Jump to content

User talk:TortureIsWrong: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Chrislk02 (talk | contribs)
29,820 edits
→‎Blocked: support this block. ~~~~
Line 371: Line 371:
:I support this block. [[User:Chrislk02|-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)]] 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:I support this block. [[User:Chrislk02|-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)]] 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? I did no such thing. Why are you harrassing me?[[User:TortureIsWrong|TortureIsWrong]] 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? I did no such thing. Why are you harrassing me?[[User:TortureIsWrong|TortureIsWrong]] 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it you think my comment about "too much time on their hands" is trolling? That's absurd. Did you also warn this guy for his comment? "It's fine. If anyone complained about it (really?), then they are a foppish and doltish dandy. You can tell them I said that. Neil ╦ 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)" Of course you didn't. You've just decided that you don't like my style or something so you've got a little vendetta going. [[User:TortureIsWrong|TortureIsWrong]] 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:56, 4 June 2007

Antichrist

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for playin pin the tail on the Antichrist. If there is a serious source (not conspiracy theorist, not some guy's website) discussing speculation that Reagan is the AC, by all means, mention it in the "Contemporary identifications" section. If a major theologian called him the AC or if there was a newspaper article showing that some number of Christians think Reagan is the AC ... ok ... but if it's just message board musings, it doesn't belong here. --BigDT 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case half of the listings under "fictional Antichrists" don't belong there. Most of those listings are completely unsourced, yet you didn't delete them and you're not complaining about them. I suggest your pro-Reagan bias is behind your objection.

I'll happily find a source for the Reagan-as-Antichrist claim and repost it. Since I regard Christianity as pure myth and the Antichrist as a particularly hilarious facet of that mythology, it will be my pleasure. TortureIsWrong 06:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to your opinion, however, Wikipedia is not the place to push a point of view. I have no pro-Reagan bias - I would have made the same revert if the subject were a Democrat. Wikipedia is not a joke book or the place to tag the Antichrist. --BigDT 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing a POV with the edit. The Reagan-as-Antichrist notion, silly as it is, was quite popular during his presidency, and for the reason (six letters in each of his three names) that I gave. Just google "Ronald Reagan" and "Antichrist" and see for yourself. TortureIsWrong 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool off

I figure you have strong opinions, but you mind cooling it off? There's a big difference between having a good, but heated debate, and crossing the threshold. Just saying it's not always what you say, but how you say it. Thanks. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was perfectly cool - and my remarks were general and certainly not a part of an argument with any other user. Dick Cheney is fair game and there's ample justification for eveything I said about him. TortureIsWrong 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, but you may want to look up Libel and Defamation. I understand you weren't part of an argument with another user. The point is that we all need to try and keep from allowing a POV influence a decision or make certain remarks. I hate Cheney too, but one has to be careful. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for libel or defamation are quite different for a public figure like the Harlot of Halliburton, and nothing I said crosses the line. Of course I wouldn't add such comments to an article. TortureIsWrong 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I thought I'd bring it up to you, no need to bring flak to one's self if it's not needed. Peace. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney

Most of the Republicans I know are PROUD that Cheney is an amoral criminal. The name "Darth Cheney" would seem like a badge of honor to them.

ah ha ha -- Touche ;) ~CS 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comment

