User talk:LordRevan

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Just thought to drop in
Greetings, Lord Revan. After reading the latest from User_Talk:Atlant's page, I felt inclined to drop a word or two into a fellow 'anonymous coward.' Also, I think that I'm going to copy most of the info boxes that you have on your user page for my own, if you don't mind, of course.

Your opinion in regard to Catholicism is certainly unique to me. I was born and raised Catholic, but have always disagreed with many details about the religion. Do you have more information about your views? If so, then I would be very much obliged to listen.

Divide et impera... Salva 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way - why are you a fan of Bush? He's clearly a player in the New World Order, with obvious ties to the Illuminati through the Skull & Bones society of Yale. Didn't know if you knew that already, but I thought I'd just throw that in since you seem to be an avid anti-globalist like me! Salva 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes... the Illuminati is coming to get you! You two are quite the geniuses, eh? --Imperialles 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bush ? New World Order ?  No, he's just an idiot.  Voilà, la raison pour laquelle LordRevan l'aime : Ils s'identifient.  --Aquarelle 06:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He's a pawn in the NWO just like the rest of the Republican party. At this point it doesn't really matter which party holds federal office; our country and our world is on an irreversable trek towards globalization. Sometimes it's nice to make ourselves feel good and fight it, but ultimately, the fate is inevitable. Myself, I believe that communication technology - not liberalism or some sort of conspiracy - has contributed most influentially to world unification.

I don't know of any direct references to this theory. It's more or less an obvious and wholly legitimate trepidation. Michael Savage, PhD seems to have the same hypothesis. He basically says that Democrats are on the 'bullet train' to globalization while the Republicans are simply approaching that finality much slower.

Like I may (or may not) have said before: to be a conservative American is one of the few noble occupations left today. Most conservative Christians, especially in the South, haven't accepted the NWO, and I'll wager that they'll continue to battle secularity at least until the end of my generation. The irony is that I also support their cause but am pessimistic about it at the same time. Salva 14:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello unnamed person, thank you for your comments that you posted on my talk site. Here is some sites that I found supporting the Black Pope theory. [] [] It is a long read and I have yet to finish reading it all yet. And on the Bush subject, I was aware of Bush's affiliation with the Skull & Bones, but was unaware of his links to the Illuminati. I thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was wondering unnamed, if you could possibly give me some websites that support Bush's New World Order ties??? I also have a book by Rebecca Brown, "He Came to Set the Captives Free." This book shows two perspectives, one is a person on the barral end of the Satanist Cult the Brotherhood, which is Rebecca Brown. The other perspective is from a lady who actually was in the Brotherhood and broke free of it (she was actually was the top bride of Satan). I hope you get this book because the little I've read of it is very interesting. LordRevan 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And you say I'm the one with psycho ideas ? lol  --Aquarelle 07:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aquarelle
It would by nice if you signed your name next time you call me a psycho. This can be done by placing four tilds at the end of your posts. Thanks. --Aquarelle 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification about the pyshco comments; no harm done. I also would like to let you know that you don't have to waste your time explaining to me what a liberal is. For your information, French people are very conservative. I understand very well the American liberal doctrine, as well as those of many communist, marxist and socialist parties. You seem to be very dedicated to the American conservative party. Let me just say one thing about this; anybody who makes up his or her mind before hearing the issue is an idiot. Instead of waiting to hear/read/be told what the Party thinks, just try to think about it on your own, independently. Do some research. And most of all, when you disagree, state why you disagree. I showed you an article, and quite honestly, you had nothing intelligent to say about it. Do you think all those people mentioned are not actually affiliated with Fox News ? If so, then say so! If you don't trust the source, then do some of your own research! Comme ça, on évolue. --Aquarelle 02:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding image on User page
Copyrighted images used on Wikipedia per fair use cannot be used on user pages. This is stated on the WP:FAIR page, and is to avoid possible problems for Wikipedia. As much as I love Darth Revan, s/he has to go. Sorry, and may the Force be with you. Deskana (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Think Before You Act
Listen, I'm not going to argue with you that many elements of Wikipedia are biased. That's what goes along with a free encyclopedia. However, it is absolutely critical that all confrontations are resolved with tact. You can't go around telling people that there's some sort of communist revolution or something happening on Wikipedia. No one will listen to you. And I'm not sure what was meant by the seemingly random quotes that you posted on User:Atlant's talk page, but its effect was relatively insignificant. Just think - Atlant was probably laughing his ass off, shaking his head and calling you an ignorant fundamentalist. Patience is the only thing that will get you anywhere here - that's my suggestion - of course, you don't have to listen to it. Remain calm, even in the worst of situations, and people will support you; act impulsively and they will only laugh at you. As I said on my talk page, I suggest that you speak with an administrator (in a professional manner) about your grievance(s). If you do so, let me know and I will review them and give both you and the admins my feedback about the situation. Salva 01:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
While I don't think these odd purges are restricted to right wing boxes, I will support you in any action to protect userboxes like the gun control one from being deleted should you like to recreate said boxes.Gateman1997 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:ENC
You have made no changes to an article. In article talk space, you have done nothing but engage in fruitless debate about the topics of the article - you have not discussed changes to the articles themselves. You have spent a lot of time in the user talk space, arguing with people, and on your user page. Wikipedia is not usenet, and is not a debating society. Please help contribute to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

