User talk:Moral Clarity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 your User page info 2 Vandalism 3 NPOV 4 GO ahead and incert your POV edits, no one seeoms to care anyway 5 3RR violation 6 JoeM

[edit] your User page info

Just a question out of curiousity, but, when you say "take out" do you mean by war/force of arms or by more diplomatic/political means? It sounds like you want Bush to essentially declare a World War III on anything non-democratic/capitalist... but maybe I misinterpreted it? Anyway, very interesting stuff... Master Thief Garrett 08:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, America will only be secure until every opponent of democracy and capitalism is taken out. Some of our enemies are so implacable and evil (such as the Axis of Evil, the Outpost of Tyranny, and Communist China) that freedom can only be defended through armed force. Others are just corrupt, degenerate, cowardly sleaze (such as Old Europe and Canada). Because they are so cowardly, they will bend under the sligest pressure, and we will thus be able to secure our liberty through economic and diplomatic pressure alone. Moral Clarity 09:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also out of curiosity... how long do you think the UK would stay an ally when the US would nuke France, as per your suggestion? DarkSkywise 04:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that you have been submitted for a "Vandalism in Progress" warning. As part of this free speech e-democracy we enjoy here, please do feel free to plead your case, if you wish of course, at Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress#User:Moral Clarity. Master Thief Garrett 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV and follow it, or action will be taken. Meelar (talk) 08:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Facts come before NPOV. I will not tolerate historical revisionism. Moral Clarity 08:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, facts BUT they MUST be presented/worded as NPOV. You must be very careful when writing not to misword something in a way that sounds anti-anything, you must do your best to write like a soulless "answer drone". A POV theme should NOT cause removal of facts, but the facts MUST be written in an NPOV manner to begin with. Master Thief Garrett 08:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GO ahead and incert your POV edits, no one seeoms to care anyway

Go Ahead and add your exterem pov edits. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is that because everyone has realized that my facts are NPOV, while your historical revisionism is POV? Moral Clarity 09:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nono, quite the opposite, he's NPOV and you're POV without the N, but we have the handy-dandy revert function so your muck can be cleared as quickly as possible. I'm watching your "contributions" (*sniggers*) like a hawk. Let me be clear about this, NONE of your objectionable and unneccessary POV additions will escape revertion, either by me or by someone else. ooops, look, one I was just about to revert myself was fixed by someone else while I was wasting my time writing this to you! See, the system works. Good old democracy, eh? Master Thief Garrett 09:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

You have violated the three revert rule by adding back your claim that Zapatero allied with "communist tyrants" three times ([1]). Please refrain from adding the comment again. Instead, discuss changes you intend to make on the article's talk page, and consider rewording the statement you want to make in the light of WP's NPOV policy. Failure to comply will result in a 24hrs block. I wouldn't want this to happen. Cheers. Phils 18:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JoeM

I don't think this is JoeM. JoeM can write proper English. RickK 04:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you may be right... but if he's not, then what is he, a JoeM fanboy? I dread the thought of such a thing even existing... but the bottom line is that the core "conquer anyone that's not like us!" info is verbatim, including typos. Master Thief Garrett 04:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but besides what Master Thief Garrett points out, this edit to Islam is exactly what JoeM tried nearly two years ago. Either he is back, having learned nothing, or he has an uncannily good imitator. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)