Please explain what this means: Brice voted for Bush twice. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't joke on something like RFCN. It's considered disruption. Please be serious about your votes. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just said above it was a joke. And what do you mean authoritarian nonsense? I'm at the same level you are. I'm not an admin. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does my age have to do with anything. Your causing disruption. Just stop please. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I don't think the editor is trying to disrupt Wikipedia. His/her legitimate position on the matter was just accompanied by a cavalier comment in regard to a recent series of politics-related RfC. It's okay to be light-hearted sometimes, per WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. ;) ~CS 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a legitimate position can be: "Brice voted for Bush twice" and followed up by "Just a little joke. Maybe there's good reason to despise Brice, whoever he is." Whoever he is? And having your hate for "Brice" in a username is against WP:U, no matter what? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incoherent? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove comments to an ongoing discussion. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's stop this here, okay? Thanks. TIW, please avoid incivil comments or personal attacks. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment you just made was incivil. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your elder here is certainly not setting a good example of recommended behavior on this page, but I would urge for the second time that the discussion stop now. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment like many of its predecessors was inappropriate. At this point I consider that you are engaged in blatant trolling and harassment. Virtually all of your contributions to Wikipedia consist of disruptive remarks, including your numerous bizarre and almost uniformly unproductive comments at WP:RFCN. If this pattern of editing continues I will block this account for intentional disruption. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question your objectivity, of course. Several other users have agreed with several of my comments at WP:RFCN, and I believe I have voted with the consensus there as often as not. I have also contributed useful information to a number of articles. TechWiz's comments to me were patently ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with a little levity on comments pages, of course. Wikipedia would be a better environment if more users would use more wit and fewer threats. TortureIsWrong 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to fight. I recommend WP:DR. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fighting, Wikihermit. But where you replied to my DOJ comment at RFCN with "great political stab," some others think any such comment is some sort of violation. It isn't, and they NEVER make a case that it is - they just come in and threaten me with blocks, etc. There's a tendency on Wikipedia for disagreement to be called "disruption," or for any comment a user doesn't like to be dealt with by threats. I don't get it. I suspect you don't, either. Am I wrong? TortureIsWrong 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think your wrong. It's not like your editing articles inappropriately. All the places were you have been "accused" have been non-articles. Nothing wrong with humor. By adding a humorous sentence into a talk page your not breaking WP:NPOV. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 04:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that instead of making threats they should inform you of your "violation" and get a Third Opinion. Also, your humor does not appear to break WP:Vandalism. However, I did find WP:TROLL#Misuse of process. It is only an WP:essay however. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, only an essay, and I don't see its relevance. The RFCN page calls for votes and participation and that's all I've done. If Wikipedia standards call for everyone to be happy about everything here all the time then I suggest that something is very seriously wrong - but as I see it, fortunately they don't call for that, even if some users would prefer it that way. TortureIsWrong 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental block

I briefly mistook you for the serial RCN troll and blocked you - I immediately lifted it when I realised my error, sorry about that. Though if you took it a little more seriously it would have been a harder mistake to make. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. TortureIsWrong 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have temporarily blocked you for disruption. Tom Harrison Talk 03:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. I had no idea defending one's position was "disruption." I like the timing, too, since my username is now up for debate and I won't be able to defend it. Excellent work. TortureIsWrong 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a note on the RFCN page noting that you will be commenting about the discussion your own page. Perhaps you should create a section for it. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The block is only for three hours, so I suppose it's a variation on the schoolyard "take my toys and go home" thing. Pretty silly, really. Someone challenges my name when an obvious conflict exists and the discussion goes on forever and goes to Admin. I do the same a couple of times and get slammed. I guess I need to join a gang to avoid this sort of thing.

That's a joke. TortureIsWrong 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User name request for comment

Hello, TortureIsWrong. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- bainer (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From A Discussion on RFCN

  • Now that my username has been allowed, the policy-is-black-and-white crowd is up in arms, because THEY and only THEY know what policy is:
    • I noticed it was closed as allow - has anyone seen any explanation for this? RJASE1 Talk 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest although I understood it, I found the nomination to be a bit off myself considering this user's level of involvement in the past week or so here. I think other channels for pursuing this line might have been better employed. (→Netscott) 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Honestly, the username had been bothering me for a while until I finally decided to research it - it was then I decided it violated policy and I decided to request comments. RJASE1 Talk 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) No explanation. Just an Allow and Poof, gone like a "fart in the wind" (shawshank redemption).Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I requested an explanation at WP:AN. RJASE1 Talk 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. It seemed that the against view had a stronger basing in policy, and this policy is what this board is supposed to weight against. I didn't vote myself because I felt I would be morally wrong in 'disallowing' a true phrase, but I recognize that the 'against' votes had much better arguments considering this board's mandate. The Behnam 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The user had to change his username from User:MoeLarryAndJesus, so he picked one that is clearly a borderline case and then began allowing just about everything that gets reported to RFCN, often without a policy-based reason. I know he has sometimes just said "Allow" without any reasoning whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if he kind of wanted it to be nominated so that the process could be tested again. Leebo T/C 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, not only did the people "voting" ignore policy, but the closer did not take it into account. Not sure what to do when it becomes the popular choice to ignore policy. What am I supposed to base my choice on? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, seems pretty normal. Looked like 8 people wanted to prohibit the name, and 13 folks made arguments for allowing it. I'm not snout counting, it's just a useful piece of data. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the allows votes were in either defiance or ignorance of the policy, whereas the disallows were directly based on policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

