User talk:Mike18xx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Have The Power, by Tyco - Fri, December 16 2005 - 07:58 AM

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues. As a model of how and where distributed intellect fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.

When we were first considering making Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs available as a publically manageable satirical metanarrative, we dropped the basic timeline on Wikipedia because I liked the way their software went about things. Of course, a phalanx of pedants leapt into action almost immediately to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data - our revolting fancruft.

That's okay with me. I wasn't aware they thought they were making a real encyclopedia for big people at the time, and if I had, I'd have sought out one of the many other free solutions. I had seen the unbelievably detailed He-Man and Pokémon entries and assumed - like any rational person would - that Pokémaniacs were largely at the rudder of the institution.

I am almost certain that - while they prune their deep mine of trivia - they believe themselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working.

Reponses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.

Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.

The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.

[edit] Past Spleenings of the Discordant Mob

[edit] Current Spleenings of the Discordant Mob:

[edit] Power Line

Hi. You recently reverted this edit to Power Line by user Qwertman1 (talk • contribs). I thought Qwertman1's edit improved the article, removing quite a bit of hostile POV. Clearly you disagree; ~~can I ask why?~~ Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed your subsequent edits. Nice work. I've struck out my now-irrelevant question. (If no-one else has spell-checked the article by the time I get OpenOffice 2.x on this machine, I'll have a go at it.) CWC(talk) 09:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permissions for photos

In order to obtain permission for the photos (and the text as well), you should write back to the Jamestown foundation asking them to explicitly state that the photos and text are now in the public domain, or under the GDFL or another compatible licence. You can then forward the email to permissions@wikimedia.org . Commons has an email template which should be good to use.--§hanel 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Specifically,in reviewing (as requested at an administrative notice area) your edits and edit summaries to Chile under Allende and other articles I think you could be somewhat more civil in your word choices. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen additional edit summaries by you and consider them woefully incivil, this one for example: [3]... this is your last warning. If you continue with these incivil entries you WILL be blocked. I note also that you are sparring with a user giving you a warning, direclty below this. "tattle" is in no way shape or form a collegial remark and is unacceptable if civility is your goal. Consider yourself warned about that as well. At this point this is a formal warning from an admin and removal of it will also result in a block. ++Lar: t/c 07:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind your behavior

I'd like to comment on your imposition of subjective views in a number of articles, which I was alerted of. At the very least, imposing your own views is a violation of the no original research policy; at the most, it qualifies as disruption and can amount to vandalism if it persists. You've already received a warning about the personal attacks on other editors. Noting that you will push your 3RR quota to the limit as much as you can is also not a good idea; 3RR is a quick guideline to identify and punished "revert warriors" but it's not the worst thing that can happen to you. Try to keep cool, discuss civilly, and leave sensitive article content alone until you reach consensus to edit it. The NPOV policy doesn't say that everybody is entitled to have their opinion mentioned in an article. It must be read along with WP:NOR and WP:V. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight: Somebody is tattling on me, and you're sending me a warning without having even seen the subjects in question to see if I am actually guilty of the alleged crimes charged? Has it occurred to you how easy it is for whining tattle-tailers to "bully" their "subjective views" into an article just by continually "shopping" around for admins to go stomp over the user-pages of their critics? Fine. Two can play the game; and since I have your attention, I'd just like to let you know that many Wiki editors who tattle about me are disingenuous vandals who have no interest in writing truthful articles and every interest in locking down their propaganda. This is particularly the case in (a) Islam-related articles (for obvious reasons), (b) property-redistribution articles (socialists would love to imagine there are no credible, or any at all, arguments against their favorite way of getting stuff without paying for it) and (c) Chile/Allende-related articles (where some are tenacious in their attempts to preserve moldy 35-year old propaganda -- it tooks *months* to get into Wiki the Chilean Chamber of Deputies' own pivotal condemnation of Allende and request for the military oust him). Also please be observant of the fact that edits are not the same thing as reverts, no matter how much the defenders of rubbish would like to conflate the two when siccing the admins on their detractors.--Mike18xx 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, this entire paragraph is unacceptably incivil. ++Lar: t/c 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that charges against oneself are untrue does not equate to being incivil, let alone unacceptably so.--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. As long as one remains civil in doing so. However, "tattle", "disingenious vandals", "rubbish" and half a dozen other terms I can easily pick out of just that one paragraph are all unacceptably incivil. Do you understand that? For if you don't understand and acknowledge that, then there's not much point in my replying to the rest of this and I might as well issue the block now. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to present an example of exactly this sort of behavior This editor slides in huge reverts while checking the "M" box for "minor edit". His arguments have been shredded on Talk (by others first, so it's not all me), and he hasn't bothered to engage there since (and so his pretensions to a "dispute" warranting an NPOV tag involving his truth-censored/propaganda-inserted version are at best credulous). I say his edits *are* "disingenuous vandalism", their contents are indeed "rubbish"; and I certainly do not think it is "incivil" to refer to them as so on my own talk page. I furthermore do not think it would be incivil of me to suggest that he has on occasion utilized sock-puppets -- certainly other editors have already done so in their summaries of this particular article, summaries I don't find to be offensive in the least.--Mike18xx 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we're talking about you, not other editors. If other editors have been incivil, that's a different matter. What I'm concerned with is your behaviour on many articles, because now that people are aware that there are admins watching you, reports of your behaviour are pouring in to me and other admins.

