User talk:65.185.183.202

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link.
  • Your own user page.
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address.
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you.
  • The ability to start new pages.
  • The ability to rename pages.
  • The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
  • The ability to upload images.
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
  • The eligibility to become an administrator.
  • The right to be heard in votes and elections.
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~. DES (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, please don't use weasel words in the USA PATRIOT Act article. Also, quoting someone not directly related to the Act is frowned upon - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] USA PATRIOT Act

I hope you've had a chance to see the responses to your comment at Wikipedia:Help desk#Idiotic Administrators on Wikipedia. I hope your future visits to Wikipedia are more fruitful and I hope you become a long term contributor. -Quasipalm 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Battlemonk 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about recent edits

In regard to your recent edits, please review Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Thank you for your contributions, however wikipedia really requires that users maintain a neutral point of view. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA PATRIOT Act

Hey,

It should be evident to you by now that evangelism of specific viewpoints isn't well-regarded on Wikipedia.

Some people that have asked you to cut it out actually agree with you. Some people don't. But readers of articles on here don't need expository text on how they should feel about a specific topic. The truth will either speak for itself, or it won't.

As for one of your comments, freedom of information is not the same as freedom to evangelize. Any relevant, encyclopedic, unslanted and verifiable fact is welcome. I think you'll enjoy contributing a whole lot more if you take the time to read some of the links that folks here have shared with you about editing style and process on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, just hit up my talk page. But don't go out of your way to antagonize people with personal attacks if you can possibly help it. It doesn't leave you any better than it found you :)

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More notes on your edits

You should also note the policy against personal attacks which you violate when you refer to other editors or administrators as "an idiot" or "a total retard". *Dan T.* 05:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help desk discussion

(copied from User talk:DESiegel):

Thanks for the reply in the help desk. You seem to be the only person that is of some help to me. Maybe that is because you seem to agree with my "opinion". To me it is not an opinion and I was stating how alot of critics feel. The quote from Benjamin Franklin needs to be in the critic section. I will try to post from some "authoritarian" source who has spoken out in the media as you suggested. There seems to be a majority of people on Wikipedia who defend the patriot act and can't accept any outside views. Why is there even a critic section in the article if no opposing views are allowed in the article? If I was to edit it and put in a source that is legit then what do I do if it gets deleted again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.183.202 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC-5)

Let me be clear -- I would have removed the edit in question too. In my experience on wikipedia, people who have generally "left-wing" views and oppose the so called patriot act outnumber the ones who support it. I agree that the Franklin quote is relevant -- I used it when speaking at my local township council in support of an anti-patriot act resolution -- and it cost me votes when i ran for council the next year. But on Wikipedia it is simply not good enough to report what "everyone says" or what "many critics allege". Opnions need to be attributed to specifc people, and a source cited that shows that thsoe people in fact expressed that opnion. Find a nbes story where soemone discussign the patriot act used that BF quote -- and there must be lots of such stories, because the quote has been much used -- then cite that! The critics section should be for views from specifc named critics, not generaic unverifiable "many critics say". I hope this helps. DES (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If you put in an attributed, sourced, adn relevant comment, I'll gladly help you defend it from anyone who wants to remove it. I can assure you the TBDY, the admin who removed the previous comment, will not remove that kind of content from an article. DES (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
And please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildas (like this ~~~~. Thanks DES (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Franklin

Why do you find it so necessary to vandalize all articles related to the USA PATRIOT ACT with an obscure quote by Ben Franklin? Have you actually read the quote? It is push for anarchy. Example: We have the right to bear arms. I can walk down the street with my rifle. But, I cannot take it into a bank. Why not? For the safety of workers and patrons inside the bank. Allowing firearms will put them at high risk of being in the middle of an armed robbery. So, according to old Ben, if we accept laws restricting our freedom to carry firearms into banks, we do not deserve freedom or protection. Sounds more like an ass than a great founding father to me. --Kainaw (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/5/2E/User_talk%7E65.185.183.202.html"