      • Apparently the worst thing anyone can do to a policy policeman is to "defy" one of their opinions - even if their opinions are Pharasaical objections that NEVER take into account the spirit of the policy. No matter how many people had voted allow not a single one of them would ever admit that they just might be wrong. They think it's perfectly reasonable to ban a perfectly reasonable name like "TortureIsWrong." Well, they're wrong. TortureIsWrong 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind knocking it off for tonight. Perhaps do some investigation of an article that needs to be expanded. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you have continued to bring it up in forums I currently have no access to due to the unwarranted block - so I'll "knock it off" when I please and not before. I suggest asking me to "knock it off" is uncivil. Perhaps I overstepped in using your name in an RFCN, but you've done the same tonight, as did the user who blocked me. TortureIsWrong 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll let you in on a little secret that may not have been obvious... those that cruise the RFCN board will frequently discuss issues that need to be resolved after a particularly hairy set of RFCN submissions. We're trying to prevent an incident like today from happening again. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An incident like what? Few of you had any problem with the attempted lynching of my now-twice-approved username - but when your own was threatened on a technical issue all of the policy cops freaked. Is it just remotely possible that you all need to lighten up and use reason more instead of behaving like automatons?

I could file HUNDREDS of RFCNs as based in policy as the one against me was and you know it. I won't do it because I'm not a "dick." Not being a dick is somewhere in the guidelines somewhere, but it seems to be largely forgotten. TortureIsWrong 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here Endeth The Lesson

Policy junkies take note - your Pharisee ways will always be defeated by the stout of heart:

In this case if it really contravene with established policy, I am forced to invoke the doctrine of WP:IAR. This name is totally innocuous as it refers to a commonsense statement, "violent" or not. We are not bound by policy when the policy force us to act unreasonably, there is a reason why Jimbo has endorsed the principle of IAR[7]. Wooyi 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, away from a computer for a while. I closed as allow because, on top of the greater weight of numbers behind allowing, the arguments for allowing were stronger. They were based on the spirit of the username policy as opposed to the literal wording, which is the way we do things here at Wikipedia. They also suggested that the nomination smacked of picking on this user to make a point. --bainer (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here is the permalink to the RFCN before it was cleared.[8] — ERcheck (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

        • Let me repeat for those who are slow: 'I closed as allow because, on top of the greater weight of numbers behind allowing, the arguments for allowing were stronger. They were based on the spirit of the username policy as opposed to the literal wording, which is the way we do things here at Wikipedia.'

It's the way things should be done in any legitimate forum. Long live the forces of moderation and long live freedom of speech! TortureIsWrong 06:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism warning

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Byron Coley page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Deli nk 11:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "nonsense," as Byron Coley really DID write a biography of Chuck Norris. You could try looking it up first BEFORE making baseless accusations. TortureIsWrong 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

While there was an RFCN, and many did defend your name, and the RFCN was even closed as allow, your name is still in violation of WP:U#Violence which says names may not refer to violent acts. Basically consensus was incorrect. Consensus does not override policy. I urge you to pick a name that is not in violation of our user policy.

Please understand that torture is a touchy subject and the mere mention of it could cause disruption to editors who have any sort of experience with it, either personally or within their family. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High, give it a rest. The RFCN was drawn out and a consensus was drawn. Whether or not it was incorrect is a moot point. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we decide debates based on policy based opinions, not vote counting. May I ask you about the consensus to disallow such names? This is a greater consensus on a policy page that has stood for many months. I don't see how a smaller vote count and override a consensus. We are not a democracy, and a name in clear violation of policy stays so even if we "vote" it not to be. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to bring up such an issue. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when a user has a name in violation of policy their talk page is the correct place to bring it up. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just can't even imagine a world in which your interpretation doesn't carry the day, can you? And Cascadia says I have a soapbox! I'll keep my name, thank you. Feel free to continue your bureaucratic crusade, but we went through the process and reason has triumphed for now. TortureIsWrong 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your name is in violation of policy. I am not here on a bureaucratic crusade. I am here because the word "torture" is very highly emotional to people who have any experience with it. It is a violent act, which our policy does not allow in usernames. Please reconsider thinking of this as an adversarial game, this is about creating a constructive working environment. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torture IS NOT ALWAYS violent. The community has discussed this and chosen to allow the name in regards to the word and spirit of policy. I reccomend dropping this HighinBC. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am aware of your opinion. I disagree that is was in the word or the spirit of policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An interesting discussion from the archives, where HighInBC actually leads the charge to allow the username GWkicksass. I find this fascinating on many levels. No, there's no way that could be a political or inflammatory name, is there? And no way "kicksass" refers to violence.