And why shouldn't they "pour in" -- once it's been demonstrated that whining generates the result (censorship) the whiners are looking for? If the job description of a Wiki administrator morphs into "whine appeasor", then it is fairly obvious, at least to me, that whines will indeed "pour in", and placating them is what you'll be doing full-time.--Mike18xx 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(and yes, for the purposes of this discussion, I have no interest whatever in the content or accuracy of these articles,...

I breathlessly await the very FIRST instance, to my personal experience, of any administrator at Wikipedia evidencing any interest in the content or the accuracy of these articles. To date, I have yet to meet one critical of the accuracy of my contributions.--Mike18xx 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

as this is about behaviour, and behaviour is never justified by content) The very diff you give has a woefully incivil edit summary (by you) just preceding it. Here's another example: [4].

Exactly which entry in that particular link did you consider incivil, let alone "woefully" so?

I asked you a direct question and you refused to answer it, instead trying to excuse your behaviour by citing the behaviour of others. That won't wash with me. I am concerned with your behaviour without regard to others. You have been warned about this multiple times now, by multiple people. Do you acknowledge that your edits and summaries have been incivil and undertake not to be incivil in future? Yes or no? What I want here is a one word answer from you, either "yes", or "no", but anything other than the single word "yes" will be taken as "no", and I will act accordingly.

I do not consider the admonishment of dishonesty to be equivalent to incivility; and I suspect you would be able to discern the difference as well if you were concerned with article accuracy.

Really, you're leaving me no other choice. ++Lar: t/c 07:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now; you have plenty of choices. For instance, you have the choice of deciding that you're not going to be the tool of would-be censorers of Wikipedia who, when they think they have a live fish on the line, are going to cram his in-box full of complaints.--Mike18xx 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Further 3RR is not a license to revert 3 times in 24 hours and it is not a license to make similar but slightly different changes. If you persist in edit warring over articles, regardless of whether you are within the formal guidelines of 3RR, I will block you. ++Lar: t/c 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I to take from this that the guidelines now no longer matter, and what matters instead is the arbitrary whim of whatever administrator has taken a disliking to me (if, for no other reason, than that I am argumentative before him)? I will also add that it takes *two* (or more) to "edit war", and that page-protections seem a more prudent course of action by dispassionate administrators. If you were to block everyone involved, that, at least, I couldn't argue wasn't fair.--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of unanswered questions...--Mike18xx 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to reply particularly to your allegation that "you're sending me a warning without having even seen the subjects in question". Indeed I haven't followed the whole mess along, because it wasn't my intention to get involved in the discussion over content. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a stipulation as to the veracity of my "allegation".--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What I've seen is a pattern of abusive edits on your part. I don't care whether what you wrote is true/accurate or not (that's a problem for the ones watching the articles); that's not the question... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A "true/accurate" edit which is also asserted to be "abusive" represents an oxymoric concept (and terse summaries don't just happen out of the blue, either). Even if such were possible, is it more important that thousands of interenet browsers encounter accurate information, or that the lowest-common-denominator "sensitive" contributor always be placated? I find it very worrisome that an administrator at an encyclopedia would blunty confess to not caring whether articles were true or not--if an encyclopedia isn't expressly in the business of accuracy, I fail to see what the point of the enterprise is. (Question for Lars: Do you consider it evidence of "incivility" on my part for me to harp on the issue of disinterest in accuracy?)--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

