User talk:Lindsay40k

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. NawlinWiki 18:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Please see WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Zangief
First of all, I don't appreciate the inflammatory comments you made about me in the Talk:Zangief page. You do know that Wikipedia has a policy against personal remarks. I, or someone else, could report you and have you banned.

With that out of the way, the only reason why that paragraph was removed has to do because its unsourced fan-speculation, based on a few quotes that's likely being mistranslated or taken out-of-context, that's not even acknowledged by the creators of the games. The character's sexuality is a never mentioned or even addressed in the games to begin with.Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing I said about you was noting the fact that you unilaterally censored the section on Zangief's sexuality without making any attempt to argue the case for doing so - which is noted as a persistent problem with this article.


 * I also asked for users to discuss their issues with an article instead of starting an edit war, which you have also failed to do.Lindsay40k (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a reply to the talk page. I don't care if the "homophobic bigot" remark wasn't aimed directly at me. Its still rude and goes against good faith! For the record, bringing up my discussions with other users at the talk is unethical, and is an indirect ad hominem. I might as well point out that you have a record of adding nonsenses to other articles, based on your two edit warnings. Jonny2x4 (talk)


 * I apologise if you took personal issue with the remark, however had you looked at the discussion and history of the article you would see that it has a history of users unilaterally censoring it without explanation and not making any attempt to dispute implied and explicit accusations of homophobia.


 * Ad hominem applies when trying to discredit a person's argument with personal attacks, and in this instance there was no argument for me to criticise or discredit. All I did was point out the facts that you did not argue the case for your edit and appear to have a track record of similar behaviour, both of which are statements of fact relevant to the issue. However I certainly agree with you that pointing out that my initial activity on Wikipedia was to create two joke entries would indeed be an ad hominem.


 * Anyway, whadaya mean, 'nonsense'? Amber Laser and Yellow Bog Brush are important parts of the English language and their omission from Wikipedia, together with its policy of only accepting as legitimate sources those which have enough backing from partisan interests willing to spend money on publishing them and thus cutting out community groups which frequently have better factual knowledge and collective editing processes (thereby discrediting its own editing model), renders this website inherently flawed!Lindsay40k (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)