EU and UN
Hello there. Just out of curiosity, why are you so vehemently opposed to the European Union and the United Nations? I noticed on the UN talk page you made a passing reference to America shouldering a hefty proportion of the UN budget, but as the United States does not contribute to the EU's funding, why should you hate it so much? I really don't understand why so many Americans hate the European Union. Maybe if you explain why you hate the UN, and especially the EU, you can shed some light on this apparent hatred? Rusty2005 20:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Rusty, you won't be finding any reasoning on this particular talk page. He has no reason for hating the European Union.  I'm guessing some of his few friends in Washington State don't like it, so he decided to follow suite.  --Aquarelle 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

EU and the UN represent globalization, which I am strongly opposed to and firmly believe in the sovereignty of nations. I know you guys would then say that why then is the United States the police dog of the world. The United States goel for the world is to spread peace and democracy, not the imperialism you guys claim the United States is really about. If you guys are so strong against imperialsim, than why are you supporting the most imperial states of them all, the UN and EU. I agree that the UN was a nice concept, if it was executed with a lot less bureaucracy and didn't allowing regiemes like China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and many of the other totalitarian and communist(or socialists) regiemes on as member countries. And currently, the UN is trying to impose a Global tax that would further steal money from the US taxpayers, besides the supposed deficit the UN says the US owes them. This proposed tax would tax emails, internet, fossil fuels, money transactions, air transport, international conventional arms, fines for ocean dumping, commercial fishing, Earth-orbiting satellites, on the use of the electronic spectrum (for television, radio, cell phones, etc.), profits of international businesses, international advertising, and a aviation fuel tax. This tax is aimed at stealing more money from the hard working Americans, and further shows the Socialist and Communist moves by the UN. As for the EU, the large amount of corruption and Anti-American and Anti-semitism in many of the EU's member countries governments keep me wary of its true motives. Considering both the UN's and EU's intergovernmental nature, I have notice that corruption can easily permeate high levels in them and there largely ineffective in dealing with current world problems. Sorry it took me so long to answer you guys, I did not mean to show that I was blowing you guys off.

P.S. Aquarelle, I DO NOT take my political views from anyone but myself and the Bible. You insult me by alluding my political preference to an outside influence from imperfect people. All of my political views come from myself or the Bible, nothing else. LordRevan 18:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you even know what Communism is? It's a political theory, not a convenient bogeyman for paranoid Republicans. Amazing how you're so paranoid about Communism even though the Cold War ended more than a decade ago. I think you should go and read up on it before you turn into McCarthy and start labelling the UN as a Communist organisation. The UN is not Communist. And neither is the EU. You talk about the UN stealing money from "hard-working Americans". Are you suggesting that the Americans are the only people in the world who work hard? Do you assume that we in the rest of the world just sit back and wait for you to give us handouts? The USA consumes far more resources than any other country on the planet. Not only that, but the supposedly angelic USA is good friends with despotic regimes in Central Asia and South America, conveniently ignoring their atrocities to ensure a steady flow of cheap imports from their countries into the US, not to mention that America has one of the worst human rights records in the world. But back to the UN - are you also suggesting that the USA is the only country in the world that pays into the UN budget? We pay a lot too, you know. You claim to be against globalisation yet believe that the US is right in "spreading peace and democracy" across the globe. Isn't that just a fancy way of saying that you don't want your country and your beliefs to be influenced by the rest of the world, whilst you simultaneously force your beliefs on other countries? And as for spreading peace and democracy around the world, don't you think it's better to push for peaceful change through reasoned discussion at the United Nations, rather than simply sending in the trigger-happy US Army so they can bomb, slaughter, and set up Abu Ghraib-style torture chambers, all in the name of freedom? People will never accept "peace" if it's forced down their throats by invaders.