but the manner in which you're trying to get your ideas into the articles, and how you're treating others. The user who alerted me is one that I've known for some time, a very fine and knowledgeable contributor, and one who has never been accused of gaming the system or insulting those who disagree. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have no way of defending myself from that statement nor of questioning credibilities...I can only sit in my uncomfortable chair in front of the tribunal and listen to the charges brought forth by unidentified accusors. That, and logically reduce the situation to its principled essentials, which is that another editor is complaining explicitly to get me disciplined, and that the administrator electing to perform the disciplining has no interest in the accuracy of the articles in question, and form my own conclusions regarding what Wikipedia will eventually amount to as truth inexorably becomes the least important aspect of article-creation.

I shall leave the both of you with this: I have *never* gone complaining to an admin about anything -- not even to request an article-Protect. It's not that I am "treated" better by other editors than I treat them in return (a well-toned lie in a revert summary is more offensive to me than a blunt but truthful one); it's just that I have a thick skin and don't need anyone holding my hand. And you've heard, I hope, of the now-old saying Whenever you subsidize something, you will get more of that something-? When whiners are "rewarded" for whining at Wikipedia, you're going to get more whining at Wikipedia, not less.--Mike18xx 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You've been blocked for 48 hours for disruption of article content and dispute resolution processes, multiple unjustified reverts after acknowledging your intention to game the 3RR rule, personal attacks, and vicious unrepentant incivillity in general. I won't engage you anymore with regards to content.

So am I "disrupt(ing) artical content" or not? Frankly, that particular assertion cannot be true unless the content of the article was made more erroneous by my contributions. But no, you don't want to talk about that -- you want make your "contect" accusation, and then RUN from it.--Mike18xx 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dispute with you, and I refuse to follow your excuses for breaking (and mocking) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

It is quite obvious to any dispassionate, logically-endowed observer of these exchanges that you do have a dispute, and that you are indulging in your adminstratorship to perform the indentical sorts of admonishments, here on my talk page, which you would deny to editors elsewhere. While perhaps permitted by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is the very definition of hypocrisy.

When the block is lifted, I hope you'll find a more constructive way to edit. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found a more constructive way to edit -- I reverted blatant propaganda without commentary, but I observe that even this is unsatisfactory. Apparently the litmus-test for an editor being is "constructive" is when there are no complaints regarding him in an administrators in-box (with, as referred to preceeding, all that that entails once censors realize that all they need do is complain voluminously).--Mike18xx 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note, you can still edit your own talk page, and you have an open question before you that I'd like to hear the answer to. I hope you'll give it very serious consideration. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you advocate a Second Holocaust against Muslims?

What a laughable title you have chosen for this, given that the *actual* Holocaust is simultaneously denied and applauded in places like Turkey and Egypt. I suggest that you ought to be more incensed about the fact that "Mein Kampf" is a contemporary best-seller in Turkey, rather than wasting your time with seldom-posting Wikipedia scribes. That is, of course, if holocausts are actually your concern here.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that anti-Semitism in the Muslim world was not home-grown, but a European import.

Wrong. The reason the Grand Mufti of Jerusalim got along so well with the Nazis was because they already shared common interests (which the Nazis were quick to realize and exploit). That there are no Jews or Christians (saved scattered, underground remnants) in Saudi Arabia isn't a result of adopted Nazi mentality.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, where is your source of information on sales of "Mein Kampf" in Turkey? --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a handy little tip that ANYBODY can do: Whenever you see anyone make a claim that you feel is particularly outrageous or unbelievable, you find your way to a search-engine and type in, say, turkey + "mein kampf", and see what happens.

BTW, when replying in-line, please make sure the appropriate number of colons are present.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When on the archive.org comments about The Nazis Strike, another pro-Iraq war poster "esalkin" queried why a similar pro-war propaganda film had not been made for that war, I responded:

Hitler was the popular ruler of a heavily industrialized nation of 80 million people, who controlled a military which man for man was the world's best by a wide margin (thanks to the Prussian military tradition), and who invaded many major Western countries which the Americans held dear (because many Americans had ancestors from those countries).

Saddam was a two-bit thug who shot his way to power in a country of 15 million people with almost no industry (and no resources except oil). Unlike Hitler (and like Stalin) he was an ogre ruling by fear alone and for this reason crippled his army (which wasn't much good to start with, due to Arabs losing their military traditions during the centuries of Turkish rule) by murdering all its best generals (popular generals would be a threat to Saddam's rule, you see). His only foreign wars were against the Islamic Republic of Iran - a country with very few friends in the West - and against Kuwait - a pipsqueak country originally carved artificially from Iraq by British imperialists.

