User talk:71.162.64.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 71.162.64.194). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan

We strive for a neutral point of view in Wikipedia. We also have a policy of verifiability. I think you will have a hard time finding a source which proves that the Klan is inherently evil. I also know that your statement was factually incorrect as not all Klan members are murderers, just as not all White, Black, Muslim, or Christian people are murderers. I think the actions and recorded opinions of the Klan speak clearly enough for themselves. You don't need to embellish the article with your own hatred. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are too closed minded. You say that "not all klan members etc.". I meant the Klan as a whole. Fine, if you don;t want the first sentence to say what I put. Put it about 1/3 of the way down or so, that's a fair compromise. I'll check back soon for this change, and I'm glad we were able to reach an agreement :) !—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.64.194 (talk • contribs) 02:52, April 23, 2006 (UTC)From WAvegetarian's talk

I'm glad that you have confidence in your abilities, but the simple statement by one party of their point of view doesn't equate with agreement. We also have a policy of consensus. If you would like to make a major change—I would consider defining something as inherently evil and accusing a social club of insitutionalized murder major—to a controversial article, it is customary to get a consensus on the relavent talk page, in this case Talk:Ku Klux Klan. I am playing devil's advocate here, because I definitely don't agree with the Ku Klux Klan's views, but this is a neutral encyclopedia. Their actions speak much louder than your words will. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I am new to this wikipedia and this english language, but my words don't speak loudly? THey are typed what do I need to do, use capitals or some such device? more exclamation points? ALso I suggest we launch a website together with the objective being to create such a consenseus as you speak of. We can call it agreement.com or kkkisevil.com or maybe kkk.com if it isn't taken. I must be bringing up the point of view that if we make a consensus of users of the wikipedia then we are more or less limiting the vote on what can and can't be put to a certain group of people. Is this not why your Americans came to America at first? So all people could speak? I think maybe we should put in that the KKK is evil and see what problems people have with it, if there are any problems. Maybe just leave it there for a week or so. I will agree to your claims, you can put it 1/3 of the way down the page again if you think that it is being wise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.64.194 (talk • contribs) 03:14, April 23, 2006 (UTC)From WAvegetarian's talk
(edit conflict)It is a common English expression to say, "Actions speak louder than words." Please note that:
  1. Wikipedia is an English Language encyclopedia, not a United States encyclopedia.
  2. "My Americans go back to the fourth person born in the Jamestown on one side and religiously persecuted Eastern Europeans just a few generations back on the other side. So no, that isn't why they came.
  3. There is no voting because voting is evil and Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Having just received another message, I will respond to that as well. I am not judging you based on edits to the John Tesh article. What you added to the Pikachu page seemed to say that both the characters mentioned and homosexual people are bad or not normal. If you cited some sources for this apparently widespread belief—I had never heard pikachu called gay before—then it would be fine. Back to the KKK, I understand that you have strong feelings about them. I do as well. I had, not quite as, strong feelings about rival high schools to mine, but that is why I aboid editing those articles. Every edit you make must be from a neutral point of view. This is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. If you can't be neutral editing an article, then you shouldn't edit it.
One last note, signing should be done by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. This will create a stamp with your Wikipedia identifier, in this case your IP address since you haven't registered yet, and the time. It will also have a link to your talk page, making communication easier. Please see below for a welcome message with more info about registration.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I must be bringing up the point of view that if we make a consensus of users of the wikipedia then we are more or less limiting the vote on what can and can't be put to a certain group of people. From WAvegetarian's talk

You misunderstand. Votes themself do no matter, it's the reasoning why you voted a particular way. Your opinions and the opinions of other editors are what provide concensus. This is not a democracy, and yes obviously prejudicial votes will not be counted. You are not wrong about the Klan as a whole having an evil connotation but that is informative, not encyclopedic. There is a difference. I also understand that language issues may cause you to misunderstand WAvegetarian's approach, the user is being very civil and working things out with you, you are not being criticized. Teke 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning for putting in such information is that I believe it to be true! Is it not that a person who disagrees with myself has as much prejudice as I do? How can such editors ever provide consensus, if there is no right nor wrong? Why cannot all information be put on? Perhaps you should allow the information to tay for a while longer than it was staying, and in the event that an editor disagrees, it is now that a consensus must be reached? The opinions stated on the wikipedia should be greater than that of the wikipedia editors? Otherwise it is not a user-made encyclopedia, it is just one of the opinions of but a few people. Can you assure diversity in the opinions of your editors is as great as that in your users? You must include what is right instead of waht is accepted, but that is beside the point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.64.194 (talk • contribs) 03:34, April 23, 2006 (UTC)From WAvegetarian's talk

It is true that others have the same amount of prejudice as you. It is true that it would be impossible to achieve consensus on beliefs. The way the encyclopedia works is that all factual and verifiable information can be put on. We don't deal with opinions because we wouldn't get anywhere. The editors are the users. That is the point. We have developed some rules to provide guidance, but everyone with internet access is invited to participate in editing. What is "right" to some is different than what is "right" to others. We must include only verifiable facts to avoid a mess. Sorry for not leaving you the helpful welcome sooner; it is above. Please register an account. It will give you many benefits. I have pasted User:TKE's response from my talk page below.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll just respond here: "There is no truth; there is only you and what you make the truth." - Bright Eyes. Discuss it on the "Discussion" page, that is where we talk about things that are controversial to provide concensus. On a personal level, I agree with you in doing what is right over what is accepted, but this is not a place to expose personal preferences. I'm certain WAvegetarian and myself are more than happy to answer these and other questions you have; but once again there is no right answer. If aren't sure of an edit, refer to the Simple rules of editing. Teke 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Tesh

Thank you for experimenting with the page John Tesh on 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. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Amcfreely 02:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to add jokes to Wikipedia articles. You're welcome to contribute here, but please make sure that your future contributions are unbiased and factually accurate. Rhobite 03:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu edits

It's funny how you are so against the KKK, while at the same time promoting bigotted views.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't taking your English proficiency into account. I apologize for misinterpreting your words.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)