 * You accuse the EU of being anti-semitic. Example? You accuse the EU of being corrupt. Are you suggesting that the EU is the only corrupt political organisation in the world? Because of course, the US government has never demonstrated corruption in its time. Just look at your civil rights record. How can claim the US is not corrupt?? The European Union is an economic and political entity, nothing more. It does not have a defence force, and the EU is very rarely capable of acting as a united group over foreign affairs, the individual member states act on their own initiative. I think you should do a little research on what the EU does, how it was created, and just how much power it actually has. You seem to believe that the EU is a threat to the USA. Well here in the UK (a member of the EU, you know), we see that the EU has very little power. The only people who really care about the EU are businessmen looking to avoid import tarriffs and bulk shipment taxes. That's the EU's main role. It is not an evil totalitarian regime. It is a free trade conglomerate. How exactly are the EU and UN "imperialist" regimes? They're not even states.


 * One final point: you say you get all of your political theory from the Bible. Remind me, where exactly does it say in the Bible that you are to support the United States and hate the United Nations?

Rusty2005 13:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, Communism, I think you would have understood better if I had used the term, Socialism(though there is little difference between the two). And no, I am not suggesting that the US labors harder than the other people outside of the US or that the US is the only one that pays to the UN. The US has always paid a sizable chunk of all 3 budgets of the UN, despite the fact that we are continually called warmongers by people like you and many of the UN member countries governments. And these taxes would only hurt and cause the quality of the middle classes to go down in all of the devoloped nations, not just the US. An intersting quote by Calvin Coolidge sheds light on the tax issue, "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Ahh yes, it is true that the US has supported many regiemes in the past, but at the time they were the lesser of two evils. And are you saying that you would rather have the many regiemes that the UN supports, or the very few that the US has supported, hmm. The UN supports many more regiemes than has the US every supported. And of course there is France. Despite the fact the France dosen't pay as much as some countries and other countries have a larger populations, they continue to hold UN veto power(which they use to undermine the US). Why doesn't Japan get chosen to have veto powers. They are better economically standing and have 60 million more people living there than in France. Then there is your stance on diplomacy. The US, before going to Iraq, continually asked the UN for authorization to start military actions. And of course France, Russia, and China used their powers to halt any action that would jeopardize the large amount of money that Saddam used to buy their votes. And when I was mentioning on the EU's Anti-semitism and corruption, you should have looked more closley at this, "many of the EU's member countries governments." Notice the big emphasis on many and governments. If you had considered these two words, it would have ment a lot less writing for you. On your mentioning of the UN and EU being imperialistic, the UN is imperialistic because a large portion of the UN countries are totalitarian governments that seek to undermine the US through the UN's own political system. And for the EU, many of their member countries are rife with corruption, which is more prevalent in central and east Europe(basically all of the countries that suffered heavily under Fascism and Socialism). On your mentioning of the Bible, God says to support your government. And if you actually read the Bible, were does it say in the Bible that says you have to allow totalitarian regimes to exist. And no, the Commies didn't die out, they just turned into Liberals and Socialists. And in the future Rusty2005, I would ask if you respectfully answer my questions and points, rather than circumvent many of them to get to the ones that piss you off the most. I will also extend this same curtesy to you. LordRevan 17:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On your mentioning of peace being forced down peoples throats, then why are the majority of Iraqis happy that we took Hussien out of power,hmm hmm(hint, the media doesn't like to elobrate on this, and they even gave misleading info to try to protray the Iraqis as wishing that the US were out of the country). And on your mentioning of the US setting up torture cells, you have no proof. The only proof you have are the few isolated cases of torture and abuse that show that they were the indivudial soldiers, not the higher command doing the abusing. LordRevan 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I still say you need to work on your terminology. You can't just use the terms "Liberal", "Socialist", and "Communist" as insults. They are defined and very seperate political theories. If you look into it, you'll find that Liberals and Communists generally don't have a lot of respect for each other. You equating my Liberalism with Communism is like me equating your conservatism with Fascism. Differentiate. I'm intrigued by your claim that the Communist movement simply turned into Liberals. A little research will show you that Socialism and Liberalism were around a long, long time before Communism.