It sickens me how right-wing warmongers accuse their opponents of "appeasement". "Appeasement" means giving concessions to an adversary (as Chamberlain did with the Sudetenland) so they don't attack YOU, not merely the act of abstaining from attacking THEM. If you always reject "appeasement" as defined by the rightists, you turn not into Churchill, but into Hitler.[5]

In response, you wrote:

Hitler's Nazi party bullied its way into power via assassination and intimidation, and maintained itself thusly for nearly ten years before proceeding to overt war. Hussein (who had a soft spot for the Nazis) was an even closer parallel to Joseph Stalin, who assassinated and intimidated his way into power, killed all his best generals, lost a way against a "pipsqueak" country (Finland), and still managed (after getting caught with his pants down in Operation Barbarosa) to field enough men and tanks and planes to have crushed the Nazis in the end even without his allies creating a two-front war via D-Day.

Oh, and the poor, oppressed, "colonized" Arabs? You witless git: It ain't called "Islamofascism" for nothing; and it's been on the warpath for 1,400 years since L. Ron Muhammod formulated divine justification for pillage, homicide, rape and slavery. Welcome to World War IV, stupid.

My reply to this in turn is the Red Army 1941-1945 weren't fighting for communism - they were fighting for sheer survival against a genocidal enemy (and later on for sheer revenge against said enemy).

A splendid example of a false-analogy: Islam doesn't have any genocidal enemies and isn't being attacked. Rather, it is, as it has always been since its inception, the attacker.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you liken Muhammad to the infamous Scientology leader L. Ron Hubbard...

Why does Hubbard (but not Muhammed) rate the label of "infamous" when he hasn't killed anyone or porked any 9 year-old girls?

...and describe "Islamofascism" as having being on the warpath for 14 centuries, it seems like you advocate a war on Islam.

The "war", as it were, is already in progress. The decision which remains is to either respond, join the enemy, or die. Mayberry may be the last place on earth to have to deal with that decision, but it will come nonetheless.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But Islam isn't a tyranny which rules only by sheer terror (like Soviet Communism), or a pure ideology of conquest which is only popular for as long as it is militarily successful (like Nazism).

If that were actually true, apostates from Islam wouldn't have to worry about fatwas authorizing their executions.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of Muslims only practice for fear of execution if they abandon Islam?

I maintain the the "vast majority" of any faith only "practice" due to social ostracism if they do not. In faiths where little if any ostracism exists, the "vast majority" is religious in name only. In places like Saudi Arabia, where the Mutaween (religious police) prowl the streets, you "practice" -- or else.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is your belief, I may rescind the accusation that you are a genocidal maniac. --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is probably the most tenacious ideology which has ever existed, more so than Communism, Nazism, democracy or even Christianity.

Christianity originated as the faith of the persecuted; Islam originated as the Arab-nationalist faith of plundering warmongers. Today, both religions maintain the same roles in Asia and Africa, where Islam attacks while Christians worship in hiding, fearful of the mutaween's breaking in the door. I make the following wager as an atheist: Christianity will outlast Islam because its founding prophet preached virtuous living, while Islam was invented by its founder to justify conquest and slavery).--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that there was no slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia? --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It it obvious that I haven't "told" you that at all, so I fail to see why you're asking me to confirm it.--Mike18xx 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since abandonment of Islam is almost unknown (even the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition failed to convert Muslims in Spain to Catholicism,

This is abject nonsense; see the links below.--Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

...forcing the Spanish monarchs to resort to massacres and expulsions), how would you propose to win a war on Islam short of exterminating a fifth of the world's population?

So I repeat my question again. Do you or do you not advocate the genocide of Muslims? I'm waiting for your response... --GCarty 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What a duplicious question -- It's like asking me if I advocate the genocide of Germans should I maintain that Hitler's Nazis be gunned down as expediently as possible (except that you slyly, in the wording of the question, conflate the identity of both Germans and Nazis into solely the latter term in an attempt to trap me into appearing desireous of murdering innocents).

German military defeat fatally discredited Nazism.

