User talk:Tkorrovi

Leave a Message

It is now 02:16 on Wednesday, August 14, 2024 Wikitime

Artificial consciousness

Hae you gone to the other users' Talk pages and asked them why they deleted your comments? RickK 02:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, because they explained it in their summary: "rv: you can only blaspheme against God, or he who thinks he is a god" (Paul Beardsell) and "there are certain circumstances when that is advisable" (Ugen64). And I don't agree. Tkorrovi 02:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But if you advise me so, I will ask. Tkorrovi 03:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss it with the other people involved in a dispute, there's no point in others getting involved. RickK 03:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I restored them; my revert only dealt with your removal of one of the archives that I had created. See [1] (which was BEFORE your message on my talk page). ugen64 03:15, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

And I also thought you had remvoed the section entitled blasphemy for no reason, when you actually were just archiving it. ugen64 03:17, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

So this was the explanation, not only your archive was reverted, but the whole talk page with my two comments deleted. And the archive you talk about (one archive) was not an archive of original posts, but your summary of them, and a wrong summary, this was the reason why I deleted a link to it. And don't you really read the history before doing reverts? And why you don't edit talk page but revert them? Tkorrovi 03:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't make more than three reverts to the same page in one day. That is a violation of Wiki policy, and can lead to your being blocked. RickK 03:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reverts are not for talk pages at all. I revert back to a version before a revert was done, with no new comments added after that revert. I don't violate any policies, you cannot block me for that. But if anyone blocks me, then it becomes more serious to talk about. My rights here were violated frequently. Tkorrovi 03:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"If you don't want to discuss it with the other people involved in a dispute, there's no point in others getting involved." Yes, this is what I always tried to do, but the reason why I wrote in Village Pump first was that anybody else don't do that first. I explain. Paul Beardsell complained in public places (one was Peer Review) and Ugen64 talk page that he has an edit war with me, without trying to discuss it with me first. I explained him why I reverted his posts, ie that he tried to remove the whole content of the article, but instead of discussing with me, he started to make his changes even faster. If he did stop, and we did discuss, there was no reason to get others involved. But he did that, and towards him it was legitimate reason to protect the page in order to protect him against me. Where is the equality here, why are different users treated differently? If I then did write first in public place that Paul Beardsell started the edit war and tried to remove content, maybe I was the one who were protected. So this is why I try to write in public place first, and have no time to discuss it before. How it was against me, there may be no other way how I can protect myself. I really want the things to be different, but I was attacked, an nothing is so easy after that. Tkorrovi 04:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is false. I mean, I want to be clear: This is a set of lies by Tkorrovi dressed up in a suit of half-truths which deiberately misrepresents the history. A brief perusal of the version history and comments demonstrates that I repeatedly tried to engage with Tkorrovi before getting others involved. In legal jargon Tkorrovi is a most unreliable witness. Paul Beardsell 10:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, this is true. Even the first subject in page history by me after you started your changes was "please discuss". Do you again deny that? Tkorrovi 11:00, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Misrepresentation is Tkorrovi's strong suit. I try to engage and it's archived as "blasphemy". At best Tkorrovi lacks self-awareness. Which, ironically, is a definition of consciousness. Paul Beardsell 09:28, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stop racist remarqs. Tkorrovi 09:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I have said before: I am sure Tkorrovi is not a typical Estonian. s/remarqs/remarks/ Paul Beardsell 10:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course, as you said that I lack self-awareness then by you I cannot be even human. Tkorrovi 10:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

racism at village pump

I moved the following to your talk page, bc it is not worth asking that at the Village pump. You may get more damage than benefit. You may want to discuss this here. Pfortuny 10:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia support racism? Or, are all Estonians this dumb?

Why sysops support Paul Beardsell's racist attacks against me? Tkorrovi 10:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Correcting your grammar is considered racist by you. You need a "do" between "Why" and "sysops". Paul Beardsell 10:10, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes in general, but sometimes it's allowed to write it more shortly, like "Why make so much fuss?" (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik). I don't know South African English though. Tkorrovi 10:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. In the latter example you have missed out two words, "do you". Which has a different effect to missing out the one word "do" in the former example. If you had left out the word "sysops" also then that would have been correct grammar but would not have conveyed your meaning. The noun-subject requires the "do". Paul Beardsell 10:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This was an example from the grammar what I mentioned. You may say it's wrong if you think that you are smarter than Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik, the best English linguists today. Tkorrovi 11:07, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that the sysops sentence came from your grammar book. Paul Beardsell 11:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And now please explain to everybody what for example your reply to me "What we need around here is an anthropologist" meant. Tkorrovi 10:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't a reply to you. But acknowledge first "to everybody" that the primary purpose of an anthropologist is not to distinguish humans from animals, which seems to be your understanding from your Village Pump posting. Then perhaps you saying that I consider you an animal might be acknowledged by you "to everybody" as being a non sequitur and yet another of your false accusations. I do however know more reasonable animals than you. Paul Beardsell 10:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or then to determine what is my race, whatever. Tkorrovi 10:57, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So you acknowledge your accusation was false? Paul Beardsell 11:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the only logical reason I find for being persecuted by you now already a month, is racism. I would be thankful if anybody can suggest another reason. Tkorrovi 11:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)