 * Now, the UN. You say that the dictatorships the USA supports, like Kirgyzstan and Sierra Leone, are preferable to the entire world as represented by the United Nations. Yes, the UN does represent tinpot dictatorships, as the UN is an organisation designed to represent the entire planet, not just the countries in America's gang. You have to accept these states into the organisation. One of the main reasons the League of Nations failed was that it refused to let some states join. When they set up the UN, they didn't want the same thing to happen again. Besides, dictatorships' power in the UN is miniscule in comparison to the power of the big, peaceful, democratic countries, from India to Brazil. As for the UN being "imperialistic", again it seems to be a problem with your terminology. The United Nations is not a single entity. It is a forum for international discussion. And when the UN does ask countries to do certain things, such as not bombing Iraq, it is because the majority of the planet says so. Now to me, that's democracy, not imperialism. Imperialism is when a country does what it wants regardless of international opinion, just like my country did a hundred years ago, and your country is doing today. As for France, which you seem to hate for some unknown reason, remember that France is an independent state like any other, with its own interests, which may not always coincide with the Americans. France is one of the economic superpowers of the world, as well as one of the five recognised members of the nuclear club. They deserve a seat on the Security Council as much as the others. Yes, Japan and other countries deserve seats as well, that's why the United Nations is reforming itself. I frankly don't understand your bizarre claim that Saddam "bought" the vetoes of France, Russia, and China. The United Nations is not there to give the US a rubber stamp to do whatever it wants. It's there to represent the views of the world. Anyway, the US is hardly the type to do what others think is right (think Kyoto Protocols), so why should the rest of the world automatically bow down and crawl whenever America wants something done?


 * These regimes that the US supported in the past - when were they ever the lesser of two evils? The US government is notorious for selling weapons to other countries just so they can make a few extra dollars. And it seems to most of us in the real world that the US government couldn't care less if the rest of the planet tears itself to pieces, or if the planet labours under repressive governments, so long as the USA isn't harmed. Your beloved Republicans claimed they were invading Afghanistan and Iraq to promote human rights. What about the dictatorships of Africa, Central Asia, or South-East Asia? What is the US government doing about them? Selling them guns, training their secret police, and cheering them on whenever they start a genocide or decide to sell resources to the USA. You prefer this over the peace that the United Nations is working so hard towards? Oh, and the US torture cells. The pictures from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are more than enough proof. You can't just flick them away. Do you have any idea how much outrage those images caused? Even if it was just the individual soldiers doing it and not high command, does that make it alright? You seem to suggest that.


 * As for the "rife corruption" in the European Union, do you have any examples? The EU is not a vast evil organisation, for Gods sake, it's a trading association. Basically just a big marketplace. It poses no threat to the USA. And even if it was corrupt, it wouldn't be the only corrupt, or most corrupt, organisation in the world would it? And going back to what you said earlier about the sovereignty of nations - these are our countries, and if we want to set up a trading bloc, who are you to say we shouldn't? We don't complain about the North American Free Trade Association, so why should you complain about an organisation that we chose to create, and which does not affect you in any way? Where's all this Eastern and Central European corruption you claim exists? They pay their donations to the EU just like Western Europe. They sign the fishing treaties and environmental agreements just like the rest of us. Do you have any information about the EU other than the rubbish on those paranoid propaganda websites you list?


 * I'm no Christian, but didn't Jesus encourage unity and peace? Didn't Jesus tell his followers to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto the Lord what is the Lord's"? I would interpret that to mean that your country should pay its UN budget and not complain. The UN is not using this money to raise an army of antichrists to take over the planet. It is using this money to vaccinate, clear minefields, pay for the Peacekeepers to stop countries from tearing each other to shreds. You complain about the UN, but I can guarantee that if it was the USA that was hit by a tsunami, or an HIV epidemic, or a famine, or a civil war, then you would be screaming for the United Nations to come and help you. Rusty2005 03:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It has come quite clear that neither of us are going to change our ideology. We could sit here all day, going back and forth, saying this and that, to try to overpower the other with our logical might. I say at this point, let us agree to disagree. I respect that you are a human being and that you are entitled to your beliefs, just like I am. Now, let the cannons grow silent. LordRevan 03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "And in the future Rusty2005, I would ask if you respectfully answer my questions and points, rather than circumvent many of them to get to the ones that piss you off the most. I will also extend this same curtesy to you." ~ LordRevan
 * Are you serious ? You are the one who avoids questions, logic, coherence and reason.  Your posts are almost unreadable.  In order to explain yourself and your disabilities, maybe you should list your excuses on your own talkpage as you did on mine; or you could just drop to excuses and take a writing cours.  –Aquarelle 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Suit yourself LordRevan, but if you're not prepared to debate, then I suggest you stop provoking people on the talk pages of the UN or France, or using your Userpage to trash Liberals as baby-killing demons. Rusty2005 08:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually suprised that he doesn't want to talk about it anymore. Have you looked at his contributions to Wikipedia ?  He does nothing but edit his talk/user pages and provoke arguments.  –Aquarelle 12:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm surprised too. If I was feeling malicious I'd say he's fallen at the first hurdle and appreciates that he can't base his whole weltanschaung on the basis of labelling everyone who disagrees with him a "liberal", as if it's a dirty word. But I'm not the malicious type :-)  Rusty2005 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you guys really want me to keep this topic going, well, why not. The reason I did not want to further this topic was that it was clear that I would not convince you of my view, and you would not convince me of your view. I am tired of people like you guys, who claim to be of sound mind and continue to circumvent many of the good points that I make. The reason that I call many of you guys liberals, is because the liberals have mastered the art of circumvention and the blind support of the UN(among other things). And it is true in the past that I have not been as coherent and have circumvented many things, but to bring to light some of my downfalls to cover yours, is low and degrading on your part. And you guys are just as guilty when it comes to circumventing things as I am. LordRevan 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean we circumvent the issues you raise? I have addressed every one of the points you have made. You, on the other hand, have ignored most of the issues I have raised, such as your repeated refusal to provide examples to back up your theories. Rusty2005 00:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad manners
Why do you insult the citizens of other countries? Imagine someone had a user box like yours on the EU and UN on the US or Nepal. It's just bad manners. ROGNNTUDJUU! 19:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He's just one of those über-patriotic cranks. Best to ignore people like him