[1] TortureIsWrong 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username Interpretation

I am not sure if this was your intent, however I find it Ironic. I looke dup torture on my google dictionary and found the following defintion.

"The act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean"

Was that intentional? In reference to the Moe, Larry and Jesus debauchle? However, I find it an interesting interpretation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not intentional. It is interesting, though. And I think it did lead to some interesting discussion.TortureIsWrong 16:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

isbn2book.com

Instead of using an external link, you can just use ISBN xxxxxxxxxx (example ISBN 1234567890). That is a better reference of the book, as it allows the user to pick from any website he/she chooses. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice hint. Much better than deleting perfectly valid information ! TortureIsWrong 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding this post [2], please remember that Wikipedia has a civility policy, and that characterizing others' reasoned and good-faith edits as 'pointless vandalism' does not qualify as civil under this policy. For more information please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. The Behnam 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted good iformation for no good reason - you could have been civil yourself and suggested an alternative wording. I don't believe it was a good-faith edit at all, given our recent RFCN dispute, and I have posted such. [3] TortureIsWrong 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Again, I must remind you of WP:CIVIL and its importance to the Wikipedia community. This response to legitimate feedback [4] was entirely inappropriate. When other users give you honest feedback that aims to enhance the collaborative environment and ease dispute resolution, it is best to take this to your heart instead of snapping back that their request was 'nitpicking'. Thank you, and may peace guide you all of your days. Best wishes, The Behnam 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this is what is called 'playing dumb' and I have seen users blocked for doing it. Don't play 'literal' games. Your response implied a disregard for the advice on account of the 'rhetorical disclaimer' RJASE provided. It would be better for you to acknowlege the advice itself and stop formatting the way you do. Cheers. The Behnam 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


stop This revision [5] has you criticizing another user's word choice (which I have now corrected). At this point, you should already be aware that 'corrections' of another user's word choice are generally considered uncivil. Please stop this behavior. Thank you. The Behnam 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop Please don't characterize policy reminders as picayune. Per this source [6], picayune means "of little importance." I must remind you that official policy is very important to the project, and so it is not appropriate for you to characterize policy-oriented reminders as unimportant. I hope you learn to respect Wikipedia's policies and become a more constructive contributor in the near future. Thank you very much, and may all the best be with you. The Behnam 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

I don't know how much experience you have on WP, but "Cheers" is a rather standard 'signoff' so it seems rather silly that you criticize me for using it. It is even more silly that you decided to involve yourself in my dispute with Chairboy. Anyway, you seem to be getting into some trouble on WP. I remember some advice (not heeded) that was given to User:Patchouli that may be relevant here. When you find yourself in a hole, it's not a good idea to keep digging. Cheers. The Behnam 22:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't criticize you for using it. I criticized you for doing what you were accusing Chairboy of doing. It's called "hypocrisy." Maybe there's a Wikipedia article on it. By the way, it's "hole," not "whole." And I'm not in any trouble, chuckles. Remember - my name was approved. TortureIsWrong 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this 'hypocrite' connection seems to stem from the fact that you don't seem to realize the "cheers" is a common response on WP (almost boilerplate), but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop the accusation as it is rather uncivil. And I just don't know what you mean by "chuckles." Aside from that, you and I both now that your name's approval was controversial so I don't recommend feeling strong because of that anti-policy closing. I hope you make an effort to become a constructive editor on WP as you seem to be having troubles on a number of fronts. Wishing you the best, The Behnam 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on [[:User:Cascadia, User:HighInBC, User:RJASE1, and many others contributing to WP:RFCN]]. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will when you will. So far I have seen little sign of that. I won the argument over my username - why can't you and the other members of your clique get over that? TortureIsWrong 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done discussing this with you, because it is apparant that unless I bow down and say "TIW, oh, we were wrong. How dare we have our own interpretations of policy and attempt to uphold that. Oh, and how dare we discuss why the issue became such a calamity and try to prevent such things in the future. Oh, please, bless us with your forgiveness." I have explained to you many times the situation, you continue to not understand it, and continue to parade around an "I won my argument" attitude combined with insults. Discontinue your actions now, and allow us to move on with what we are on RFCN for... to make Wikipedia better, even if that means discussing a particularly hairy RFCN. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 05:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have very different opinions about how to make Wikipedia better. I somehow manage to pursue mine without placing ooo-wee-ooo scary looking warnings on YOUR talk page. Perhaps you could do the same. TortureIsWrong 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop Again, TIW, if you had read and followed WP:CIVIL as I have previously warned you to, you would know that you should be civil even when you perceive others to be uncivil. For shame. I shouldn't have to tell you this many times. You should know by now. The Behnam 05:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep in mind that you have read and understood the civility policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK

(Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Abolition_of_RFCN) I really am trying to be helpful. Please read what the WP:TALK guideline suggests; it makes it easier to follow discussion. WP:TALK#Format says "Any indentation system is acceptable. The important thing is that the sequence of talk should be easy to follow." Also, WP:TALK#Good practice urges keeping the layout clear. The whole policy guideline is a good read. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly believe you're tryimg to be helpful - you've seemed to be a very reasonable person in all of your postings that I've seen. At the current time I'm involved in a few very contentious issues and the three-asterisk system seems to work - I also don't think it violates any imperative policy. I also don't see how it makes the discussion any harder to follow. Please note that RJASE1 (who first objected) and I have been involved in a highly contentious RFCN debate over my username - he brought up the objection and I won. I question his good faith on the formatting issue to the max - but that is no reflection on your attempt to help. TortureIsWrong 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize RJASE1, amongst others, have issues with you. But just because he was the first to say it, doesn't mean it isn't annoying to others. And you're right, it's a guideline, not a policy. Ultimately it's up to you how you want to format your talk posts. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, thanks. If so much of my time here wasn't taken up with all of this specious crap about my usernames maybe I'd be more willing to work on the (relatively unimportant) formatting issue.

Long Live Fenian Swine! TortureIsWrong 06:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop As far as your fixation on winning and losing, I suggest you read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please do not make personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions. Thanks. The Behnam 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks; assume good faith

In view of your comments above and at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Fenian Swine#Closing, I must remind you:

  1. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
  2. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors.

These are bedrock principles for civil and collegial discourse on Wikipedia. Kindly consider your comments carefully in that light. Thank you. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see if you have given similar warnings to any of the Disallow voters on the Fenian Swine issue. If you haven't, I'm not saying you're acting in bad faith, but I am most definitely questioning your objectivity. For my own part, I find these constant ooo-wee-ooo scary warnings to be the biggest waste of time on Wikipedia. TortureIsWrong 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I agree with Ben, so you can stop worrying about the objectivity of the warnings. If you find these warnings to be a bother, they will not last forever, eventually you will follow our rules, or be blocked. While the warnings may be a waste of time to you, they are of great benefit to the community. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the results of the TortureIsWrong and Fenian Swine arguments, I think it's entirely possible that I understand the rules better than you do. And I still think far too many people here are engaged in far too much petty scalphunting and backbiting. All the banners and SERIOUS WARNING SYMBOLS are cute, I suppose - it's somewhat like little boys playing with costumes and plastic weapons. Cheers. TortureIsWrong 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment demonstrates that you don't understand the civility policy at all. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a civil comment? I would say no. Cheers. TortureIsWrong 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenian Swine

Long Live Fenian Swine!

User:Do me,baby

Are you kidding about this vote:

  • Allow - Not at all explicit, about as offensive as apple pie.

You think if someone said do me, baby, it wouldn't be innuendo? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you're being overly technical, of course. The reference is innocuous at worst, about as "bad" as "Hot To Trot" would be. I suggest you need to lighten up. And I will not discuss this further with you. TortureIsWrong 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at RFCN

This has gone on long enough, please read WP:U before contributing to RFCN. It is not the place to give opinions on which names should be allowed, but a place to examine policy as it relates to a username. This[7] shows either an ignorance of our rules or an unwillingness to let them guide you. For several weeks now you have been doing this. If you wish to change policy, do it on the policy talk page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Your sour grapes are what have gone on long enough. Cheers! Oh, and Long Live Fenian Swine! Let's get something straight right now - I'll express my opinions about usernames and you express yours. I think that will work out just spiffy for each of us, old chap! TortureIsWrong 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine politics

[These] seem like a classic scenario of organizational behavior... People tend to fall into this trap without even knowing they're doing it. The function of this particular area seems fairly simple - it shouldn't resemble Byzantine politics. But it sure does. [8]