It is truer to say that most Nazis were killed during Germany's military defeat. Aryan supremecy as an ideal, however, remains strong. For instance, it is easy enough for any contemporary Aryan supremacist to argue that Germany was destroyed by other white powers, and that the Russians would have been pushovers if not for Lend Lease.

Aside from that, this foray evades the point I made above.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam isn't so fragile - why didn't French colonial rule end Islam in Algeria, or Russian and Soviet colonial rule end Islam in Central Asia?

They didn't follow the advice I list below. There's also the factor of they're not offering anything "new & improved" to the inhabitants of the region. I.e., neither communism nor French colonialism are marketable selling points. Additionally, they made the mistake of assuming that Algeria, Afghanistan, et al, were individual nations rather than merely appendages of a Shariah octopus.

Aside from that, extremism *is* fragile as a dominant ideology -- it must continually "make examples" in the forms of beatings, executions, etc., in order to remain dominant, rather than a softer, more tolerant (i.e., less "faithful") version become adopted by peoples more interested in the affairs of their lives than those of insane mullahs. The Aztec cult had survived for centuries; it did not survive a few years of the Spanish killing its priests and razing the temples across all of Central America.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons why denazification was successful was because the West Germans couldn't defy the Western Allies without throwing themselves into Stalin's jaws. Methinks we need a "Soviet Union" - in this case a superpower ally so viciously anti-Islamic that Muslims would accept Western occupation as the lesser evil. --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

History affords no example of a totalitarianism more extreme than that Islamic totalitarianism; it's brutalities (most barely documented, such as the horrific slaughter of millions of Hindus and Buddhists during the conquest of the northwestern Indian subcontinent) are unmatached. Literally, it represents a de-evolution of homo sapiens in that anyone with a spark of independence, creativity or initiative is liable to be murdered, hounded into exile, or crushed into silence. It's as if a farmer destroyed his best seed, leaving the worst from which to plant next year's crop.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regards Islam itself, it is an excellent example of what happens when a supernaturally-obsessed Hitler wins his wars of plunder and supremacism while declaring himself the agent of divinity, and his psychotic followers have 1,400 years to polish his lying, murdering, thieving, slave-mongering, pedophilic image in their taqiyya propaganda marketed to kafirs. There is, to be sure, plenty of lingering shiny, happy "religion of peace" Islam out there (mainly as a social-inertia remnant of civilized attitudes among conquered populations), but the jihadis are doing there damnedest to stamp that out now in dozens of countries. They, after all, know their religion a helluvalot better than you do.

Regards what ought to be done? Why, that's the absolutely easy part -- and the examples of how to do it, easily, are already a matter of historical record (e.g., the destruction of the Thugee and Aztec slavery and murder cults). Namely, round up and execute every so-called priest preaching slaughter (with that being the litmus test), and raze their temples to the ground. The present business in Iraq is an exercise in complete imbecility -- akin to playing the computer game "Gauntlet" and trying to win by never destroying a "generator", but only the endless stream of monsters they spew.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=apostasy

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=apostasy

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004748.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005050.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005051.php

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm --Mike18xx 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the company you keep.

I fail to see what you mean by that crack. Jihadwatch is run by Catholic theologian Robert Spencer; FaithFreedom is run by irreligious apostates. While opposed to Islamic depravities, they have little in common otherwise. If you were truly interested, you'd pop the hood rather than being fascinated by the paint.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong about "no group of people abandoning Islam" - the Gaugaz of Moldavia converted to Orthodoxy in order to settle as refugees in Russia. But the rule "no de-Islamification without ethnic cleansing" is still true in general. --GCarty 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the jihadis are concerned, anyone not following strict Shariah has "abandoned Islam". In a strict sense, that means every "Muslim" on Earth who isn't dressed properly at all times, down on his knees five times a day, and doing his (violent) part to establish the Universal Caliphate. Essentially, the great bulk of "Muslims" are de-facto "de-Islamified" at any given time, and the task of the Mutaween and the Jahidis is to beat and murder them back into compliance.--Mike18xx 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored warnings, how to archive

You should not remove warnings, especially grave warnings and block notices, from your talk page. Saving links to previous versions of this page is not helpful; see WP:ARCHIVE for instructions on how to properly archive past discussions (you can check my own talk page for an example). In any case, the old version you saved does not include the latest warnings you received. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that you never answered the question I posed here [6] which is a yes or no question. I'm going to take your answer, by default, as no, meaning that you do not acknowledge you have a civility problem, and that you do not intend to try to do better, and I will act accordingly.