Was the comment above of me or the EU loving person??? LordRevan 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And as for ROGNNTUDJUU, their are userboxes that show support for UN and EU. LordRevan 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the time to answer. I see nothing wrong in showing legitimate concerns, I just think that there are more respectful ways then crossing out flags. You display your own flag twice, would you like others to cross it out? I would never cross out a flag because I know people get offended by these things and I think there are many easy ways to express legitimate concerns avoiding unnecessary bad feelings. I am concerned about some aspects of the EU as well, e.g. the agricultural subsidies and the antidumping cases the EU and US use to disrupt the message of free trade they are proclaiming themselves. I however acknowledge that the EU has enormous achievements in allowing a continent to prosper that was previously very diverse in economic development and civil liberties. I already did change something as several users saw my point and chose not to use the crossed out flag any longer. Have a good time here. ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I respect your views and everything, ROGNNTUDJUU, but I am not limited like you are with your "political correctness." You must accept the fact that, no matter how hard you try, there will always be those that offend another in this world, tell the day our sun implodes. To accept your way of thinking, is to usher in the world of the short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron. And if that ever happened, say goodbye to all the freedoms that I personally enjoy in this great nation of the United States. LordRevan 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up
I ran across your userpage and looked over it, quite an interesting read, however I discovered that many of the external links you have at the bottom of your page are dead. Sorry if you already knew/don't care about this. -albrozdude 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, I was not aware that they were not working and I will work to get them back up. LordRevan 19:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopfully I just fixed the problem, and hopfully this problem doesn't occur again. LordRevan 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

well at least you support israel
I love how people who i agree on absolutely nothing with (Dubya is the most incompetent and unfit president we've had since...you get the idea) support israel. Other than that...you got some wacked-out ideas Mdawg89

The secret societies greatest weapon is in their secrecy. Whenever someone like me professes to believe in ghosts, secret societies, and things that go bump in the night we are looked on as freaks, fanatics and are to be called crazy and delusional. Do you not see this. Are you too unwilling to go against the wild torrent of common belief like Aquarelle, Imperialles, and so many others. I am not crazy, I am not delusional. I, like so few others, wish not to bow to conventional belief, but to go against the wild torrent of common belief, and will most likly be battered and bruised by many like Aquarelle. When the end comes, you will know the truth, but hopfully it will not be to late. LordRevan 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. Even if people like you are right, and their is a conspiracy afoot, and the UN is plotting to take over the world, and the EU is controlled by evil kitten-eating lizard-men from outer space, what are you going to do about it? And as for us knowing the truth when the end comes, people have been warning that the end is nigh since earliest times. And it's never happened. And it never will. What are you trying to prove here? Rusty2005

Well, the most I can do about it right now is to at least get the truth out. As for the end of times, it might be closer than we think. Of course you are right when you say people have been saying its the end of times for about the last 1500 to 2000 years. The only difference in our times is that many of the prophecies in Revalation are near to fruition. LordRevan 16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're an idiot. You're also a hypocrit.  Your partisan bullshit has no place in this world.  I ask myself if you have ever left the United States.  You think the Americans are the only people on this planet who work hard ?  You have no idea what the real world is like.

