User talk:84.195.124.111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk:Loose Change (video)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Wildnox 22:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the message. Now, pretty please with sugar on top block me! I'm done with wikipedia.

No need for a block or a report, as you removed the comment, and it appears it was your first offense. Though none of this matters too much if you're "done with wikipedia." --Wildnox 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention this is an anonymous IP in a dynamic IP range. If we blocked it we'd only hit people that aren't you.--Rosicrucian 23:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing all your comments from the Loose Change talkpage was disruptive. I've reverted it so the discussions make sense again.--Rosicrucian 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the legal requirements of my country I have the author rights to my comments. I'd like put this in to before any and all my comments the following message:

Although wikipedia has the right to copyright and repodruce my comments, it hasn't has the right to author my messages. I hereby distance myself from any and all discussions and interpretations concerning this debate. This article is not in any way according to my liking nor is it in any way academic since it hasn't been approved by academic standards. Any interpretations that my message has been approved by me not replying or not responding to my messages, or anything else has, can be interpreted as being that I approve as a consensus. Wikipedia works according to consensus, I hereby deny that wikipedia works as a peer-reviewed consensus and I'd like to distance myself from any and all interpretations that wikipedia wants to bestow on my words.

Unlike some commentators I will be judged on my words, and this article will reflect very poorly on me should one of my peers find out. So, no(!), I won't stand for this, and, no, this article hasn't reached a consensus for all I'm concerned.

I'll include this within 48 hours otherwise I'll have to consult lawyers and see if I'm correct...


Since Mark Robers is included I can include also other article about 9/11 in the main article (of course sourced (unlike some)), should you ignore my comments. I've hoped to establish something non-partisan in this article. Since you really want to I'll include sources equivalent to Mark Roberts... But here's the funny parts, I haven't checked it. Since science doesn't matter as I have experienced repeatedly it doesn't really matter does it?

Don't refactor an article talkpage just because you're taking your ball and going home
Taking my ball aways only gives more credibility to my argument. Something which has denied because wikipedia doesn't deal with science Not my words but the words of the consensus. (Royboy(look it up), which have been given a free pass thus far). So yes, I'm taking everything I can away to not be included in this science argument...

WP:NLT. You can be blocked. When you edit a page, see the comments at the bottom, in particular, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." By posting here, you have agreed that your postings have been released, and you cannot retract them. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Please do not say anything that could be misunderstood as one. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind I was bluffing, I don't want to spend to spend money on this nonsense. But I don't want want my words taken in vein so either it gets archived, or I can rebut it. My words has been taken so far as to reach a consensus, which i 'do not not approve' of. It should be clarified on the talk page and so far it hasn't since it is so biased.

[edit] Removing comments

Please do not remove comments (including your own) outside your user space unless there is consensus (or good reason, such as privacy issues—and then, ask an admin) to do so. Thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There was consensus about removing my comments
Link, please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the incivil language, english isn't my native language but I implicitely called royboy someone who doesn't know shit about physics. Then I called explicitly royboy someone who doesn't know shit about physics then I got asked to remove the comments. Whether it's implicetly or explicetly it doesn't really matter. The consensus is that science doesn't matter (read the comments(!!!!!)). This is the consensus and I don't want any part of it. The article, as is, is very biased and incomplete and incorrect. Nevermind that, whatever any professor or scolar says gets deleted or (if lucky(!) put on the discussion page otherwise into oblivion it goes!). So no I don't want my words to be used as if there I concede to a consensus. Again, everyone was ok to delete my words when I called out someone here as an "idiot in physics", but is apparently a problem when I didn't so civily.. (as in providing formula's etc...)
The reason you were told to remove that comment was because it was incivil and a personal attack. Nobody told you to remove all your comments.--Rosicrucian 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain to me the difference between telling someone basic formula's I wasn't even using differential equations.. but when I get all sciency they tell me that science doesn't matter and that I'm biased. Well, in that case i'd like all my comments removed they use the same logic afterall... I really don't want anyone to find out that this article has a consensus with me being a part of it. It violates even basic physical properties. All my arguments got swept away, so why do you care? It's sadly archived and I don't want to even touch that. I really want to pretend I never was here.
I objected to the forumlas as OR, as we only cite rather than do the math out. At any rate, you're in no danger of people thinking you were part of a consensus. You were a dissenting opinion. That much is obvious. Besides, you're posting by anonymous IP. As for why I care, it's just generally considered bad form to do this when leaving Wikipedia. It disrupts the discussions and they're almost nonsense with people responding to posts that no longer exist.--Rosicrucian 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then give me an example of something that I deleted that hasn't reached consensus.
Just because it's reached consensus doesn't mean that you're a part of that consensus. It's not a perfect consensus, and that's usually the case.--Rosicrucian 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I asked. There was a consensus and I, very strongly, disagree with it. Now it got put in the article because the NIST report agreed with it, right? Well, wrong, I've read it, unlike someone (I hope the previous' comment gets deleted), and to be honest even NIST disagrees, but NIST is sciency so it's ok to disregard it. I really doubt you can even understand my frusrtation about this when science has to take a back seat... Again, I really want my comments deleted.. I'm not kidding around about this.. No one cares about science, so let's get this over and done with.

[edit] Blocking me

Pretty please just block me, I feel compeled to argue. It doesn't help anyone :( and it doesn't achieve anything. I have a dynamic ip, but the timeout would benefit me too. I'm getting too carried way with this discussion. I hoped I didn't feel this strongly about this but I do. Just block me..

Stop deleting material from the talk page. It will be archived in due course. Tom Harrison Talk 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then archive it now, the discussion were non-sensical to begin with, me removing my comments doesn't change that. Again, I authored it, I can change it.
That talkpage is archived on a three-month schedule, and it was just archived last month. Also, as Zoe stated, every submit page has in plainly visible text that you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. You've been told by several admins not to blank out your comments on that page, and you persist in doing so.--Rosicrucian 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean I can insert my original comments to royboy as well?
Not if they are personal attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And they are. don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.--Rosicrucian 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Loose Change (video)

Ignore me all you like, that's your right. However on this one you've been told not to do this by admins. Given that you keep saying you're leaving Wikipedia anyway, why not do so and stop this foolishness?--Rosicrucian 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)