I will never indulge a "have you stopped beating your wife?" query in the affirmative.--Mike18xx 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I also note you're apparently reverting reverting without discussion,

Is there a need for that when the edit being revert was itself a revert of consensus, and performed by either an anonymous IP address (and suspected sock-puppet) or new user without a user history, and said initial revert also was performed without discussion? Are you now taking me to task over "bread and butter" activities which every Wiki editor is expected to perform?--Mike18xx 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

and you need to not do that either, edit warring will get you blocked. So will removal of this notice except via a proper archiving of your entire page. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's "warring"? I am restoring accurate information to an article, which, insofar as I aware, falls within the job description of an editor of an encyclopedia.--Mike18xx 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Brian Leiter?

Mike18xx, while User:Lar's choice of words strongly suggests he's trying to provoke you into giving him excuse for a much longer ban,

If he is, I prefer to identify those sorts of people right away.--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

he does have a point about uncommunicative edit summaries when reverting and so on. Like him, you might benefit from reading WP:NAM slowly. (I need to reread it myself!)

Virtually all articles on Wikipedia routinely feature reverts of reverts done without commentary...because it is obvious, with the least examination, that the initial instance was vandalism and the second instance was restoration. If an administrator is going to go so far as to use that as the latest excuse to selectively punish an editor for other alleged infractions, well, as I stated above, I prefer to identify those sorts of people right away.--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You may have heard of a blogger named Brian Leiter who systematically insults and belittles everyone to the right of Noam Chompsky, for reasons he explains here. Would you please read that? And then ask yourself whether you want to be regarded as a right-wing Brian Leiter?

I don't who Brian Leiter is, and I will further add that anyone who thinks that I am "right-wing" not only isn't paying attention, but performing leaps of speculation under the assumption that all viewpoints can be shoehorned into That Great False-Dichotomy of Our Times, the phony "left-right" political spectrum.--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are disdainful of Lar because you work on articles about the big issue of the our age while Lar's wikihobby is little colored plastic blocks;

(Huh?)--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

nevertheless, he's right about the importance of discussing reverts, writing good edit summaries and all those other little chores which are so tedious in the short term but so necessary in the long term. One of the marks of wisdom is knowing that you can learn from nearly everyone, even those who seem like fools.

You'd be surprised what I learn every day around here. (I gather, however, that some would prefer that what was learned had remained unlearned.)--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read m:Immediatism, m:Incrementalism and m:Eventualism? (Aside: it's interesting how people naturally divide into these identifiable groups — I was a mergist before I'd read the word.) I wonder if you are suffering from Extreme Immediatism.

No.--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If so, I suggest that you take some time to do a cost/benefit analysis of

shoving articles towards accuracy in big jumps but without consensus, versus

When you "point-jump" into a five-second appraisal of an edit, without examining the article history, it is indeed possible to come to the erroneous conclusion that the edit represents a wholesale change, when it in fact merely represents reversion of a mass edit of someone else undertaken without consensus.--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

nudging articles towards accuracy in small jumps while developing consensus.

These are pragmatic arguments, not ethical or judgemental ones. By definition, they are "calorie-free" regards the crux of the matter: article accuracy. Aside from that, I edit in both styles.--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, I don't think Wikipedia articles on contentious issues are likely to persuade many readers,

On the contrary, it is perceived that they persuade a great many people (particularly when the entries are mirrored by dozens of "search" and "answer" websites which basically "rip" Wiki) -- which is exactly why they are "contentious", and attracting of the attention of would-be censors and propagandists. Be that as it may, ihe inability of a Wiki article to persuade is not an excuse for it to remain in error for "reasonable" amounts of time according to a pragmatist -- since "reasonable error" is an oxymoron.--Mike18xx 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

whereas discussions on our talk pages have persuaded editors (not often, I admit, but sometimes). (By the way, I've been wondering for months: does your username have anything to do with these games?)

Yes.

