User talk:24.116.191.146

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Your edit to Tina Fey

Your recent edit to Tina Fey was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Batman

I reverted your edit to Batman please read the relevant discussions at Talk:Batman before removing that section again. -Smahoney 02:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have problems with the homosexuality section in Batman discuss your reasons in the talk page first. Joelito (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Will (E@) T 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Smahoney 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Remove Warnings

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Mbimmler 16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

Your last edit before being blocked was undeniably vandalism. You also violated the three revert rule. Vandalism is not a subjective term, it is defined fully in WP:VAND

Request handled by: Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove this template from your page.

Sith your a Moron. It is totally subjective. I explained why ( made the edits and they were valid. Your "opinion" is NOT an objective source. Your way off base idiot and are not able to discern base concepts when it comes to fact vs opinion.

This is why Wikipedia sucks. It is run by lunatic facist administrators

Insulting me won't get you unblocked either. I will not respond further to your comments unless you have something useful to say. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 13:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


This is NOT an insult it is a "Fact". Facist Administrators that control content when this is suppose to be an Open Source Editing program really speaks to a hidden agenda. You can be insulted, you will be insulted because there was NO vandalism, my edits where explanined rationally and with care and you choose to view them through your subjective lens..most likely because 1. You have no power in the real world so being a facist administrator is the only thing that makes you feel powerful 2. You have some kind of leftist agenda promoting homosexuality in a comic book character whose writers and producers all agree is NOT homosexual. You want to talk about homosexuality in comics for some lunatic reason...make a topic entitled "Homosexual Pop Culture and The Comic Book Industry"/...write it there you freak.

Other then that "I" dismiss "YOU" and your self-entitlted "Credibility".

You have clearly learned nothing from your previous block. Large scale changes should be discussed on the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Batman. Say I am POV or whatever- I have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, I am just stopping people from going and removing big portions of text from articles, seemingly to make a point. You have been blocked again for 31 hours. Please take this time to constructively consider the reasons for your block, rather than insulting me as you did previously. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as how I have some knowledge on the subject and this user is constantly vandalizing one of my favorite articles, please allow me to say something. It's true, Batman's creators never intended him to be gay. I have actually have had heated arguments with people who claim he is. However, I would never remove a whole "Homosexual interpretations" section from a Batman article, because is a historical interpretation (however wrong it may be) which even had some effect on the character (stories from the early 1950's took a lighter tone, Batwoman was introduced, etc). The whole section is written in an encyclopedic manner, and reaches the final conlusion that Batman has always been written as a heterosexual, and that most theories suggesting otherwise are flawed. 24.116.191.146, you are inexplicably removing a section which supports your claims of Batman not being homosexual! And explaining why you feel the section should be removed does not justify your actions. Major changes to the page should only happen when there is a consensus, and clearly no one agrees with you. Deskana, if I may, I'd suggest you ban this user indefinitely, as he clearly has no intention of changing his ways. --Ace ETP 20:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Banning for quote, "No intention of changing his ways" unquote? WHAT? You have to make a sound argument to me in order to change my "Ways"..which is code word for "Opinion". Please go over what you wrote carefully you basically admitted the following:

1. Batman's creators never intended him to be gay 2. You made some very muted "barely a pulse" defense of the homosexuality interpretations as being relevant do to a quote, "lighter tone in the 1950's". A Lighter Tone is evidence of homosexuality or a homosexual subtext? VERY WEAK 3. You seem to believe content is relevant to the topic at hand AS LONG AS ITS WRITTEN IN AN ENCYLOPEDIC MANNER"? What?! With that kind of reasoning I could explain to you that a "Dog" is really a "Fish" as long as I do it in an enclopedic manner. This is obviously a flaw in your ability to reason logically. 4. You mentioned the final conclusion of the article is that he is "heterosexual". Why does it take such a large, long article to come to this conclusion when it is painfully obvious. Why does sexuality even need to be included, at alll, ever? It is IRRELEVANT. 5. The "Nobody" who agrees with me are people with "Admin" status who go about ensuring edits are not made. They may have NO relevance to the topic OR they may be several people with a persuasion to PROMOTE this article who have also been given "Administrative" Rights..which makes them the judge of what is so called an open source editing system. So that is bogus. 6. Besides making bad points logically or reasonablly you seem to be able to "Read Minds" because you believe I have quote, "NO INTENTION OF CHANGING WAYS" Unquote. How do you know this?. This is very simple...

Make a COHERENT, LOGICAL, REASONABLE Explanation on why, how "HOMOSEXUALITY" is relevant to the character of Batman in any way reasonable way my mind would change. Keep in mind this is how Webster's a Source of information with Credibility explains the term Homosexuality and Homosexual

Homosexuality: erotic activity with another of the same sex Homosexual: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

In other words homosexuality is a sexual act.. no more no less.

Why can not this topic be placed in a topics that cover "People who engage in and primarily identify themselves by their tendenancy to engage in same sex sexual activity and the pop cultural icons they try to make their own"?

Why is this topic not MORE relevant somewhere else in the WIKIPEDIA world then it is here? You haven't even covered have the stuff that should be covered here on the character of batman and you have a HUGE section covering something this nuanced, that is at its base foundation the wishful thinking of a bunch of homosexual activists or people who see homosexuality in places where it is not present. With this kind of Logic why not have a homosexual SECTION ON EVERY TOPIC IN WIKIPEDIA? An Article on the origns of Paint..."Homosexual Section" An artcile on the atomic properties of Helium, "Homosexual Section". An article on John Wayne, "Homosexual Section". WHY? WHAT FOR? TOOOLS

NOBODY has provided me with a single point of logic or reason defending this article all that has been explained is some kind of facist administrative rules. Thats the truth if you don't like the truth thats not my problem...its yours.

