User talk:Iconoclast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] OMG LINKZ OMG

Please do not post nonsense on wikipedia articles. Jonathunder 04:29, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

  • Alright, I'll get right on it, Jon (Can I call you Jon?) --Iconoclast 06:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'd really rather you wouldn't. Jonathunder 02:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
    • You don't want me to get right on it? k then.... --Iconoclast 02:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Chat?

You left me a note on the ANUS deletion page about chatting with me. If you have AIM, contact me at "spikesjerico", if Yahoo contact "Happynigra".

[edit] Mistaken motives

Your attempts at satire are unconvincing and unappreciated. If you disapprove of aspects of the project, you're welcome to raise policy concerns on the village pump page. But it's actually much easier to convince people when you actually, y'know, say what you mean instead of staging stunts to try to imply it. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:28, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Satire? I am not a satirical person; I just enjoy a casual atmosphere. :-) You seem like a nice guy, perhaps a linux user? --Iconoclast 08:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#State your point; don't prove it experimentally is, more precisely, what I was trying to say. It's obvious what you're doing; please don't. -leigh (φθόγγος) 00:39, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Good sir, I argue for things that I want done. My motives are not disguised at all, I'm merely a homosexual black man that wants to contribute to this fine webspace :) I'm just another internet citizen of cyberspace --Iconoclast 00:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:NSM88

His political views are extremely hateful. He openly proclaimed that he was a white supremecist (though under the guise of "White liberation"). At one point he had a picture of him holding a meeting of Nazis, which is calculated to be disruptive and can cause quite a bit of distress to quite a few of our fellow Wikipedians. If you don't like what I did, tough. I've been open about what I've done, but I don't expect you to understand. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He wasn't banned because of such, he was banned because he was a nazi. As well, from what I've gathered in my stay here, I thought that only actions were punishable and not beliefs. If he has a picture that isn't pornographic or 'vulgar' in a violent sense, then at least remove it and notify him of the rules instead of banning his account. --Iconoclast 02:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I will use you as an example

Out of all political (and religious) doctrines that I know of, an absolutely pivotal dimension that is unique to Nazism pertains to the uncovertability of undesirables. Now, having read your userpage, allow me to employ you in the following example which illustrates this: unlike all the other ideologies, Nazism is the only one where one cannot convert in exchange for one's life. Under other (reactionary) doctrines, convertability may entail renouncing homosexuality or chattel enslavement due to African traits, but they nonetheless provide an option in which continued to existence is made possible. With the Nazis no such 'redemption' is possible, because stratification according to innate traits, attributes which the individual can do nothing to change, is taken to its logical conclusion: physical destruction. In that sense, espousing Nazi views inexorably is incitement for murder. With all other ideologies, there is still a remote possibility for 100% voluntary conversion without any uphevels, etc., but with Nazism, we assume (again, in theory) that invariably there –has– to be murder.

El_C 07:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From my research, there are many 'nazis' and other analogous factions which believe in segregation or forced deportation. Such ideas allow for survival and 'convertability', at least to an extent. Even if genocide and obliteration were active principles in their doctrines, any censorship leads to authority-induced approval of what is and isn't verboten. Your ideology is primarily a utilitarian one, in which whatever is 'splendid' to the crowd takes precedence over individual freedoms.
The root issue is that censorship of anybody as a belief item is when any public forum is controlled and regulated by a person or group's own prejudices. Such ideals are a result of the conscious or subconscious belief that truth is only approved social paradigms and popular manners, without consideration of the employer. No plate should be taboo on the table of ideas, and not a fork favored. It's inevitable that one will come across undesirable creeds that conflict with one's own beliefs; I'd just rather not a soul be subjected towards intellectual imperialism --Iconoclast 02:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My ideology cannot be reduced to and expressed through such a teleological (nor a deontological) framework, and my explanation above was designed towards someone who holds the views you do (as depicted on your user page). At any rate, an exposition of what Nazi doctrine is, or what child pronography is, etc., is very different from propaganda promoting it; that's a monumental distortion which has nothing to do with freedom of speech as most people understand it. And I think that calling such a position intellectual imperialism smacks of apologism. Luckily, I am comforted that on this issue (unlike many others), the Wikipedia powers-that-be share my view and not yours. El_C 01:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Habitat for Humanity International

I noticed your mention of an interest in HFH and would like to let you know that it is currently nominated for improvement at the Article Improvement Drive. If you would like to help expand Wikipedia's information on Habitat, please consider voting for it on the AID page. Thank you, MC MasterChef 12:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something on your userpage

You said Wikipedia is a democratic encyclopedia, I just want to point out [1]. Also, if you feel mistreated by users on wikipedia, then what exactly are you doing about it? Also you are personally attacking users on your page, that is against the rules, calling Radiant! a "neo-nazi", and calling wikipedia facist. Unless Radiant! is an acutal "neo-nazi", which I don't think he is. Quentin Pierce 05:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is-- It is an encyclopedia by the people, for the people. Is not an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"a democratic encyclopedia? Is not an encyclopedia that allows vote for deletions and vote for adminiship of the democratic way? I ask you to ponder this. --Iconoclast 07:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the personal attack on Radiant! on your user page. Wikipedia certainly has power structure issues, but this is uncalled for. — Davenbelle 06:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A certain power structure--being the WHITE RACIST POWER STRUCTURE. Why is it that my page just so happened to be deleted by a scandinaavian? That is as white as you can get! And if that is against the rules, so be it, as it will be removed once he proves it by reversing the deletion of my vote for adminship and in apology, vote for me. He has to give me a strong support vote too.
Just remember: the ancient world would have found you effeminate. --Iconoclast 07:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
(wondering where that came from...) Rather than attack Radiant!, please assume good faith — and edit your user page. For what's worth, you wouldn't get my vote... — Davenbelle 03:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I've known Radiant! for some time, and he is anything but prejudiced in my experience... If you really do think he was misusing his administrative powers, you should take your case to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee instead of insulting him on your user site. Just my €0.02... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] civility and disruption

G'day Iconoclast,

as you've undoubtedly noticed, sometimes it's difficult to get along with other users on Wikipedia. We have a number of policies and guidelines designed to help reduce friction, of which the most important are be civil and don't make personal attacks. Your comment on your userpage is a personal attack on User:Radiant!, and several of your remarks on Talk:Black metal (including this) are far from civil. Please take this opportunity to "grow up" yourself, and try harder to play nice with others. Unrepentant disruptive users are frequently blocked. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to be civil but I was feeling that perhaps my race was adding pressure. I don't like that at all. My reverts were deleted and they took precious time to make! Don't you see how important it was for me to keep my reverts? Now my contributions have gone to the wayside. --Iconoclast 15:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warning for Nihilism

Har. -Seth Mahoney 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/c/o/User_talk%7EIconoclast_adff.html"