User talk:67.187.9.149

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on June 1, 2006 (UTC) to Athiesm

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. GofG ||| Contribs 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits to Atheism

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. Opabinia regalis 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism

Since you now have multiple editors disagreeing with your edits, it would behoove you to take your dispute to Talk:Nihilism. -Smahoney 20:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What's your objection to pointing out the fact that accusations of nihilism are often used as ad hominems? -Smahoney 21:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind that. However, the implication is that it is purely used as ad hominem when it is not a purely ad hominem argument. It is a valid philosophy and it is the logical end and result of atheistic philosophies as I have pointed out on the Atheism discussion page.

Read more carefully. The sentence you keep removing says that it is often used as an ad hominem, not merely an ad hominem. Since you apparently have no objection to the article mentioning that fact, your change has been reverted. Also, don't be a jerk, as you were on my talk page. Finally, if you keep reverting you will be temporarily blocked from editing. -Smahoney 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find you to be a jerk for reverting my contribution unwarrantedly. You invited me to the talk page, so don't complain when I write something unflattering. I have been blocked from editing quite unfairly since I made a contribution and it was others who kept reverting it. As I mentioned on your page, I do not agree that it is "often" used as an ad hominem. The way it is stated on the page, it implies that it is merely an ad hominem and not an actual belief, which is simply untrue.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.
When I said "don't be a jerk", I was referring to your comments on my talk page, which included, "Please only revert subjects with which you are familiar." The fact is, that flawed as the article may be (for example, it is almost entirely unsourced), I wrote almost the entire existing article - I'm not unfamiliar with the topic. As for your having been blocked, it may behoove you to read WP:3RR to get a better grasp of what happened. The 3RR policy, under which you were blocked, is intended to make it clear that Wikipedia operates by editorial consensus, which is to say that it is perfectly okay that multiple editors reverted your changes, while it is not okay that you reverted them more than three times - that's editorial consensus. You would not have been blocked if, instead of continually reverting, you had started discussion on Talk:Nihilism. As far as 'often' vs. 'sometimes', we're getting into the realm of weasel language, but here's a story: I've spent a lot of time in US philosophy departments, which tend to focus almost entirely on analytic philosophy. There, nihilism is only ever presented as either an ad hominem or a poor choice. Moreover, in ethics classes I've taken, the nihilist was presented as someone whose ethical views can be readily dismissed on the grounds that they are identical with those of the sociopath. The implication isn't that it is merely an ad hominem, but that that is a way that the word is often used, which it is. That the word is often used that way is unfortunate, especially given that philosophers should know better, but that's the way it is. To look at it another way, there is a sentence in the article explaining that the word is often used in this particular way and an entire article explaining what the word means. I don't think anyone (apparently, anyone but you) is going to get the idea that nihilism is just an ad hominem. Finally, your final set of contributions (which I noticed) were revertable because they were unsourced (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources). Yes, I realize almost the entire article is unsourced, but that's no excuse for adding more unsourced material. -Smahoney 20:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair editing

The policy is ridiculous and unfair. You and your cronies have already violated your own rules by "reverting" my rational criticism more than 3 times already. If you truly believe your subjective rules, then you should probably ban yourselves.

I posted something and it is being replaced with an alternate point of view, and one that is most definitely NOT a criticism of atheism, rather it is a rationalization of what I posted. Give me a break. A criticism section is for criticism. The things that are being written there are atheistic apologetics and rationalizations...in other words, someone else's points of view. If you are going to have a criticisms section, then allow criticisms.

I am providing valuable input for those interested in investigating all possibilities seeing the logical end of atheistic philosophies is Nihilism. You are denying others that right to good information. If you do not believe it is good information, then you are in fact a Nihilist and it is merely your point of view you are expressing. Good thing you're in control, I guess.  ;-)

  • You are not Dot Six again are you? If not, then welcome to wikipedia & consider signing in. Your unsourced view of logic does not conform to that of logicians. Content discussions belong on the talk pages for the articles. --JimWae 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but I do not agree that the view of Nihilism I express "does not conform to that of logicians". Nihilism is, in fact, the logical end of atheistic philosophies and the problem has been recognized and addressed over the past couple of centuries.
  • I believe it IS the only logical point of view, however, if it can be expressed as a view with which "many people agree", then I can live with that. I think it is unfair to people looking for full and unbiased information to censor a critical point of view.

[edit] Atheism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. siafu 20:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reported the 3RR violation on the Administrator's noticeboard. siafu 00:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

The word "criticism" means "the art or act of analyzing or judging something" as well as "censure" or "faultfinding". A critical review of a movie for example might praise the movie. WAS 4.250 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Exactly! So why is there a problem with what I wrote in the criticism section, darnit?!?!  :-)

