User talk:MagnaVox

WP:3RR

I have warned Locke Cole several times WP:3RR to not revert again. —MagnaVox ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 08:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC) MagnaVox 02:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --GraemeL ^(talk) 02:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you blocked Locke_Cole for his 7rvts. the other day. If not, you have some explaining to do regarding bias. Of course, that's par for the course here on the WP network.

Anyway since I'm not allowed to respond to the discussion of the Debra Lafave link, I offer it below.

Actually, much of the content consists of news reports & links to further info regarding the case. The important part of the hompeage message that you conviently snipped above is a chronological history of the Lafave saga. Membership is free and, while there is discussion, are you to tell me that there are no sites on Wikipedia that don't link to extensive discussion forums? I rather doubt that's correct.

The NY Times has extensive discussion forums available for many of their news pieces. By your logic, that would make them an inappropriate link on W since people's opinions may be shared there. Court TV, which was a prior link on the Deb page, has a similar service on particular cases. I guess, all their W links should be deleted, too? In this information age, it should be up to the reader and not editors to discern the good from the bad information. One has to wonder why the editors here are so ingrained in their positions that they'll post any hypocritical reason to take the Lafave group link down?

This whole link fight is based on a few people on Wikipedia that are obviously uncomfortable with any sexually related topics. Locke himself has stated he'd like to delete a lot of articles that he doesn't like based on their content. What kind of attitude is that in the year 2005? What kind of service would Wikipedia offer if people of his ilk are allowed to control what can and cannot be mentioned on W? Oh wait, we already know what kind of info Wiki generally offers...lousy, misleading, and outright false in many cases. (Read the news once in a while and you'll know what most information experts really think of this site. - It ain't good folks...)

Perhaps these type of editors could spend their time better by handing out religous tracts for the Moral Majority?

Btw, to answer another ridiculous charge from above, since when is humor non-informative? Ever seen Dave Chappelle's show? Ever heard the caustic (and extremely humorous) comments of Richard Pryor? Ever heard the wit of Lenny Bruce? The problem w/the editors listed above is that they have no ability to see satire when it smacks them in the face.

Oops, probably shouldn't have mentioned the word "satire". Next, some autocrat will quote me a rule against that on WP, too. lol

But hey, get all your WP buddies to back you up. Spend your time on wasteful fights. Ban and block people you don't agree with. Keep taking this site down, down, down. It makes me lmao even harder at you trolls. MagnaVox 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a Yahoo Groups page, sex, humor

Bits in italics by MagnaVox, quoted from the preceding section:

The important part of the hompeage message that you conviently snipped above is a chronological history of the Lafave saga. Saga seems an undeservedly grand term, but I take your point. OK, integrate that info (or the part of it that's verifiable) in the WP article.

Saga def: a long, detailed story MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

while there is discussion, are you to tell me that there are no sites on Wikipedia that don't link to extensive discussion forums? I rather doubt that's correct. If "sites" is a typo for "articles", you're right, many articles do. It seems a good idea to phase them out.

Why??? Without discussion how would your fellow man endeavor to best understand a given concept? MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times has extensive discussion forums available for many of their news pieces. By your logic, that would make them an inappropriate link on W since people's opinions may be shared there. No, they'd be inappropriate because they're mere discussion forums. Anyone who wants a discussion forum on a subject can simply google for it.

No, you misunderstand me. I was stating that there must be many Wiki articles that have links to NY Times articles. The articles, in turn, are linked to discussion forums. If you are opposed to sites with discussion forums on Wikipedia, logically sites like the NY Times should never be referred to on WP. MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of your reasoning eludes me. Hoary 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This whole link fight is based on a few people on Wikipedia that are obviously uncomfortable with any sexually related topics. If you're referring to me, you're wrong. I see nothing wrong with sexually related topics. But Lafave is merely sexually related trivia.

Wrong. The Lafave story is and was an internationally followed story. The rights and wrongs of what happened will continue to be debated for years to come. It also spotlighted a possibly growing trend of female teachers having intimate relations w/students. The ramifications of teacher/student sexual relations has a great potential impact on society as a whole. In short, this case has rapidly become a important sociological issue. MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first newspaper I looked in was The Guardian. She's mentioned within a more general article. So The Guardian, for one, didn't "follow" this story. OK, if sex between teachers and students is an issue, write about it. But why encyclopedic coverage of trivia about single cases? -- Hoary 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Locke himself has stated he'd like to delete a lot of articles that he doesn't like based on their content. He did? I stated that I'd like to have a lot deleted based on their trivial subjects.

How could anything Locke Cole has ever said be held against him? He deletes anything negative said about him on his talk page and even deletes his own repsonses so he can't as easily be held responsible for his actions. He takes pleasure in being a masterreverter. ;) MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, we already know what kind of info Wiki generally offers...lousy, misleading, and outright false in many cases. (Read the news once in a while and you'll know what most information experts really think of this site. - It ain't good folks...) That's strange: I've read WP-related news once in a while and the writers tend to be more appreciative than I am. Yes, a lot of articles are lousy, misleading, and contain outright falsehoods. You seem extraordinarily interested in Lafave: if the article on her is lousy or misleading, or contains outright falsehoods, fix it.

I'm extraordinarily interested in social issues. When I've tried to fix that particular article, Locke or someone equally uninformed has generally reverted my changes. MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP should indeed have articles on social issues. - Hoary 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these type of editors could spend their time better by handing out religous tracts for the Moral Majority? I can't speak for other editors, but no sum of money would induce me to help the "Moral Majority" in any way. (Er, does it still exist? I thought it morphed into the "Christian Coalition" some years ago, and that this in turn changed into something else.)