Best wishes, CWC(talk) 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't have time for a proper response to your comments, but I will note that (1) you're completely right about the left-right spectrum and (2) your second-last response ("On the contrary ...") is probably at the heart of the matter. Cheers, CWC(talk) 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike the issue here is fundamentally as Chris spotted it. WP does not exist to get a particular point of view across and your actions and statements give the impression of POV pushing. Incivilly, to boot. You need to change your fundamentaly approach, as several users have politely explained, or you won't fit in here and you'll be asked to leave. Internalise that, or don't, but the choice is yours. I think you've already made it. I think pushing your POV nastily is too important to you for you to change. Too important for you to align yourself with the wiki way. The little girl in the congo 5 years from now on her hand cranked laptop doesn't need your POV. She needs all the facts we can give her presented neutrally so she can make her own determiniation. I don't think you get that. Prove me wrong. But sooner rather than later, please, as I think I've already got enough to go for an "exhausted the communities patience" permanent block if there are no signs of improvement. Prove me wrong. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar, my "POV", as it were, is that article accuracy is the paramount concern of an encyclopedia. The little girl in the Congo with her laptop isn't going to be encountering my POV unless she has an exceptional interest in browsing edit-field commentaries, and discussion and user pages. Lastly, "all the facts we can give her presented neutrally" should not be constued as a euphemism for "50/50 mixtures of truth and demonstrable error glued together with moral-equivalence logical-fallacies" (and there a LOT of articles here which are basically just that).--Mike18xx 05:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Working to remove bias and non neutral points of view is a laudable goal. But the problem here is that in so working, we have to do so collegially, and we have to do so by avoiding revert warring, and we have to do so by working for consensus. Looking at your edit history over the last two days, and spot checking some of your contributions, what I am seeing is a pattern of non-collegial comments, revert warring and generally (but not exclusively) reasserting things in article space instead of editing talk pages to work to consensus first. This pattern concerns me as it indicates a continuance of your previous ways. I'd ask you to stop and reconsider. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anything to say?

Could you please leave other editors' comments alone and reply after them, instead of inside them? It makes the text very difficult to follow. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Because that would make point-by-point rebuttal impossible. Like, for instance, this one.--Mike18xx 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You already got what you apparently most like, which is attention. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My, what an "incivil" insult. If only I were an administrator, I could also get away with this kind of hypocrisy.Mike18xx 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since your slate is not clean, you should be trying to be extra-careful, even in cases where you might feel entitled to yell tu quoque! at other editors for being revert-quick or summary-sloppy. And mind your words too. Next time you call me or any other person a "whiner" or a "whine appeaser" or anything of the sort, you will be blocked again. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if they're whining, specifically for the purpose of getting a contrarian editor blocked? "Whine" is just as wholly arbitrary as "civil", Pablo. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.--Mike18xx 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody can get anybody blocked. You must get blocked yourself, and it really takes some work getting blocked in Wikipedia. The question, as Lar asked before, is whether you'll go on like this (the revert-insult-argument-block cycle) or try to behave differently for a change, just to see what happens. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re replying to long comments, here's an idea I've found useful: insert (1), (2), (3) etc in the existing comment, then use those numbers to indicate precisely which parts of that comment you're replying too. Just a suggestion. Cheers, CWC(talk) 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

Hi Mike18xx,

I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks --Reza1 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. --Reza1 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you've done a good job...but the real problem will be the "pro/con" can of worms you've re-opened (previously closed last winter), and how far they'll slither around every day once you've gone off to edit other articles. I suspect that, in the end, it will quickly devolve into yet another tendentious Islam-related article repeatedly vandalized by sock-puppet propagandists, and that, in the end, that section will have to be flushed again for reasons expounded months ago in discussion.--Mike18xx 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the section seems fairly balanced. --Aminz 04:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Lewis

Would you please read the source before reverting back my edit. You can find the article by Lewis here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html .

Lewis says: "Both the Old and New Testaments recognize and accept the institution of slavery."... "The Qur'an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery. It regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it." --Aminz 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Lewis says "far-reaching effects". It is WP:OR to remove the quote. --Aminz 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The erroneous insinuation is that the Bible also "regulates the practice" (of slavery). "It", particularly the New Testament, does not. I will persistantly delete any vague attempts to equate the Quran and Bible along these particular lines.--Mike18xx 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this exchange belongs on the article's discussion page, not here.--Mike18xx 04:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Audience note: discussion has moved to Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#Bernard_Lewis.27s_quote_on_Slavery

