User talk:Interpreter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ayn Rand[edit]

Ayn Rand taught: 1. That man must choose his values and actions by reason; 2. That the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and 3. That no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force. This information has been effaced repeatedly from the Ayn Rand page. No doubt stating the case so succinctly makes it difficult to tarbrush that writer. That, however, is her detractors' problem. translator (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tara Smith[edit]

I just looked at the listing for Lenin, author of "On Religion" which he describes as "opium for the masses." There is no grafitti there identifying him as an atheist despite syllogistic verities to the effect that all communists/Marxists are atheists. Are you fellows falling down on the job here?

Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" mentions a character who went through an entire Spanish graveyard chiseling off the crosses. I swear it reminds me of you fellows... except that he was impartial. translator 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC) These comments were posted in response to a duo which insisted on labeling nonmystical individualists as "atheists" but using no such tarbrush on collectivists. translator (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have watched the defense against the flaming vandal and thought you did well. Equivocation in order to play the victim adds nothing to the discussion. I maintain--after long experience filled with hard knocks--that adopting language coined by your opponents is counterproductive. I never call looters liberals or mystical bigots conservatives. I received a joke today that is most apropos: A father asks his son, aged 10, if he knows about the birds and the bees. "I don't want to know!" the child said, bursting into tears. Confused, the father asked his son what was wrong. "Oh dad," he sobbed, "at age six I got the 'there's no Santa' speech. At age seven I got the 'there's no Easter bunny' speech. Then at age 8 you hit me with the 'there's no tooth fairy' speech! "If you're going to tell me now that grown-ups don't really have sex, I've got nothing left to live for!" This comment was in support of an individual who sought to keep vandals from defacing an article. translator (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

State of Fear[edit]

Let the record show that someone claiming to be Mark Pellegrini, an engineering student, asserts the the Petition Project with its 18,000 signatories with science degrees has "been thoroughly discredited", and presumed to pervert the opening lines of the section on alleged global warming to cast as scientific truth the allegations of a political entity--a misstatement I corrected. The student then reverted the correct term, allegation, and recast it as scientific opinion complete with link to a page and skillfully eliding mention of the Petition Project. This sort of gratuitous lying undermines the credibility of "the" Wikipedia. Do a Google search for "Petition Project" and judge for yourself. translator 01:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)translator (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed "scientific opinion" to allegation removing a link to another page which suppresses the petition Project. This was reverted by a claimed engineering student asserting it "unacceptable" and claiming the 18,000 signature petition is "debunked." I then received intimidating messages in my own page, not here, claiming I'd hurt their feelings, violated policies and so forth. Everything I wrote here was deleted and, having seen these tactics before, can stay that way because I am gainfully employed elsewhere. The video remains unsuppressed, and anyone who cares to see scientists begging leave to doubt the politicians can google Petition Project. translator 02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interpreter (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit[edit]

This edit is not acceptable. I have reverted it. The Oregon Petition, which your edit summary implies is what you are talking about, has been throughly debunked. Raul654 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A facile misstatement. The Petition Project includes the name of its signers, who in the primary counted category have degrees in Science. If it were debunked, the thing to do would be include links and mention so anyone can see that to doubt is some sort of denial conspiracy. That would shore up support for the political hypothesis that most scientists are lying. Ask yourself if truthful people resort to censorship. translator 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility and personal attacks[edit]

Attacks on other editors such as this violate Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks. This is unacceptable. Comment on the material, not on the person who wrote it. Raymond Arritt 01:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I was expecting Tweedlededee to complete the squeeze-play. Honest people place things out in the open. You lot suppress dissent, lie, then act all hurt, calling the kettle black, when your attacks are exposed for what they are. I'll take this to my own site. Good luck deleting it there. translator 02:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael (autobiography)[edit]

Hello! I note you've read Goebbels' book Michael, well it now has an article and your contributions are desperately needed! Please help expand the article! Gavin Scott (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The above individual appears to believe the work is literally autobiographical, but Goebbels was lame and not enlistable as a soldier in war. The novel was published in 1929 and will soon enough come into public domain. Most notable is the deep reverence for all things Christian--and for Goethe--which permeate the novel. Nietzche, on the other hand, is mentioned with indifference ranging to hostility. If people were to actually read some of the screed written by nationalsozialist organizers, they would realize they were deeply mystical and altruistic to the core. translator (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of scientists opposing the political scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I already have screenshots of the material in question and I doubt five minutes have elapsed. I'll make these available to Dr Arthur Robinson and recommend he make them available to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov. I have marked for speedy deletion a link on my own website, thanks to this evidence that the Wikipedia has a political agenda that defends actual smears against foreign scientists and censors any attempts to correct so much as a single unsupported adjective. translator (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Refrain from ideological cheapshots, please[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Robert A. Heinlein. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, I added to the Heinlein page the simple and evident fact, known to all his readers, that Heinlein described speech recognition software down to minute particulars nearly half a century before any such thing existed. So? Did that smack of libertarianism to one of the junior volunteer censors? I cannot even recall if some officious zealot mistook it for an ideological statement, but if it was gratuitously censored just for the sake of censorship, what am I to do, applaud? And since when is gratuitous deletion of a relevant fact a contribution? translator (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spoiler Vote (September 8)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Abdullah Alam was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Abdullah Alam (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Interpreter, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Abdullah Alam (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No need, Allahu Akbar. It is gatekeepers like yourself that weaken the Wikipedia and create a market for rational, inclusive and less mystically tendentious alternatives. May Tea Party spoiler votes bring you to a sudden and abrupt encounter with objective reality. translator (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Spoiler Vote[edit]

Hello, Interpreter. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Spoiler Vote".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 07:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)