You're the one who is being a unreasonable. Read the Batman talk page, and you'll see that even people who are sure Batman is heterosexual feel the section should be there. No matter how obvious Batman's heterosexuality is to readers, it will never be to an outsider coming upon the article. And why isn't Batman's sexuality relevant? Everything about the character should be. What's relevant and what is not is determined by common sense, not the administrators you accuse of being fascist, son. No one is trying to say Batman is homosexual, something which you seem to take personally. If you said that a dog was a fish in an encyclopedic manner, it still wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. But if dogs had been at one point incorrectly classified taxonomically as fish, then the page for "Dog" should mention it, saying that it was a historical interpretation proven to be wrong for several reasons. It's as simple as that. Batman isn't gay, but that asshole Werthram asserted that he was in the 1950's, so it belongs in the page. Lighter does not equal homosexual, but Batman stories from the early Silver Age would have never been that silly if the whole deal with Werthram hadn't forced DC to tone down the "dark" detective elements in Batman comics. We can mention wrongful interpretations of Batman in the article much in the same way we can mention stuff about the now "apocryphal" Golden Age stories. Just relax, and believe me, you're more likely to succeed in winning arguments if you present your opinions more coherently, don't insult your opponent for no reason, and offer to talk things over BEFORE bad things start to happen. That's basically why I believed you weren't likely to stop doing what you were doing. You keep refusing to take into account the reasons the majority has for keeping the section. To wrap things up, I don't know if that's what you meant to imply in your latest post, but believe me, by defending that section's place in the article, no one is promoting their "homosexual agenda". I for one believe people should have the right to stick their sexual organs wherever they damn well please, but I also believe people should have the right to bitch all they want about those actions. That's how democracy works, and by disrespecting the consensus we have all reached at the talk page, you are violating another essential aspect of it, and therefore, you become, in your words, a "facist". --Ace ETP 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Batman revisited

You're saying elsewhere that noone has provided you with a rationale for keeping the material on Batman and homosexuality. I did, actually, when I gave you your first warning, in the form of a link to Talk:Batman, which contains extensive discussion on whether or not this section should be included, and if so, in what form. However, since you don't appear to be inclined to read that page, here's the gist: This is, primarily, though not exclusively, a matter of historical interest, not an assertion about "Batman's character". That Batman is a predatory homosexual and is a danger to normal, heterosexual children who may be innocently reading his comics was, roughly, an argument presented in the 1950s, something you would also know if you had bothered to read the section you seem so intent on deleting. This was a part of a larger move to make comics seem dangerous during a time when imagined threats lurked everywhere, many of them linked with homosexuality. The section is important because it places Batman specifically and comics more generally in the context of a larger historical picture. Hopefully that clears up a few issues. -Smahoney 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! It looks as if I wasn't specific enough in referring you to Talk: Batman. The actual arguments appear in the archives. This one was one of the first, but there are others: [1]. -Smahoney 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology or biblical?

First, did you read what I wrote on the talk page of Spear of Destiny about the meaning of mythology? If you did read it, then why don't you comment there instead of blindly undoing my chance with a rehashed argument? If you did not read it, then why did you not read it, instead of blindly undoing my chance with a rehashed argument?

You claim, per your edit, that this can be found in Christian Biblical texts. Quote me even one text from the Bible about a Spear of Destiny (or Holy Lance, Holy Spear, Lance of Longinus, or Spear of Longinus) that has been identified with the spear mentioned in John 19:34. You will not find such a text, because it does not exist. Your edit changed a correct statement into an incorrect one. Please don't do this, and please use the talk pages to discuss the issues instead of just undoing other editors' changes that you don't like, and especially not if these changes are supported by arguments. --LambiamTalk 23:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction "Christian Texts"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.191.146 (talk • contribs) 01:41, June 29, 2006 (UTC).

I am sorry, but I find it very hard to interpret what you wrote on my talk page. As far as I know, no-one has yet claimed a mythological status for your dog "Spot", but if they did, it would not imply that the dog is fictional. Whether the dog has a name is irrelevant. What is this universal negative you speak of, and what makes you think I would like to prove it? All I want is that the entries on Wikipedia are not obviously false and conform to the five pillars. The text as you left it after your edit was incorrect.

The authority of the Catholic Church does not mean much on Wikipedia, and the position that this Church is the church of Christ is considered just one point of view. But equally importantly, on whose authority should we accept as a fact that "the spear was given a member of Christs church" (sic)? If you want to use this, you need to cite a reputable reference for this. Read the entry on "The Holy Lance" in the Catholic Encyclopedia: nothing of the sort is mentioned there. There is a gap of a full five centuries between the death of Jesus and the first textual reference since John to a venerated artifact.

What archives do you mean I should reference? The article Spear of Destiny has no talk archives, and neither does your talk page. It is customary on Wikipedia to put new contributions at the end, so for something new just look at the end. Furthermore, for easy navigation there is a table of contents. You can edit all articles as much as you want as long as you conform to the Wikipedia policies. Always remain civil (which means, don't write things like "you idiot" and don't qualify the contributions of others as "moronic"). And please sign your contributions on talk pages with four tildes, like this: "~~~~".  --LambiamTalk 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As before, I can't make much out of what you wrote on my talk page. All I can say is: I did not make up the Wikipedia policies. Everyone is free to edit the Wikipedia articles, but then they must keep to the Wikipedia policies, you as well as I. If you do not like these policies, you are free to start your own wiki with whatever policies you prefer. --LambiamTalk 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 2006

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Jon Krakauer are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! --Liface 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.116.191.146.html"