Of course it still exists. [1] MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but not so surprised to hear that this outfit still exists. I hope it disappears, but of course the American religious booboisie seems in vigorous (and well funded) health. -- Hoary 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

since when is humor non-informative? Ever seen Dave Chappelle's show? Ever heard the caustic (and extremely humorous) comments of Richard Pryor? Ever heard the wit of Lenny Bruce? I've never even heard of Dave Chappelle. Pryor: yes, I dimly remember that it was funny, though I have no memory of ever getting information from it, which I never thought was Pryor's intention. (Changing opinions, maybe.) Lenny Bruce: reputedly funny, but before my time. -- Hoary 06:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding! Never heard of Dave Chappelle? What kind of rock do you crawl out from under in the morning? What third world hubble do you hail from?

Nevermind, I think the real problem is that you have trouble understanding that there are messages and information hidden within comedy. How old are you anyway?

P.S. You never once thought Richard Pryor intended to inform people about what it was like to be a black man in America? Seriously, that never occured to you? Oh boy, have I got the perfect hobby for you! Wikipedia needs editors!!! rotflmao MagnaVox 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly have a robust way with words! My rock, hubble [???] and age aren't any more of your business than yours are my business, but I'll say that I'm not in north America and perhaps this is why I hadn't heard of Chapelle, who (the WP article suggests) is a recently retired star of US TV shows and rather crummy-sounding movies. (I do understand that genuinely funny Americans can have trouble finding good movies and indeed are typically wasted in truly bad ones, so if the movies he's in are as bad as I imagine, I don't hold that against him.) As for Pryor, I've only got the haziest memory of seeing or hearing him as anything other than the intermittently amusing sidekick in The Mack (which I happen to have on DVD and which I like a lot).

Yes of course there are messages within a lot of good humor. (Just for the US, we need look no further than "Get Your War On".) There may even be encyclopedic information in it, but the latter is unusual (though Rees helpfully provides some in footnotes) and of course if it's there it's typically (and quite rightly) mixed up with fiction, so the result isn't unencyclopedic. -- Hoary 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct when you say Chappelle's movie career is filled w/crummy movies. He's never had a starring vehicle under his control, unfortunately. You should check out the video links on Dave's WP page and then tell me what you think of him. MagnaVox 16:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia's three rever rule, which I see has happened to you before. I'd like to suggest that you discuss your edits on the discussion page instead of engaging in edit wars. If you wish to contact me please e-mail me. Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you block Locke_Cole as well? Or is he one of your butties, er I mean buddies. MagnaVox 07:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

Discussion and comments should go on the Talk page, not on the user page. You recently posted a comment to Pigsonthewings User page, it belongs on the Talk. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who really cares? MagnaVox 07:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user whose page it is usually cares. -- Hoary 07:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else?MagnaVox 16:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

Thanks You were correct. How rare for WP... MagnaVox 02:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're thanking me for. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 05:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

URL obfuscation

Obfuscating the URL using CloakURL (or TinyURL, or anything remotely similar) doesn't remove the issue that the site has been deemed inappropriate by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Please stop adding links to the site, in any form, to the article. Locke Cole 14:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no consensus of editors that I'm aware of. A consensus refers to 'an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole'. A few editors are of that opinion but it has certainly not reached a consensus by any means. MagnaVox 14:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CON. Also see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Yahoo_Group_as_an_external_link and the Debra Lafave talk page. The Village Pump discussion however is where the greatest consensus has been reached. Also note that at least five distinct editors have removed links to this site (including myself). Locke Cole 14:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all your friends have helped you remove that link when you were afraid to knowing that you had already severely violated Wikipedian policy. They also protected you from being blocked yourself against WP guidelines. 5 editors, wow? That isn't even close to a consensus.

Btw, Locke can you prove that the Lafave group is my website? You keep saying that without any proof, don't you? MagnaVox 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make myself perfectly clear

You are behavior is absolutely inappropriate. The very next time I read a personal attack from you, against anyone, for any reason, I am blocking you for disruption. I don't care if you think you have a good reason. I don't care you think the other person is really, really, mean. You are completely out of second chances. I suggest you think very, very carefully each and every time you hit the "submit" button. Nandesuka 15:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I hope you apply the same warning to Locke who called me a moron, among other things.

However, I would like to know what personal attack I've made today that you are referring to besides the one I accidentally made on you when I thought you had blocked me.

That was only made out of my frustration at continually being unfairly singled out for blocking by editors that are obviously friends of Locke's and my misunderstanding that yet another AD had sided with that guy. (Remember, your first post said that you could not find 7 rvt's by Locke - which made me believe you were ignoring the obvious.)MagnaVox 15:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lafave

The link wasn't the issue(at least for me since I didn't see it and don't care to get involved in that). The issue was the WP:3RR vio. If you believe that, talk to other Wikipedians. Persuade them that the link met encyclopedic standards on the talk page. Don't go reverting to prove your point, because that will just hurt your credibility. karmafist 15:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it was about the WP:3RR as you say, I guess you didn't notice that Locke_Cole made 7 reverts of the Lafave page on Novemer 28th but gamed me by reporting me as a violator when, in fact, he'd been doubly guilty (according to the AD Nandesuka above).

Locke doesn't really care about the page as he said on Hoary's talk page sometime ago. He just doesn't want to ever look bad or be proven wrong. MagnaVox 16:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]