User talk:DukeTwicep

Welcome![edit]

Welcome...

Hello, DukeTwicep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Pi zero (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault if I haven't, I'm forgetful at times. DukeTwicep (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WWE[edit]

It's okay. Best, --TRU CO 01:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. You have used the edit summary sometimes, but please get into the habit of using it for all edits as it really helps anyone monitoring for article changes. Best wishes... bodnotbod (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry about that. I stopped editing for a few years or so and had totally forgotten about that. I'll try to remember next time. Thanks for the heads up. DukeTwicep (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing the consensus for the blackout[edit]

I could say it's a "blatant lie" on your part to say I ever claimed that only 55% supported a blackout, given that I said "the vote for GLOBAL blackout was only 55%..." but perhaps the rhetoric could be toned down here by my suggesting you just missed the "global" in my statement by innocent oversight. I might add that 55% is what the closing admins counted, not me: "We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a GLOBAL one..." (again, my emphasis on "global") Note that it could even be said that a MINORITY supported a global blackout, given that a quick count right now suggests that there were more than 1200 votes of which less than 600 in favour of a global blackout, the point being that a (slim) majority appears to have preferred something less sweeping than what we ended up with. The next section on the page the poll was conducted was "full blackout" vs "soft blackout" and concerned the mechanics of the blackout (although confusion reigned here as many voted "Oppose" to one of the options instead of picking one of the two to support, and many likely thought this section concerned geographical scope like the first section did). In any case the real problem in my mind is the fact that when you've got an audience in a big room and there's people up on the forum (here, the WMF) telling you one thing, and some "dissenting" guy at the mike for questions down on the floor telling you another thing, the people speaking from the forum are generally considered more credible than the guy on the floor at the back unless the audience is in a position to know that what the guy on the floor is saying is stronger on substance. The audience is not generally going to be in that position if a large number of them are just joined the organization recently. Speaking of which, while I do not mean to minimize your contributions or right to contribute I noticed that, according to the stats for your ID, you've never edited a "Wikipedia Talk" page, that is, a Talk page for a Wikipedia policy. I believe it's those of us with the most experience debating policy issues and who understand best the rationale for the policies we have that are the most concerned about the precedent this blackout has set in terms of managing future edit wars over content. Our votes counted for no more than accounts created solely to vote on this matter but the situation is what it is. If Wikipedia would not be affected by these bills in Congress then wouldn't you say there is basically no limit to what Wikipedia might protest next? re long comments, yes they can be annoying at times which is why I moved by big overview off-wiki so only those really interested in my opinion need be bothered with it.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I assumed you meant a blackout in general was because you seem opposed against protesting at all. It seems to me like you think the bills are harmless. Of course, now I see my error.

Let's talk about new members vs. veterans. You say that my vote should be counted less than a veterans, such as yours. Now, that doesn't sound like democracy to me (as no one has voted you in as representatives), it sounds more like elitism, which is understandable - coming from one of those who "lost" - I'm pretty sure that this would not have come up were the tables turned. But didn't you also think it was wrong of those in charge of WMF to "rush" the decision, or to "force" their views onto others? I may have misinterpreted. But this seems to me to be hypocrisy coming from someone who thinks that the "elite" should rule Wikipedia (I don't mean rule, literally, but you get what I mean: that your opinions and votes should be considered more than other "lesser" beings).

You say that there might be no limit to what Wikipedia might protest next. Slippery slope argument. Oh yes Wikipedia will start protesting for whatever reason now, surely *ironic*. Let's take that discussion when it becomes relevant.

"If Wikipedia would not be affected..." ah, so you're egotistical, am I to interpret this as that you do not care about what happens to other parts of the internet? 'When everything crumbles beneath Wikipedia, it will stand fast!' Sounds, again, like elitistic talk. If your only concern is the welfare of Wikipedia, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing politics at all. Politics doesn't need more egoism than what's already there. Politics is about caring for other people and making the world a better place for Everyone.

If the people of Wikipedia agree that Wikipedia should stand up against intrusions on the freedoms of the Internet, then so be it. There will be other bills in the future, it's not like the corporations behind these bills will stop.

As you have used a slippery slope argument I feel it's in my right to also use one. Say these bills had been passed. There would have been even worse bills passed next, until Wikipedia Would be affected, and who will come to the rescue then? If Wikipedia abandons everyone else on the Internet, there will be little sympathy when the turn comes to them. DukeTwicep (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My statement[edit]

Where there's anti-religion, there's Satanic deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.115.132 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There's anti-religion everywhere, so I guess Satan is everywhere then. Anyway, Satan doesn't exist, and God doesn't either so don't worry about it alright? Peace. DukeTwicep (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]