User talk:Arthur Smart/Archive 03

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)


 * "People cannot believe that anyone would honestly suggest that the solution to gun crime is to allow more guns"
 * http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
 * Now quit your vandalizing. -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having taken a look at LightSpectra's unsoliticed URL and unnecessary lecture, I wish to reiterate that I wholeheartedly agree with every single word you previously wrote about one of the major political parties: "It is principally formed of bloodthirsty gun owners and religious extremists who despise homosexuals (see Free Republic for examples of such Republican rhetoric).  The party is met with either contempt, anger or pity in the more civilised societies of Europe and the UK where people cannot believe that anyone would honestly suggest that the solution to gun crime is to allow more guns."  Thanks for your intelligent perspective.  I think comparative homicide statistics speak volumes.  --Art Smart (talk) 03:05, 23 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 Hi 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 Hi 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 Hi 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 Hi 15:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I kinda like "Art Smart" better. It rhymes! Even better, how about something like "Art Smart LART/ Chart "? :-D --Clubjuggle T / C  15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks, guys. Not knowing what "LART" means, I slightly adapting Clubjuggle's ideas:  --Art Smart Heart/ 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 Heart/ Chart  08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Update. To avoid the connotations of an EKG, here's my latest version:  --Art Smart Chart/ 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 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 Chart/ 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 &mdash; it would be dreadful.  --Art Smart Chart/ 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 Chart/ Heart  15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Art, there are more constructive ways to handle this than disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Clubjuggle T/ 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 T/ 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 Chart/ Heart  15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stay safe. --Clubjuggle T/ 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 T/ C 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Arthur didn't drop anything. The userbox he created is still there, along with his comments linking it to me. While you are busy assuming good faith, I can see what is right in front of me. Arthur merely signed off for the time being. If he were to remove it, or to remove any comments that linked it to me, then I would agree he dropped it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Until your comment above I would have had no way of knowing the userbox referred to you, but if you feel strongly about this, take it to WP:RFCC. If not, then just drop it. --Clubjuggle T/ C 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He came to my page, posted that he took the user boxes. Then made the comment on his page that he made it because of an editor and took the componenets from that editor. Are you going to sit there and pretend that it isn't clear? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I'm going to tell you that while you cannot control another user's actions, you can control your own. Take it to the right place or drop it. --Clubjuggle T/ C 16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Books and AN
Hi Art, I left a note on the administrators notice board. You can find it here under the tile User:CENSEI. I just thought i would let you know because you were one of the participating editors. Docku Hi 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Docku. I've been on a wikibreak for a couple of days, so I'm only now seeing this.  Thanks.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  23:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There wasnt much development anyway. Hope you had a nice little break. Docku Hi 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Just a quick message to let you know that the contents of your userpage have been brought up on ANI. Whilst you may well feel that, since the contents don't personally identify an individual user, they don't fall under the policy against personal attacks at WP:NPA, I'm afraid I disagree with you - since the user concerned is readily indentifiable, it does constitute a personal attack. I would ask you to remove it, but since they've already removed it themselves I'm not going to restore it just to ask you to get rid of it again, but I would ask you to bear WP:NPA in mind in the future - I see it's been pointed out to you before. GbT/c 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed per your request, not the editor who made himself readily identifiable. As someone else recently told him, "Until your comment above I would have had no way of knowing the userbox referred to you."  I made no personal attack.  Someone took it personally, thereby inflicting the attack on him/herself.  If there was a personal attack, it was self-inflicted by the complainant.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  10:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at WP:ANI - probably easier to keep all discussion in one place from now on. GbT/c 10:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Spin it however you want to Arthur, anyone who took the time to look at all the involved postings could see it plain as day. I noticed as well that you consider removing items in violation of wiki-policy count as "vandalism". Thank you for my laugh of the day. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks
Stemming from the discussion about your behavior on ANI, the next time you make a personal attack, belittle another user or otherwise violate WP:Civil you will be blocked without further warning. I strongly suggest you re-evaluate how you interact with other users on Wikipedia and modify your behavior significantly. You may disagree with other users, but deliberate attempts at provoking conflict are completely unacceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, that expressly includes spelling "Niteshift36" as "Niteshit36". Neıl   ☄   13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Truce?