You're quite right, and we shouldn't be dragging new users away from what they came here to do and into the middle of it. Unforunately, it seems to have sucked you in thoroughly, and a lot of your time here is devoted to it -- almost all of it, recently. Please do not let this become a major distraction for you. This is not what you came here for. Maybe you weren't blocked, but if you stop doing what you were originally doing, and devote all your efforts here to this stuff, then what's the difference, really? A empty victory for us on the Dark Side, you know? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Jerry Falwell

This is not a message board. Please consider removing some of your comments that do not pertain to writing an encyclopedia article. Thank you. --BigDT 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to tone down the rhetoric, too. Whatever your personal feelings of Rev. Falwell, you don't need to constantly make them known on Wikipedia with comments like "He pegged the "Doctor" precisely" and "a fitting postscript to Falwell's life." Jinxmchue 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of pro-Falwell comments on the talk page in question, and I'll bet neither one of you said anything to the authors of those comments, so I'll consider your own POVs to be self-evident. I've had dealings with BigDT the arch-conservative before. I did not infect an article with my POV, and as you both know POV comments on talk pages are a basic fact of life on Wikipedia.

Oh, and since this is my own talk page, let me say this - (attacks against a person removed). TortureIsWrong 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I will not let you say this. Just because it is your talk page does not mean you are allowed to use Wikipedia to make attack statements about people. Please read WP:USER specifically where it says "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". Also read WP:NOT#SOAP. Please do not use Wikipedia to attack anyone or promote your opinions. This is unacceptable behaviour. (H) 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "libel" anyone, pal. (In fact you can't libel the dead.) And let me say this - BigDT and Jinxmchue chose to come here and warn me about my comments on the Falwell page while ignoring a comment (to use one example) by Yancyfan about how Falwell was being "persecuted" and that that proves he was "following the one true Christ" or somesuch. Now why do you suppose they did that? There's more than one way to "campaign." At least I'm honest and forthright in my stance. TortureIsWrong 17:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can attack the dead, do not do so on Wikipedia. This isn't about honesty, it is about the appropriateness of the forum. If you want to announce your personal opinions get a blog. (H) 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was wondering how long it would take you to show up. Thanks for your concern! Cheers! Thanks for your incessant interest in my activities! TortureIsWrong 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A username question

Hi TIW - I often see your name at RfC/Usernames, so I thought I'd run this past you to see whether it's worth adding for general comment, since I realise it's very much a borderline case. There is a well-established (5000+ edit) editor called User: Sir james paul. For me, and doubtless for quite a few other editors, this name instantly means one person - Sir James Paul McCartney, who is, of course, best known by his middle name. Do you think it's questionable enough to bring up for comment at RFC/NAME, or is it simply my personal Beatlemania causing the problem? Grutness...wha? 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind my commenting, Sir James registered in November and has more than 5000 edits, so it would seem a little bit late to raise the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought (I did mention that he was well-established). I only saw his name in my watchlist for the first time yesterday, unfortunately. If he'd been a new user, I'd have had no qualms about listing the name, but given that he's been around a while there are problems. (Oh, and no, I don't mind the butting in - any advice is welcome). Grutness...wha? 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do it myself, but of course the same standards should apply no matter how many edits the user has performed. Wikipedia's username "policy" is a complete joke and a shambles. The so-called policy is simply used as a way to abuse newcomers by a handful of tedious super-legalistic schoolmarms with nothing better to do with their time. I've been the victim of their stupid little power plays twice - the first time I was forced to change my username from MoeLarryAndJesus, the second time TortureIsWrong was barely (and only after a great deal of effort) affirmed. Imagine a wolfpack seriously arguing that TortureIsWrong "could be offensive" or should be banned because it "refers to real-life violence" and you'll be picturing a true Bizarro World. Welcome to Wikipedia, where you can have a large article about felching but Ashcroft-wannabes are up in arms over TortureIsWrong. And now the latest argument is that merely to REFER to something is potentially upsetting and disruptive! UNBELIEVABLE! TortureIsWrong 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, both of you. I think I'll leave it alone. it is, as I said, borderline, and the editor has been around here a while. I realise that that shouldn't make any difference in theory, but in practice it does, rightly or wrongly. I suppose the major reason is that if a user name has survived without causing problems for a while, it is likely it woun't cause problems in the future. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful comments

