User talk:Eaglizard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Brother Maynard 2 Personal attacks (Re: Freemasonry (disc)) 3 Cosmic, dude 4 Rainbows 5 trying for neutrality 6 The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad 7 RfArb\Lightbringer 8 ROSTA 9 Re: No offense (I hope) 10 one good turn.. 11 User:Lightbringer 12 Aladin 13 Sockpuppetry? 14 New type of spam 15 Hello 16 hi friend 17 Hello 18 Belated thanks ... 19 WikiProject Dallas 20 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 21 Comments I posted to you on my talk in reponse to your comments (at the time I was still blocked :)

[edit] Brother Maynard

I'm curious about the 'Brother Maynard' reference you used in Merge/Bible_verses. I think I've heard it before, but can't remember where it's from... Also, is this the appropriate way to ask a question like this? I'm new to Wikipedia, and I didn't see an email address for you... Eaglizard 03:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a reference to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." And yes, this is how you send a message to another Wikipedian. Welcome to the project! Smerdis of Tlön 05:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks (Re: Freemasonry (disc))

I was shocked to see your gross name-calling in Talk:Freemasonry recently, and having now seen the excellence of your User page, esp. your point #4, I am completely flabbergasted. Referring to his edits as "affronts and pointless drivel". describing in detail his "narrow mind", and calling him directly a "cowardly dim-wit" lacking "bollocks" ... what exactly do you consider that, if not personal attack??

And please bear in mind that, after reading that whole talk page, I agree almost completely with your asessment. Surely you can see that even in this case personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia. Consider that Lightbringer is bloody unlikely to be at all moved by your insults, thus the only thing you've damaged is your own reputation. Eaglizard 05:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First up, new posts on talk or discussion pages should always go on the bottom of the page in question. As for your allegations that personal attacks were made, there was no person involved therefore the attacks cannot be considered 'personal'. An anonymous person was making frivelous abusive posts on the discussion page. If you feel my words were harsh, so be it. I'm not losing any sleep over it, so for your sake I hope you don't.

I probably did get a bit too emotive, but taking into account the large amounts of vandalism, defacement and abuse we get on the article in question, not to mention the fact that every vandal quotes the same trivial evidence and has the same mentality and attitude that the facts are just 'a masonic conspiracy to silence the truth', you must come to understand that one does get quite frustrated, especially when we have no custodians or admins amongst those who maintain the article, which I might add is one of Wikipedia's finest. Jachin 06:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrective; I'll remember to add to the bottom (it's the opposite of my own inclinations, but convention is important, isn't it :).

On the other hand, I disagree with your assesment on two grounds: a) unless 'contributor' is defined as 'logged-in registered user', your insults violated No personal attacks, and b) clearly, a person posted those comments; claiming that their anonymity robs them of their personhood is .. well.. disingenous, maybe? Anyways, I won't lose sleep either, I promise. I meant the word 'flabbergasted' literaly -- not 'offended', or 'upset' -- just surprised, b/c you're clearly a reasonable and smart kinda person yourself. Sorry if I seemed emotive; I just find the relative lack of personal attack one of the finer points of the Wikipedia community, and now I've started contributing, perhaps I jump too quick on this particular point.Eaglizard 07:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You're definately correct, I did write too harshly and get too shat off by what was going on. In a way I'm tempted to recommend you go back through the edits of the article and see how much annoying vandalism we get, but realistically for your sanities sake it's not worth the effort. But yeah, we get a LOT of rubbish piled up. It's always the same stuff by the same type of people. Most born-again Christian cults lambaste Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism as they see them as 'the system'. All zealous revolutionary organisations target on appealing to mass audiences by 'sticking it to the man' in some way, so when it comes to philosophy or theology, you'll find these daily invented cults will attack FM and the RC church.

The most frustrating thing is, it's always based on the same circumstantial evidence, same misquoted texts and same hoaxs which have been time and time again scientifically debunked as nothing but propaganda. Yet, that being said, the second you attempt to educate these misguided fools you're instantly abused as being a masonic sock puppet, or just too uneducated or too lowly to 'see the truth'. After a while you can't help but take it personally and get annoyed by it to some degree.

Thus, I think it's time I take a back seat in dealing with vandals. I've had a gutfull and I can't see things getting any better from here on in. Again, I appreciate your feedback.  :) Jachin 21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page for ease of access.)

[edit] Cosmic, dude

Hi, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I appreciate you coming back to Cosmic ray deflection society AfD and clearing up what you meant. I apologise for telling you to get a life, but at the same time I think I was being moderately refrained, given the type of passion you had shown. I certainly do understand that you were just frustrated -- I should have recognised it considering how often I feel the same way. I'm putting this here instead of the page in the interests of keeping it from getting ridiculously cluttered (if it isn't already). Anyway, you contribute heaps to the site, so I also wanted to let you know that I appreciate that, too. --Qirex 06:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbows

I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding the practical difference between "rainbows in mythology" and "rainbow mythology"? The more I think about it, the only difference I can think of is the former might include references to rainbows as rainbows in mythological stories while the latter arguably would be limited to stories attempting to explain something about the nature of rainbows (e.g. "there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow," "the rainbow is a bridge or stairway to heaven," "the rainbow is a sign that God will not destroy the earth by flooding," etc.) Crypticfirefly 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] trying for neutrality

The anti freemasonry page is ment to be like the anti semitism page.