??? Another blatant example of the liberals. Where the hell did this come from and could you state your name and what has pissed you off so much. LordRevan 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What ? How is this a blatant example of liberals ?  ––Aquarelle 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * People have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years and nothing has ever happened. Thousands of years from now there'll be people laughing at your predictions, just like we laugh at the people who claimed the world would end in 2000. And thousands of years from now there'll be people like you interpreting Revelations to back up their theories of imminent disaster. Nothing is going to happen.


 * And for God's sake, stop calling anyone you don't like a "Liberal". You don't seem to even know what the word means. Rusty2005

Can you please sign your name Rusty, it is becoming annoying when you try to go under the radar like that. Here is a tip, if you do not want the person to know that you left a message on their talk page, than sign off your user and I would be none the wiser. LordRevan 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Despite the fact that many of Revalation's prophesies have been fullfiled and can be proven you continue to call me stupid, if not in that terms. One prophesy that can be proven without a doubt, is the reformation of Israel. LordRevan 19:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How have Revelations' prophecies been fulfilled? Revelations is like Nostradamus - vague, unclear, and able to be twisted to back up any theory you can come up with. If aliens landed this afternoon you'd find some passage in there and interpret it as a prophecy of that happening. You can read Revelations to mean anything you want. Why do you interpret it as forecasting imminent doom? (which, by the way, people like you have been doing since it was written. I doubt there's ever been a year in history in which there hasn;t been someone claiming "the end of the world is nigh"). And even if the world is on the brink of destruction, what are you gonna do about it? Rusty2005

Once again, you bring up a point that I have already covered. Yes for the last 1500 years, people have been trying to predict the worlds end and saying that the end times have come. Stop being so crass. I have answered, respectfully, your comments, yet you continue your vendetta against me. Just like Herbert Agar said, "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." I know the truth, and for that you guys treat me like I'm a loony. I am tired of being respectful to guys like you who are trying to discredit me and treat me like some third rate human, who is too dumb to tie his shoes. You guys who are so willing to believe in an imperial and corrupt US, and yet won't even acknowledge the possible corruption of the UN and many of its member countries. Why have you guys not elaborated more on my mentioning of the many totalitarian regimes supported by the UN? Your little short answer on that was laughable. The UN should be working to turn those countries into democracies, not pumping in foreign aid that could be easily used by the dictatorship to enlarge their control on the people. And on you’re mentioning of the US lording itself over other nations, Tony Blair said the right thing on it, "I just want to say this. I want to say it gently but I want to say it firmly: There is a tendency for the world to say to America, "the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out," and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." Many of your points are weak, just like many of mine are weak. You guys stand their, professing your superiority over me logically, and yet provide as much physical evidence as I do. Grow up, learn how to interact with those who consider your ideas shenanigans. I disagree totally with your ideas, but at least I treat you guys with some respect. And yes, I am waiting for you guys to instantly answer mine with more of your narrow mindedness. LordRevan 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of saying "You started it", I'm continuing this debate simply as a response to the open criticism you began on the UN talk page. I don't intend to be crass or disrespectful, and I apologise if that's how you interpret it. I believe that I can change your opinions, and I believe it would be irresponsible of me to let someone with such distorted views of an organisation I believe in so strongly continue to think that way. I understand that you may feel exactly the same way about my beliefs, which is why this debate's going on. From your contributions list, it doesn't seem that you've made any changes and are using Wikipedia simply as a debating forum. Well, myself and others, including Aquarelle, are happy to take part in a calm, civilised debate with you. I have no intention of professing my "logical superiority", I'm simply trying to present my viewpoints in a structured argument. If I have seemed brash, it's because I am frustrated at you bandying around terms like "liberal" and "communist" without showing any evidence that you even know what the words mean. I don't believe in the slightest that you are "a third rate human", I believe you simply have misguided views. Even if I can't persuade you to like the UN, I hope I can at least persuade you that it is not the evil spider's web that you seem to think it is. Yes, there is corruption in the UN just like there is corruption in every organisation in the world. But I could provide many, many examples of just how wrong you are about the UN's structure, role, and day-to-day running if you wish. I believe we can never have a secure world as long as people spread the kind of grossly distorted misinformation I've seen on your Userpage. I don't intend to change your views on the Bible, or US foreign policy, or any of your personal beliefs, I'm just trying to help you correct the false information fed to you by propagandists. It seems that you have no interest in actually looking at the facts and would much rather blindly believe anti-UN propaganda. If you wish, I'm more than happy to participate in a calm, civilised discussion. If not, I'd advise you not to start debates on Wikipedia talkpages and then back out of them when people start arguing back. Rusty2005 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rusty, for your considerate answer, it is nice to be talking to someone civil. Yes, I have started this issue, but it has been over a month since I have stated anything there. I do believe that the UN was started with the best intentions, but has turned into a huge and bloated bureaucratically government, and as you know, a bureaucratic government is one of the worst, slowest governments out there. My belief is that the UN needs either massive reformation, or to be disbanded and totally reworked from the bottom up. And until any of these happens, I will continue to profess my deep resentment of the UN. I don't know if you have read the first website under the UN in my userpage, but it gives a rational approach to the UN. The person who actually wrote this is not a uber-patriotic neo-con's own propagnada, but a logical person who had extensive experience with the UN and in the political realm. And if you read the, about us, tab, you will see that they do not flaunt any one poltical view. And on your mentioning of me only contributing on my userpage, I am currently looking to find something that I could contribute to here on Wikipedia. And to tell you the truth, you have been more respectful to me than any of the other guys who love the UN. LordRevan 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don;t see the point in being uncivil. Being rude and taking part in petty back-stabbing only makes the situation worse - "an eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind". I'll be honest and say that frankly I detest your politics, and if we ever met I'm sure we wouldn't get on, but that's no reason not to treat each other with respect. We have very different political and social viewpoints but at the end of the day we're both human beings and we both share the same planet. We're the two sides of the same coin, and so even though I can't stand your politics and you probably can't stand mine, being civil is the only way to make any progress! :)


