User talk:Revolutionaryluddite/Archive 1

Reply
Unfortianatley, I immediatley identified his edits as POV and reverted. Cheers, Je t  Lover  ( Report a mistake )  22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Revolutionaryluddite 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism
I'm not sure how your recent reversion of the so-called vandalism on the Instrumental temperature record fits into your plans to deny global warming, but I'm on to you! Oh yes, I'm on to you! ;) Ben Hocking (talk 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you report someone to be blocked for vandalism? I don't know how, and user 65.247.155.170 has a particularly saucy history. Revolutionaryluddite 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:AIV and edit the user-reported category appropriately. I believe the appropriate template would be IPvandal
 * Okay, I edited the category. Revolutionaryluddite 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably by now, they either will have been dealt with, or there'll be a message as to why the admins disagree. You might have to check out the history log because that thing moves fast. Ben Hocking (talk 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He or she (or they} has been blocked. Revolutionaryluddite 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, good. I noticed that someone's report was removed with a comment about why they didn't block them, and I would have hated for that to happen on your (presumably) first reporting incident. Ben Hocking (talk 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"db" tags
Hi, I noticed you tagged a page for speedy deletion. Please note there are specific templates for that. For some,, , , , and. Thanks, and happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, thanks. Revolutionaryluddite 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Florida tasing incident
We're debating wether or not to include the Palast quote at all, feel free to sound off. Nosferatublue 21:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted there. Revolutionaryluddite 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

R-luddite, you *rock* !
I particularly admire your recent "no true Scotsman" reference. I learned something new and useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.135.193.2 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Scholz
Hola! Regarding your additions to Tom Scholz, your first choice should be try to include something in those links into the article and then use the links as references. Second choice is to create a "Further reading" section and put them there. External links should be more exacting if possible. Are there any good morsels in those links that should be in the article? WikiDon 20:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sound and Vision Magazine interview is interesting, but it's pretty technical and I don't know what I could do with it. I added some quotes from the other two into the main article. Rock on. Revolutionaryluddite 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
Hi R-luddite. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL warning
One more comment like this one and I'll be bringing you before the community for a topic or indef ban. I'm tired of seeing you insult others by accusing them of what you yourself are guilty of to a far greater degree. With your history of misrepresentations, promoting particular views and fanning flames, I suggest you do a better job of minding your Ps and Qs moving forward. FeloniousMonk 04:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Initially, I thought that the only logical response to your accusations is silence. I would like to make five points:


 * I suppose, as Childshoodend put it, I "trolled after his trolling. Couldn't help it".
 * I still do find it ironic that you consider someone calling someone else's opinion "crap" to be civil, and my comment to be uncivil. I also find it ironic that you believe I am "fanning flames" by my mere disagreement with other editors. I also find it ironic that you wee nothing wrong with Chip Berlet personally arguing on behalf of the organization that he works for and consider my own position to be POV pushing.
 * Nevertheless, I'm admit that I might be guilty of meeting incivility with incivility, and I apologize for that.
 * If you wish to try to ban from me Wikipedia, than be my guest. I'm not going to change my mind over what qualifies as reliable sources just because you will try to ban me if I don't.
 * I still do not quite understand where your anger twoards me comes from: We disagree. So what? Wikipedia is based on intellectual diversity. As Alan Colmes put it, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."Revolutionaryluddite 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, you don't considering calling someone else's position "crap" to be uncivil? Revolutionaryluddite 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The other editor recently posed on his or her talk page "I rarely good faith to editors" and "My edit summaries can be anything from somewhat sarcastic to downright rude. I have no tolerance of fools." Really, I've had enough of this. Revolutionaryluddite 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally ignore you christian types on your user talks, because nothing good can happen. But I need to respond to your veiled and not so veiled attacks: Those are MY opinions. Thank you for your consideration. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am hardly a troll. A few GA's and FA, tons of vandal fighting, and contributions to probably 1000 different articles would not be a troll.  Of course, since I see you around, I know you are not a troll.
 * 2) Your opinion (of whatever it was at that time) is crap. That is not an attack, by any means, just a description what I think of whatever you stated at that time.  I have crap opinions on a number of occasions here, and in real life.  I get over it.
 * 3) I was hardly uncivil. Since civility is a matter of interpretation and judgement, how can you be the arbiter of what is and isn't civil.  What FM wrote was his opinion, and attacking me as above does not further your cause.
 * 4) No comment on banning, because that's up to FM.
 * 5) I'm not sure he indicated any anger.
 * 6) My commentary to another editor was strictly to describe my self-assessment of not being capable of being an administrator. To take it out of context is unethical, but so be it, your choice.
 * 7) I have no tolerance of fools. You have NEVER been subject to an attack by me, except when calling me a troll.  For some reason that bothers me greatly, because you can call me lots of crap, most of it won't bother me.  But you have an odd definition of what constitutes a troll on Wikipedia.
 * I also feel a need to respond to your personal attacks against me.


 * Yes, I am a Christian. If you have something against Christians just for being Christian, than there's really nothing I can do about that.
 * I never accused you of being a troll.
 * Apparently, you do not consider calling someone else's opinions 'crap' to be incivil. Well, that's your opinion. how can you be the arbiter of what is and isn't civil. There is no single person that determines whether or not something is civil. Again, why do you feel angry twoard me just because I disagree with you?
 * You posted what you posted. It makes no sense for you to get angry at me for just quoting you. You have just posted just know that it is your own "self-assessment" of yourself.
 * I have no tolerance of fools. Well, you have repeated the "I have no tolerance of fools" statement again. As a Christian, I believe that no people are inherently better than anyone else. Everybody plays the fool. You can believe whatever you want. You don't need my permission. I'm not going to enforce my beliefs upon you.
 * You have NEVER been subject to an attack by me You attacked another editor, and I responded on his or behalf. FM threatened to ban me for this action. I then stated that accusing me of being uncivil twoard you and him is ridicuous. I have never implied that you have attacked me. except when calling me a troll. I have never, ever used the term 'troll' in the entire time I have edited on Wikipedia.
 * Of course, since I see you around, I know you are not a troll. If I am not a troll, than why on earth should I banned?
 * Those are MY opinions. Thank you for your consideration. I respect your right to an opinion. I respect your right to defend your opinions on Wikipedia. I respect you right to edit articles and I value your contributions, the FAs as you have pointed out. All I ask is that you respect my right to have my own opinions and excercise my own editing abilities. You can insult me and other users all you want. But when users advocate banning other users just because they don't like them, something is wrong. I respect your right to hold your opinion and you should respect my right to hold my opinion. Revolutionaryluddite 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that the best response to personal attacks is silence. But I've had enough. Revolutionaryluddite 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The traditional response for internet arguements would be for me to post on your talk page "You secular types ought to stop posting your crap opinions" and start a completely pointless back and fourth "no you did; no, I didn't" tirade that would waste both our times. I am not going to do that. I would really like this to end right here and right now and we can both just go on editing without anyone threatening to ban anyone else. Revolutionaryluddite 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)