However since some people think it's ok to attack Masons as this and that since they are not per say a religious or ethnic group I decided it would best to limmit the amount of things added to the page which refer to events which (as far as can be proven) started after 1960.

grazon 00:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad

Just listed the article for deletion; check it out.--csloat 07:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb\Lightbringer

As you entered the information on the talk page for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, I'm directing this at you: I was very confused trying to follow that, especially the talk page -- apparently there was a previous (malformed?) RfArb that's been transferred to the talk page? In any case,

• Numerous dated comments on both the project and talk pages are in no apparent date order, and many comments are dated several days before the RfAr was filed. Would it be possible to insert some commentary to clarify this? - Eaglizard 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That was the state of the Request. The rendition on the talk page is meant to be a copy and stay a copy. The arbitrators may edit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer and those who made statements can modify them. As to dates, it is ok to bring material from a Request for comment which had been previously been dated. Fred Bauder 15:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROSTA

Done. See Image:Rostaposter mayakowski.jpg. mikka (t) 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: No offense (I hope)

No offense taken, I hope you saw the comments I left at Talk:Freemasonry. As I said, I'm mainly there to revert, so not editing it is quite okay with me, despite the fact I doubt Lightbringer will follow that. -- Spinboy 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] one good turn..

deserves another.. thanks for innaugurating my discusison page. i got a pleasant surprise to see i interested someone. cheers! Tiksustoo 00:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lightbringer

He's back and POV pushing on Anti-Freemasonry. -- Spinboy 03:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

He's extremely vexatious. -- Spinboy 03:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aladin

Hi, you're invited to comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aladin. Cheers! Peter S. 17:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry?

Given your comments elsewhere, I though you might find this interesting. --Centauri 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New type of spam

Thanks - per the general rule on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) that the reward for noticing something is a request to do somethign about it, I'm going to ask you to do some follow-up steps; there are a number of methods of dealing with this new type of spam that we should get working.

1. Add a mention of it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam page; that's the central place for anti-spam fighters at Wikipedia, and it should be mentioned there. You might also add it to the entry on Wikipedia:Vandalism about spam.
2. Tell User:Tawker to add the inclusion of "div style="display:none"" to the list of things his anti-vandalism bot User:Tawkerbot2, reverts on sight.
3. Tell the CVU folks (contact User:Essjay) to add the display:none trick to their list of watchwords, for their bots that pick out likely vandalism.
4. Add display:none to User:Lupin/badwords, Lupin's list of words flagged by his anti-vandalism tool.
5. File a bug in Mediazilla (sorry, I'm not sure where the best link is for that, google for it) asking that external links in hidden div's be automatically un-linked. I'm not sure if this is technically feasible, but if it is, it would be good to do.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head - if I think of more things to do, I'll let you know. Thanks again for noticing that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey eaglizard how are you? And were did ya come from? I appreciate your opinion but why leave the occult links and take away the "greek" pagan philosophy ones? Hey if you could reply on the monad talk page. Thanks LoveMonkey 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi friend

thank you very much for your contribution to the Spiritism article. --Sgodth 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

As someone who's had a hand in the Entropia Universe article, I'd like to converse with you about an Anonymous user who is continually editting any sort of negativity out of the article. I'm concerned that this might degenerate into an edit war as they deleted a hefty section of the talk page too.

As someone with more experience than I, could I enlist your help?

AvanniaRayzor 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks ...

I just wanted to say thank you personally for the edits you did to Nazareth and Mary's Well. You didn't muck things up at all. I took a little hiatus from Wikipedia after some heated editing battles at Operation Summer Rain. But I'm back for now and thankful for your help and welcome. See you around! Tiamut 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Dallas

Hi! I've noticed you've made significant edits to Dallas-related articles. If you are interested in joining, WikiProject Dallas would love to have you! Just add your name to the list at the project page to join. Happy editing.. drumguy8800 C T 07:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Comments I posted to you on my talk in reponse to your comments (at the time I was still blocked :)

Hey there Eaglizard. Long time, no see. It is true that many Arabs have excellent language skills, partially becase Arabic is so damn hard - it makes other languages seem like a piece of cake. But I have to admit that English is right up there, almost a mother tongue, since it was spoken at home alongside Arabic (both my parents are Palestinian, but they thought English was important to learn). I did all my university studies in English (got my MA in New York, a BA in Montreal, started my PhD but never finished it:) I now work as an editor (paid editor and consultant that is) for Israeli academics. Thanks by the way, for you general words of support, though I have to say I don't think I did violate 3RR. I will definitely be more careful in the future and refrain from making edits that are close to previous ones I have made if I am approaching 3 edits that could be interpreted as reverts in 24hrs. I think that's prudent, not only because of the policy, but because I find edit warring so counterproductive. I'll try to spend more time building consensus for changes on the talk. I already do that a lot, but I guess I just have to try harder and not get frustrated when my my thorough, well-researched and logical presentations of fact and just thrown down the trash bin but those whose POV is offended. Anyway, nice to hear from you after all this time and see that you're still around and kicking. Cheers. Tiamut 10:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)