I think you knew when you made this comment that the only reason to make it was to be disruptive. Considering you left the same unhelpful comment on the discussion at the bottom. You have every right to watch RFCN with the hopes of protecting names from what you may consider to be unreasonable blocks. I agree with you quite often. Please do it in a less disruptive way. Leebo T/C 15:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think of it as being disruptive, Leebo. I just like to use humor to make my points on occasion, and I think I'm generally successful. I'm glad you agree with me quite often. I also think people who go out of their way to abuse newcomers over usernames are being far more disruptive than I have ever been. TortureIsWrong 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree on that point, that too many new users have been reported with sometime very speculative reasons for why the username might violate policy. That's inappropriate. I think humor can be effective, but in this case I didn't feel it contributed anything to the discussion at hand. Leebo T/C 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right - but the discussion was utterly pointless from the start and that had already been made apparent. My comment was just a wry little postscript at that point, and harmless. The most overused word on Wikipedia is "disruptive." TortureIsWrong 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's got some serious competition, but yes, "disruptive" been semantically tortured (which, of course, is wrong). Maybe you would prefer "tedious", it still keeps its english meaning. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, young man, you have a very, very, very long name! Isn't that a potential violation of WP:VVVLN or some such? TortureIsWrong 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But for the grace of God. I usually call myself a recalcitrant old fool, but I'll take "young man" from you: you may have me beaten on all three counts. We really should get back to main article space now. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would, but my rheumatiz is actin' up. TortureIsWrong 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned countless times about this sort of thing. Please stop being disruptive at WP:RFCN. (H) 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also warned you countless times, but you don't listen, either. But thanks for your constant interest in my doings. Cheers! Long Live Fenian Swine! TortureIsWrong 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

