 3RR is a quick guideline to identify and punished "revert warriors" but it's not the worst thing that can happen to you. Try to keep cool, discuss civilly, and leave sensitive article content alone until you reach consensus to edit it. The NPOV policy doesn't say that everybody is entitled to have their opinion mentioned in an article. It must be read along with WP:NOR and WP:V. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight: Somebody is tattling on me, and you're sending me a warning without having even seen the subjects in question to see if I am actually guilty of the alleged crimes charged? Has it occurred to you how easy it is for whining tattle-tailers to "bully" their "subjective views" into an article just by continually "shopping" around for admins to go stomp over the user-pages of their critics? Fine. Two can play the game; and since I have your attention, I'd just like to let you know that many Wiki editors who tattle about me are disingenuous vandals who have no interest in writing truthful articles and every interest in locking down their propaganda. This is particularly the case in (a) Islam-related articles (for obvious reasons), (b) property-redistribution articles (socialists would love to imagine there are no credible, or any at all, arguments against their favorite way of getting stuff without paying for it) and (c) Chile/Allende-related articles (where some are tenacious in their attempts to preserve moldy 35-year old propaganda -- it tooks *months* to get into Wiki the Chilean Chamber of Deputies' own pivotal condemnation of Allende and request for the military oust him). Also please be observant of the fact that edits are not the same thing as reverts, no matter how much the defenders of rubbish would like to conflate the two when siccing the admins on their detractors.--Mike18xx 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, this entire paragraph is unacceptably incivil. ++Lar: t/c 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that charges against oneself are untrue does not equate to being incivil, let alone unacceptably so.--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Further 3RR is not a license to revert 3 times in 24 hours and it is not a license to make similar but slightly different changes. If you persist in edit warring over articles, regardless of whether you are within the formal guidelines of 3RR, I will block you. ++Lar: t/c 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I to take from this that the guidelines now no longer matter, and what matters instead is the arbitrary whim of whatever administrator has taken a disliking to me (if, for no other reason, than that I am argumentative before him)? I will also add that it takes *two* (or more) to "edit war", and that page-protections seem a more prudent course of action by dispassionate administrators. If you were to block everyone involved, that, at least, I couldn't argue wasn't fair.--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to reply particularly to your allegation that "you're sending me a warning without having even seen the subjects in question". Indeed I haven't followed the whole mess along, because it wasn't my intention to get involved in the discussion over content. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a stipulation as to the veracity of my "allegation".--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What I've seen is a pattern of abusive edits on your part. I don't care whether what you wrote is true/accurate or not (that's a problem for the ones watching the articles); that's not the question... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A "true/accurate" edit which is also asserted to be "abusive" represents an oxymoric concept (and terse summaries don't just happen out of the blue, either). Even if such were possible, is it more important that thousands of interenet browsers encounter accurate information, or that the lowest-common-denominator "sensitive" contributor always be placated? I find it very worrisome that an administrator at an encyclopedia would blunty confess to not caring whether articles were true or not--if an encyclopedia isn't expressly in the business of accuracy, I fail to see what the point of the enterprise is. (Question for Lars: Do you consider it evidence of "incivility" on my part for me to harp on the issue of disinterest in accuracy?)--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

but the manner in which you're trying to get your ideas into the articles, and how you're treating others. The user who alerted me is one that I've known for some time, a very fine and knowledgeable contributor, and one who has never been accused of gaming the system or insulting those who disagree. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have no way of defending myself from that statement nor of questioning credibilities...I can only sit in my uncomfortable chair in front of the tribunal and listen to the charges brought forth by unidentified accusors. That, and logically reduce the situation to its principled essentials, which is that another editor is complaining explicitly to get me disciplined, and that the administrator electing to perform the disciplining has no interest in the accuracy of the articles in question, and form my own conclusions regarding what Misplaced Pages will eventually amount to as truth inexorably becomes the least important aspect of article-creation.

I shall leave the both of you with this: I have *never* gone complaining to an admin about anything -- not even to request an article-Protect. It's not that I am "treated" better by other editors than I treat them in return (a well-toned lie in a revert summary is more offensive to me than a blunt but truthful one); it's just that I have a thick skin and don't need anyone holding my hand. And you've heard, I hope, of the now-old saying Whenever you subsidize something, you will get more of that something-? When whiners are "rewarded" for whining at Misplaced Pages, you're going to get more whining at Misplaced Pages, not less.--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)