Look Art, neither of us are dumb guys. We simply have very different points of view. I admit, I haven't been the most well behaved person in this matter either. What do you say we bury the hatchet (not in each other) and who knows, we might find ourselves agreeing on something as some other point? Note that I didn't dispute the inclusion of that bit about Michael Savages book being included on that article because I think Savage is much more inflammatory. We might even share a dislike of him for starters. What do you say? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in. But I support the truce. I like both of you guys and I think both of you are nice. Docku Hi 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No truce necessary. I'm getting the hell out of Dodge.  I don't need any heavy-handed administrators breathing down my neck with hair-trigger threats of an indefinite block.  For all I care, Wikipedia can go to the same arch-conservative dogs who have enabled Bush to practically destroy this formerly great nation with his war of folly and crushing national debt.  (As I write this, he's in China right now kissing the butts of his war financiers, leaving our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay off his damned war debt.)  Wingnuts think this country needs more guns, and wars, and debt, and to hell with the poor, and the sick, and praise God as the conservatives pretend to be Christians.  Even if they don't open fire in a peaceful church, they can just edit Wikipedia all they want and spin it in the name of the Bush/Cheney/McCain Führer-du-jour.  Adios, amigos.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Users page
For archiving purposes, the following occurred at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: 
 * The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User: Arthur Smart has been using his page to make personal attacks towards other editors with his commentary about his "userbox of the month". He then prohibits anyone from responding to those attacks. I believe this to be a violation of WP:NPA. He pretends that by not using a users name (instead calling them wingnuts) that he is not making a personal attack. He is, of course, gaming the rules. I request administrative intervention. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could leave a diff to the edits concerned, as I can't see the occurence of the word "wingnut" anywhere on his userpage, nor does anything on there at the moment particularly resemble a violation of WP:NPA. GbT/c 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because I removed it for violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)
 * I've warned the user concerned. I'm not sure that removing it yourself (without explicitly asking the user concerned to do so first, which I don't think you've done) was entirely the right idea, but I'm not going to be pointy and reinstate it and ask Arthur to remove it. GbT/c 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that I made any form of personal attack. As someone else recently told him, "Until your comment above I would have had no way of knowing the userbox referred to you."  I made no personal attack.  The complainant took it personally, thereby inflicting the attack on him/herself.  If there was a personal attack, it was self-inflicted by the complainant.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that "One wingnut WN presumed that the userbox applied specifically to him/her, in effect synthesizing a direct connection where none exists. (I guess the shoe fit, even if the condom didn't.)" constitutes a personal attack? GbT/c 10:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never identified the complainant or anyone else, so if there was any attack at all, it certainly was not personal. The complainant is the one who took my user page contents personally, and through his/her own voluntary self-disclosure created a personal link where none existed previously, as others have pointed out.  But I, on the other hand, committed no personal attack whatsoever.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that there is no personal attack there, although there is a lack of civility. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, but I read the condom bit as being an attack. The fact that it is address at or about the "wingnut" who thought that the original userbox was aimed at them makes it, in my view, personal. In essence, I can insult someone. That no-one else can work out who it is I'm insulting doesn't make my original personal attack any less (a) personal or (b) of an attack. GbT/c 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arthur, the person who said that hadn't bothered to go back and look at all the things you'd posted on my page as well as your own. There was nothing tricky, it just takes reading to see who you were talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Arthur Smart has repeatedly, on Niteshifts's talk page, altered Niteshift's username to make a personal attack. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This and this are clearly personal attacks on  .   clearly not acting in good faith.  Issuing 4im for personal attack and incivility. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was serious
I really was offering you an olive branch. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand, and I appreciate your calling me "Art" in your last message. I'm just fed up right now.  I'm just wasting too much time here.  Thanks.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had to do the same thing a couple of months back over Ron Paul articles. The Paulites were killing me with the Paul worship. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pity you didn't take a break sooner, instead of wasting 3rd parties time with things that don't concern them. Kerryh r (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)