Hello again. When I followed that link, I was suprised and alarmed to see you arguing that it would be wrong to use Bernard Lewis as an authoritative source on the subject of Islam. I strongly believe that giving our readers a summary of the work of people like Lewis is precisely what an encyclopedia should do — isn't that the underlying principle behind the ban on Original Research? We have a duty to present the views of the notable experts in relevant fields to our readers, even when we think those views are wrong (see WP:NPOV). I've certainly found myself typing some offensive falsehoods into Wikipedia articles because the basic rules of Wikipedia required those lies to be presented. If you can't live within those basic rules, perhaps you should reconsider your involvement with Wikipedia. I'd much rather see you work within the Wikipedia system than cease editing here, so please consider this a friendly suggestion. Best wishes, CWC(talk) 01:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR notice

BTW, Please be aware that you have either already passed the 3rr, or have made exactly 3rr on the criticism of Islam article. Please don't revert the article anymore. --Aminz 08:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Please be aware that you have either already passed the 3rr, or have made exactly 3rr on the criticism of Islam article. Please don't revert the article anymore. --Mike18xx 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:D --Aminz 09:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for a week

Mike, you've disregarded input from many different well meaning editors about how things ought to be done here. This edit [7] and many others, show that you are having a hard time operating collegially. You have been blocked for a week. Please take time to reflect on the need to operate collegially and civilly. "smear" is just never a term to use when trying to do that. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)k

Lar? First things, first: You're *gunning* for me, and have been for quite some time -- and we both know it. So, IMO, your position here is one of BAD FAITH. AFAIAC, all of your arguments to date have been "just for show" for all the people popping on by this user page without much of a clue what's going on. Regards "smear", that wasn't in reference to an editor, but to his source -- and it's a demonstrable fact. Furthermore, you are clearly holding me a standard (ha!) far in excess of at least half the other participants in the various Islam-related threads.

Yes, Wikipedia is well on its way to becoming Meccapedia, where topics like Islam and Slavery will consist of not much other than various passages from the Qu'ran instructing Muslims to be nice to their slaves. Oh, but you'll be lord and master over the dungheap, standing proud atop the pile crowing like a dawn rooster, with one-week bans for anybody who complains about the smell!--Mike18xx 18:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is to play by the rules. Be civil, even nice, even in the face of insults. Compromise on minor interpretation points if it allows you to get the facts right. Don't game the system, and do tell on whoever does so, even if you feel like you're "whining" because of it, like you yourself called it a while ago. Avoid terms like "smear", "propaganda", "dungheap", and neological compounds starting with "Mecca". Avoid the tu quoque defense. And for your own sake, step down from your self-assumed heroic stand as Defender of Wikipedia. Get other people to help you keep the articles properly NPOV, but distance yourself immediately from the sadly abundant anti-Muslims and Islam-haters, who will not help your cause. Use fewer, more to-the-point words. Vent your rage elsewhere (a blog maybe?). I don't know. Please. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting a blog might be a good idea for another reason: I think you would find easier to explain, expound and promote your views (some of which I share) on a blog than within the confines of a collaborative encyclopedia. Just a suggestion. Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Congress Foundation edit

Hi Mike. I have a suggestion for you which I put in Talk:Free_Congress_Foundation. Let me know what you think. LeoO3 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Whitegold.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitegold.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Slavery arab world.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Slavery arab world.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

[edit] Edit Summaries

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you lie through your teeth like that?--Mike18xx 06:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? BhaiSaab ^talk 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

When you said "Thanks and happy editing", you were lying.--Mike18xx 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You should read WP:AGF. I will not respond to such a silly accusation. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Mitrokinh related debate

Care to weigh in? Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front#RFC. Torturous Devastating Cudgel

[edit] Regarding reversions[8] made on September 27, 2006 to Mutaween

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.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 19:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contribute

Hi, I'd welcome contributions to Persecution of Christians regarding this Mutaween stuff from you if you want. But please keep the edits impartial.Hkelkar 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Telling the truth makes you "unacceptably biased" from the perspective of the "Muslim Guild" which has hijacked Meccapedia.--Mike18xx 06:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the article

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy

It is tough to get your article deleted, I have had several deleted myself, User_talk:Travb/Archive_6#Deleted_pages_which_I_created I am sorry that it was deleted, did you move it to wikisource? Travb (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility again

Your rants against Muslim Wikipedia editors and your final comments on the above AfD show that you haven't learned anything about civility, yet. I'm not trying to ellicit a response, civil or otherwise, from you (though you seem to have one ready every time...), lest you think I'm trying to provoke you. Be aware that those watching your actions have been extremely lenient as of late. This is a warning that that ends now. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1851components.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1851components.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/k/User_talk%7EMike18xx_653a.html"