User talk:Rmagick

Disputed
Unfortunately some people believe Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a free-for-all for any half-wit to write up their opinion and save it as a factual entry. There is no way to screen for the mentally ill who might use this as a soapbox for their personal beliefs. Imagine if some KKK nut decided to edit a section on the NAACP? Or if a scientologist decides to wipe out the psychiatry page and write in their own crazy delusions? What a mess.

Your edits in February 2006
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Gutworth 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rmagick! I apologize for thinking your deletion was vandalism and I applaud your mission. Just one suggestion, though. Leaving an edit summary, especially for those deletions, would help a lot. Thank you, 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your AMA request
If you still are in need of an advocate (from a quick look here, it would seem that you do), I would be happy to help you. POV disputes are tough, but they're not intractable, and they generally can come to a good end so long as everyone's willing to stay calm. Please feel free to contact me either on my talk page (messages left here are visible to the public), or by email if you would prefer your communications to be private. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your protest
Due to your actions a lot of wwasp related pages was deleted also, as they regard my claimed attact as an general attack towards firms which works on the same high ethically level.

I confirms my suspicion. WWASP is in Europe regarded as one of the most respected firms in your business. So when the pages of both WWASP and Aspen is regarded as the same, your firm also must be in the same kind of business.

Covergaard 05:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's posts like the one above that demonstrate how important it is for Wikipedia to keep an eye out for this type of user - based on his idea of reasoning many bizarre things could be considered "true" - for example, per Covergaard reasoning, it is legal for 15-year-old children to be prostitutes in Denmark, so if you are from Denmark you must like 15 year old prostitutes. You have already once before been instructed on your tendency toward fallacious syllogism by a user named Orlady - but you just keep at it. Maybe my example above will make it clearer to you why your arguments make no sense. I could write a totally truthful article about anything and have it be false by omitting the positive, focusing only on the controversial or bizarre, and weighing two or three negative examples as much more important than the 4000 positive examples that don't meet my personal bias. I'm going to have fun running all these fallacious arguments past my friend who is a professor of applied linguistics - he'll let you off the hook saying it is simply a language barrier and subtleties of the language are lost on you. You say on your My Space profile you just want to be left alone, yet you continue to draw attention to yourself. Apparently most of what you say anywhere or at any time should be taken with a grain of salt.