 * You raised an interesting point about UN bureaucracy there. Last week I went to a talk at the college next door given by a woman who used to work for the UN. The talk was all about trying to drum up recruits for the UN by dispelling myths and portraying UN life as realistically as possible. One of the myths she discussed was the popular perception, especially in the US, that the UN is a vast, bloated bureaucracy. This isn't true. UN headquarters in New York only employs about 4,000 people, and most of these are not "P" or "D" level workers (white-collar policy makers), but are general staff such as clerks, translators, drivers, etc. Plus the headquarters complex probably employs far less people than the World Trade Centre used to. Worldwide, the UN only has about 70,000 workers, including those at headquarters. This might seem a lot, but bear in mind that Disneyland Florida emloys 50,000. The UN might seem big, but most of its workers are not office-based bureacrats (especially not in field offices), and the UN has far fewer employees worldwide than say, Disney or McDonalds. HSBC probably has more bureaucrats. Another interesting point she raised was that the amount of paper used by all UN offices in an entire year was less than the amount used to print the Sunday edition of the New York Times for *one day*. If you look at UN statistics in isolation, then yes it seems a bloated, wasteful entity. But in a world of global corporations, the UN is actually quite small. And remember, the United Nations isn't a government.


 * You keep bringing up the issue of corruption in the UN and yes, there is corruption. Every organisation in the world has some level of corruption. You keep mentioning the Oil for Food scandal and while this was indeed a bad case or corruption, it's not really fair to condemn the entire United Nations on the basis of one scandal. That would be like me condemning the entire US government on the basis of the Abu Ghraib scandal or Watergate. The UN is not made up of people who share the same views and opinions, it is a very diverse group. It has to be, as it represents a very diverse species. Most UN workers do not come from the US or Europe, but from the rest of the world, as these countries would otherwise complain that the industrial nations are over-represented. From all accounts, UN workers are on the whole quite conservative, and change within the UN is very slow. I thought this would appeal to your conservative views - after all, aren't conservatives against rapid, overnight change? Reforming the UN is a slow process but at least its ongoing. We can't just scrap it and start again, for two main reasons: (i) what would happen in the interregnum period between the two organisations? Who would look after things like the World Health Organisation and the World Court? Surely you don't want to see them abolished? If we scrapped the UN, we'd lose all the machinery we already have and might not be able to put it back together again. (ii) abolishing the UN and starting again would create a very dangerous precedent. Do you want the United Nations to fail in the same way as the League of Nations?