Why don't you pop down to WT:U and attempt to change policy if you've got issues with it instead of disrupting RFCN. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. I suppose the short answer is that I see that as a complete waste of time, since the entrenched regulars would just change it back, as they did with the refer/endorse/promote fiasco. I also object to your use of "disrupting," which is usually just regular-speak for "this guy keeps disagreeing with me." So I'll continue to pop where I want to pop and continue to express my opinion without resorting to profanity, etc. Believe it or not, there's nothing in the rules that requires me to be as serious as a mortician every time I post. TortureIsWrong 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, your being disruptive, you don't like our username policy, so you go to RFCN to disrupt it. Consider this a final warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, he's had plenty of final warnings. I'm pretty sure this whole page is about this same topic. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole page is clearly not about the same topic, so that's a blatant misrepresentation about another user. As for Ryan, I have no obligation to like the policy, much less the way it is being "policed." I go to RFCN to offer my opinion about the policy as it is applied to individual cases. Period. If it is your position that no one can disagree with you and the other old-school regulars on that page, I suggest you're the one being "disruptive." I also submit that I've been able to convince more than a few users to agree with me over the course of the debates, so obviously I'm contributing something of value. And I'm far from the only one who thinks there are bugs in your precious system. Cheers! Please try to be more tolerant of dissent in the future, it's the American way - no matter what the current president and his cast of savages would have you believe. TortureIsWrong 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a final, final warning, TortureIsWrong - you've got one more chance to edit the encyclopedia constructively. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have been doing just that. TortureIsWrong 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the past two months, you've made about 4 mainspace edits. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I believe I've made a contribution at RFCN. I would never have taken an interest in that area if I hadn't been one of its victims - perhaps I would have had more time in other areas had that not been the case. It's a recurring theme on the page that biting newcomers is a poor practice, and yet it continues there. I'm not aware that it's your place to pass judgment on how I choose to spend my time, but maybe you have a special status. TortureIsWrong 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no special powers, as there is nothing after my username. However, you continue to go around RFCN mocking it's process and how you disagree with the username policy. Talk at WT:U, not RFCN. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption is a blockable offense, and if you keep doing it you will be blocked. You can tell if you are being disruptive when several people tell you that you are over and over. When people warn you, you show little interest, so I will not be warning you further. (H) 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should recuse yourself from this matter due to our long history of dispute. That would be the fair and honorable thing to do in most arenas. Apparently there's a basic disagreement over the use of "talk" pages - silly old me thinks they're a place for discussion and the evolution of opinions. Others think they're a place in which they can impose their will upon others. I prefer my interpretation. TortureIsWrong 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TortureIsWrong, you can interpret "disruption" as "disagreement" if you choose, but there are ways to disagree without being facetious or confrontational. I realize you may not agree that you are confrontational, but when you make a comment on an individual name that addresses your general opinion of RFCN, rather than the name in question (something you do quite often), in a facetious way, that's where it's not just disagreement. Leebo T/C 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not ask H to recuse himself. Everything that he's told you about RFCN and the username policy has been focused on just that, and not any other disputes. He'd just be doing the thing that everyone else on this page has been asking for. (In my opinion, you've already been given way too many chances. I believe that first block for disruption should have been either indefinite or longer, and even that block was later than it should have been.) --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply wrong about "H," of course. This is what he said up above - "You have been warned countless times about this sort of thing." He is very definitely referring to "other disputes" when he does that. If you're intellectually honest you'll admit I'm right about that, at least. TortureIsWrong 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way I'm interpreting that, he's saying you've been warning many times about the username policy and RFCN. This sort of thing would be that, as that's what this whole conversation is about. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, he's referring to previous disputes and previous "warnings," which is what I said. I have no idea who you are - but trust me, friend, you're very late to this party. By the way, many of those warnings came in two disputes - over the possible banning of my username and that of Fenian Swine's - in which my side of the dispute carried the day. I suggest that means those warning were not just without substance, but were attempts at intimidation in the service of wrongheaded goals. And guess what? After those arguments, not ONCE did H or any of the other regs say "I guess I was wrong." They continued to insist that they'd been right. But from them (at least, according to them) that's not "disruption." They think they're always right - "disruption" only comes from people who disagree with them. As for my part I've never made a complaint against anyone for "disruption." I'm a big boy and I'm not so afraid of being disagreed with that I run for the principal when it happens. TortureIsWrong 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just noticed that RParlate is the user formerly known as TeckWiz, who was also involved in some of those previous disputes. The Byzantine ways of Wikipedia will never cease to amaze a plain and honest person like me, I guess. I'm not sure what would lead someone to behave in such a non-transparent fashion in this kind of forum, but I have some guesses. TortureIsWrong 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I have no idea who you are" You know him, it's TeckWiz, he just changed his name. I'm pretty sure TeckWiz was around for most of the earlier RFCN incidents. BTW his name is just "R". Parlate links to his talk page, because that's what the word means. Leebo T/C 03:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, dude, I said he was TeckWiz 6 minutes before you posted that. What's the lag-time around here, anyway? In any event, it just goes to show that it's the same old regs hammering me for the same old crap - disagreeing with them. And for some odd reason, they keep cropping up again and again. Why is that? As I said, I have some guesses. TortureIsWrong 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh dude, I didn't see it because I must have had the window open for six minutes and then hit "Edit this page" and added my comment without seeing the new comment from you. I realize it's a crime. Leebo T/C 03:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, dude, I know it's no crime, I don't really take this as seriously as the hall monitors do. I figured it was something like that. I also figure you know full well that most of this banning and procedural nonsense is in and of itself disruptive. And stop working for an insurance company, it will suck the life out of you or turn you into a Republican, which may be even worse. TortureIsWrong 03:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let them know you're going to line up a new job for me. Leebo T/C 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have every confidence you can do that for yourself. TortureIsWrong 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tiw, my warnings to you in the past do not constitute any issue I would recuse myself over. Asking you to follow policy is not a dispute. (H) 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that you are not the best or final determiner of policy is not a violation of policy, either. Disagreeing with your interpretation of policy is likewise no violation. I would ask you to consider that you have given me numerous such warnings in the past when it was ultimately decided that I was in the right. And if I'm not right now about the policy being out of whack, why is the process in such a constant state of dispute? I certainly have not been the one suggesting the elimination of pages. Take a step back and think about whether you're part of the problem or not. I'll suggest that there was a problem before I arrived, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. TortureIsWrong 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Despite giving you one final chance you continued to troll and disrupt RFCN, so I have blocked this account indefinatey. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? I did no such thing. Why are you harrassing me?TortureIsWrong 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you think my comment about "too much time on their hands" is trolling? That's absurd. Did you also warn this guy for his comment? "It's fine. If anyone complained about it (really?), then they are a foppish and doltish dandy. You can tell them I said that. Neil ╦ 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)" Of course you didn't. You've just decided that you don't like my style or something so you've got a little vendetta going. TortureIsWrong 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TortureIsWrong&oldid=135834986"