User talk:Authouredbyanybody???

Shitler

some visitors to this page may appreciate how vile SHitler was. if you are prepared to help weed out pro-hitler statements and nuances on wikipedia please place amessage here. if you do not understand Shitlers vileness then I do not want contact with you.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humour

something i think i have a sense of and is not always appreciated, but who are these people who don't understand humour, what is the common thread between them... frankly i wish the humour free would live in one country (not this one!!!)

regarding the points below i would like to make a full response but the short one below is all i have time forAuthouredbyanybody??? (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

condescending response to an apology i made to someone

You need to get a few things clear here. The first is that humour does not work well in print unless it is made quite plain that that is what it is. The second is that if you are not sure that your words will not be found offensive, you should not use them. The third is that I don't see that I have used sound-bites anywhere in my arguments. I write for a living so I am well able to tell what rhetorical tools (if any) I am using. To call this meaningless and obscuring the debate is, again, insulting. On the former point, I cited dictionary definitions of the words in question to point out how they could apply in the situation in which those words were used. This is hardly meaningless. On the latter point, I don't think that pointing out the shades of interpretation a word can have which differ from your own is obfuscatory. In any event, whereas you write long, badly punctuated and incorrectly capitalised sentences, I try to make my point as pithily as possibly; in that way not only is there less room for doubt but also more likelihood that people will bother reading what I write. As regards Wikipedia, I notice that you have only been editing here for a couple of days. In that time you have

Unnecessarily asked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the ability to create a user page for your account, which is an ability you have in any case; not at that time i didn'tAuthouredbyanybody??? (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made three posts to MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist concerning general issues of censorship, which is not the purpose of that noticeboard, and
Made sweeping proposals that Adolf Hitler should be rewritten to be more "neutral", when it is already neutral, and so far not only is consensus against you, but nobody is taking your arguments seriously. That should tell you something. I realise you're a new editor here, but there are some basics you should be aware of. To return to the beginning, we have policies of civility and no personal attacks, both of which your "Lie-Bore" comment could be said to have breached. We also operate by consensus so that if there is general feeling not to do something, it isn't done. I repeat my advice to you: write some articles of your own before you try to rewrite others, and see if it's as easy as you seem to think to get the tone exactly right. --Rodhull andemu 03:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pretty much everything you have said above here is wrong, incorrect or just missing the point again. ok if you say you write for a living then that is true, also of course the policies you speak of exist, i just don't believe that i have breached them. but i can't say that i agree of any other phrase in your reply to me.

having a funny nick-name for the labour party is hardly a PERSONAL attack on any body... oh heavens, i spose ive made that point before as well???Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

To call my response to your apology (although I didn't read it as such) condescending is uncivil and you may wish to ponder the consequences of using that word. We comment on content, not authors, here. --Rodhull andemu 04:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

once again WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN has missed the point. WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS WRONG, because.1/ my opinion of your RESPONSE is that IS condescending so WHAT ELSE do you expect me to call it??? 2/ therefore as it IS ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE (CONTENT), NOT ABOUT YOU that i commented (for all i know or CARE someone wrote it for you) it is NOT uncivil. 3/ in fact i believe it is YOU who has been uncivil in writing in such a condescending way to me. 4/ if i was to say what i truly think of you then i believe it would be more than uncivil, it would inevitably be quite RUDE ... but i have NEVER said anything about you at all. Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating in capitals is not going to get the message across faster. From your editing history, albeit it brief, it's quite clear you're not new to Wikipedia and its processes. Mediawiki talk edits as the second contribution? Hmph. If you are to carry on editing on here, with the intent to keep that attitude civil, you should smarten up your skills with other people. Accusing editors of various things and bringing up Hitler isn't the best way to get to know people here. Rudget (logs) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it may seem burdensome but perhaps you could look at the entire history of my interaction with rodhull which is confined to talk pages 1/ adolf hitler article 2/ his user talk 3/ this page, before commenting on our interaction, thanks : i have tried to make logical points about editting the adolf hitler page; as to his arguments, let the readers judge them.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]