 * Whatever the rights and wrongs of the UN, at the end of the day the United Nations is the only chance we have of promoting world peace. If a single country tries to enforce peace, like the USA in the 21st century, or the British Empire in the 19th century, or the Romans or the Germans or whoever, then people will not accept it. Even if the USA is doing the right thing, people won't accept democracy and peace when it is brought to them by tanks and armed soldiers. We've seen it happen many times before. I see US foreign policy today as simply an evolved form of the kind of gunboat diplomacy that we Europeans used to follow in the Victorian age. And look how that turned out. The United Nations isn't perfect, but we have to try and use it effectively. The UN offers every country in the world the chance to come and discuss their grievances and work out a peaceful solution. Even if that doesn't work, it at least offers them the chance. If we scrapped the UN, countries would just start wars whenever they wanted, without international discussion and without an international organisation to answer to. We've tried that system before, and it ended up dragging the world into the trenches of World War One and the rubble of World War Two. The United Nations is there to try and make sure that that never happens again. It may be flawed, but it's the only chance we have of preventing future catastrophes. Rusty2005 13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Policies and Guidelines Reminder

 * Please read the Wikipedia Guidlines WP:NOT which states the following
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * Concerning Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia
 * Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.
 * Please avoid breaching those guidelines. Thank You.--Zleitzen 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Of the Reminder
LordRevan, your views are as valid as anyone elses on whichever matter you wish to examine. However you must ask yourself whether Wikipedia is the correct forum in which to express them. I have noticed that you have contributed to a number of Article talk pages, but unfortunately your additions have not attempted to improve the articles. Rather, they have been POV expressions of the subject matter themselves. This is against Wikipedia policy, because on mass this can become disruptive to the process of creating an extensive encyclopedia.

I suggest a simple solution, create a free Blog site on www.blogger.com. Here you can discuss as many issues as you like, and maybe link from the LordRevan Wiki-user page if need be. This option would be far less counter productive, and you could continue your work there. Unfortunately on Wikipedia, persistent breaching of guidelines (including deletion from talk pages) could lead to a user block and / or page removal. Sadly all your work on the user page would be lost.

To reiterate, please consider Wikipedia talk pages as a forum for an academic analysis of the information. With the primary goal being to improve the encyclopedia.

Thank You --Zleitzen 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This, in all sense, is basically a gag order disguised as policy, and I will not follow despite the fact you guys might ban me. I have the right to free speech and press in my country fool. LordRevan 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes we all have the right to free speech and press in our own countries as well. This, though, isn't a Supreme Court deliberation on your civil rights, it's just an encyclopedia. No-one really cares about any of our opinions on here. It's not a debating forum, it's an encyclopedia. If you're so insistent on voicing you opinions, just create a blog and link to it from your user page. No-one can edit or censor that, and we'll all have the right to express unhindered opinions without annoying anyone. If you don't want to create a blog, and you continue to voice your opinions on here and insult people like Zleitzen, you'll almost certainly be perma-banned for disrupting the project. There, I've said my two-penny's-worth. If you create a blog, I'd be happy to discuss issues with you on there. If you keep doing it on here, sooner or later the Administrators will find you and kick you out. Especially as you still haven't made any useful changes to articles. Rusty2005 11:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Message
From what Zleitzen and others have said, it looks like we've overstepped the boundaries and should end this debate, at least on Wikipedia. I won;t be making any more posts on this userpage. If you do decide to create a blog space, let me know :)  Rusty2005 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, I dare say that the three of us, you, Rusty, and myself, may have more in common than meets the eye. What part of Washington are you living in anyways ?  Are you attending school there ?  Which one ?  –Aquarelle 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lord Revan, any thoughts on creating a blog? Would be interested to read it if you do. --Zleitzen 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys if i have not answered your comments in a timely fashion. As for creating a blog, what is the point. I will give you guys my email account so we can still talk without people breathing down our necks ever second. It is jedimastersparky@gmail.com. If I do not answer your message within a couple days, do not despare, I do not check it every day. As for Aquarelle, I live in Central Washington, in a **** town called Ephrata. LordRevan 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 13:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your beloved former apprentice and former friend :)
You cannot hide from what you once were, Revan! Recognise that you were once the Dark Vandal, and know that i have taken your place! LordMalak 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Uuuuhhhhh, okay. Just so you know, Revan beat the hell out of Malak despite the fact that he was extrememly outnumbered. One must wonder if Revan was almost as powerful as Anakin was. ;) LordRevan 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you haven't edited since last year :) LordMalak 11:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you'll hate this one
I added a great page for knee jerk liberals. I am one of those and I agree with the admins. Sorry. I appreciate the communication though. Cpswarrior 16:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For being a liberal Cpswarrior, I find it surpising that you are not one of those politically correct crazied people. And have I talked to you before??? LordRevan 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

you are utterly crazy. you remind me of that crazy air force general off Dr Strangelove. except you make him look sane in comparison to your beliefs