[edit] Nihilism revisited

Good contributions to nihilism - thanks! However, they absolutely need citations. I'll give you a couple days to either come up with some or respond to let me know that you're working on it before I revert. -Smahoney 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Um...ok. How do I give "citations" for what I wrote? I'm kind of new to this stuff, so I'm a little unclear what you're asking. Do you want page numbers for the characters or something? I didn't see any "citations" for the other material that was there. What exactly do you want "citations" for? --Confused...
The article is currently mostly uncited, unfortunately. However, all contributions do need citations, as per WP:CITE, WP:NOR, Wikipedia: Common knowledge, and Wikipedia: Reliable sources. What you need is some critical essay or book on those novels you mention that makes the claims you wrote down. Once you've found that, reference the book by surrounding it in <ref> tags, like so:
<ref>Last name, First name. ''Title of book''. Publisher. Year of publication, page number</ref>
That will create a footnoted citation.
As for what needs a citation, the answer is basically every proposition. Every time you say "X is true." or "X is the case." or "So-and-so says X", you need some citation for it. -Smahoney 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You can also use the {{cite book}} template (and related templates for journals, &c.), which you can read about at Template:cite book (info on usage is on the talk page). siafu 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is by no means exhaustive, I went ahead and added citation needed tags to the literature section of nihilism to give you some idea what needs sources. -Smahoney 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but again, I am still unclear on what is desired. I only added some to what was already in existence, so there are only a few of the "citations needed" that apply to me, but I still don't understand what you want.
For instance, "In fact, many of Dostoevsky's novels dealt with nihilism. Another major example of nihilism is found in The Possessed (or The Devils), in which Kirilov sees no solution to nihilism but suicide and ultimately kills himself. The main protagonist, Stavrogin, finally sees Kirilov's dilemma and follows suit at the end of the book with his own elaborate suicide. [citation needed]". What do you want here, a page number? I don't understand. All someone has to do is read the book.
Also, "Camus was highly influenced by the works and thoughts of Dostoevsky, even writing his own play based on Dostoevsky's novel, "The Devils". [citation needed]" For this one, all though it is "common knowledge" (I know, I know, but it is...), if you click on Albert Camus and drop down to the sections at the bottom, you will see the same information (not where I got it, but it seems that Wiki already advocates this position...because it is correct.  :-) ).
What is needed in both these cases is some academic article or book which makes the same claim you're making. So, for the first one you need some article or book that addresses Dostoyevsky's relationship to nihilism. For the second, an article or book that addresses Camus' relationship to nihilism. If there are citations in either Dostoyevsky or Camus you can borrow them from that article. -Smahoney 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:67.187.9.149. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TedTalk/Contributions 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking your Talk page of warnings is considered vandalism. TedTalk/Contributions 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... Vandalism is a rhetorical word used to incorrectly label those with whom one disagrees. I couldn't find the newest comments to me, and the criticisms are unwarranted anyway. So I wiped the page clean so I could actually find something new. It's supposed to be MY talk page, right? Why can I not do with it as I please, then? You guys have some awfully strange rules and regulations around here that I cannot respect. 67.187.9.149 00:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my message to you seemed abrupt. You are welcome to prune your Talk page of casual conversation. However, you are not allowed to delete warnings. You are not required to respect the rules and regulations of the site, however, you are still bound by them. Remember, this is not your website. If you so desire, you can start up a competing website and use whatever rules you want. There are lots of Wikis around with different rules, from dictatorial to anarchistic. Maybe you can find a better fit. If you wish to continue, it would be helpful for you to look at some of the general rules. Here are a few tips:

[edit] Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

Good luck, whichever path you choose. TedTalk/Contributions 01:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --JimWae 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am in violation, then so are you and everyone else who continues to revert and modify my information in apologetic fashion. I do not accept your supposed violation and believe that you and others are in fact the ones in violation. If you wish to rule with a mob mentality that might makes right, then feel free to ban me because I will not follow your absurd rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.9.149 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Same arguments User: DotSix used. One lone user with an agenda does not get the same number of chances to edit as 10 other people combined. The rule is there to limit edit warring - which cannot be productive for an encyclopedia --JimWae 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate it when people accuse me of being someone I am not. Anyways, the only agenda I have is to present a "criticism" of atheism and not have it modified in an apologetic fashion in an effort to explain it away. The problem with the 3rr rule is that a mob of atheists and sympathetic administrators can revert and modify posts all day long without repercutions. One "lone user" has no chance to get anything objective entered without having it unreasonably hacked up. So, does mob rule and atheist apologetics win the day? May I also ask if it also wins the day on pages about religion (I've seen some of your mods in that area too...)? 67.187.9.149 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (oh yeah...as if no one knows who's writing this...  :-) )

As it says on WP:OWN: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You might be happier somewhere else--JimWae 01:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in answer to my questions, what you are really saying is that the mob rules and atheist apologetics wins the day.  ;-) Then I will denounce Wikipedia and its horrible biases from here on out. 67.187.9.149 01:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying that group consensus following reasoned discussion has preference over one-man rule --JimWae 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I tried to help

please see Discussion:

reverts Today

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66746706&oldid=66742303
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66748796&oldid=66748491
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66764469&oldid=66758093
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66765841&oldid=66765114

reverts Day before:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66768065&oldid=6676762
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66605332&oldid=66604336
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66603764&oldid=66602763
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66597593&oldid=66596980
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66595254&oldid=66592963
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66592458&oldid=66591937
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66589926&oldid=66589454
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66588458&oldid=66587538
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66585443&oldid=66584896

Somerset219 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 22 hours

 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.

Stifle (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cute... Ban me so I can't possibly respond to anything. Just for your information, I WAS discussing my changes. However, it is obvious that the mob rules around here and might makes right. Wikipedia is misinformation mostly created by ingorant hacks, and I will continue to spread that message.

It might seem that 22 hours is an eternity, but it really isn't. If you want to come back here and discuss why you made these reverts, you are more than welcome (and greatly encouraged) to. Otherwise, please do not make any edits which are hurtful to other people. Wikipedia is not misinformation, and we are not ignorant hacks. Thank you and have a nice day.--Chili14 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/7/2E/User_talk%7E67.187.9.149.html"