User talk:Humbabba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Humbabba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

In particular, you should look at WP:SG, esp. the guides on quotation marks. mgekelly 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to Workers World Party

You're reversion of my edit to this article, ostensibly in the name of removing "POV," constitutes an attempt to restore the dominance of the Left-wing POV in the article. Wikipedia is not Pravda or The Nation, and it does not exist for propaganda purposes. Trying to conceal documented facts that call a radical group's sincerity and integrity into question is a form of propaganda. - Skaraoke 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to win this one Skaraoke ;)

I see you have also been tampering with the Israeli Apartheid article. I know right-wing thuggery is the norm offline so you may be depressed to find that many on wikipedia watch articles for just your sort of nonsense. Humbabba 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And of course your political orientation isn't the least bit transparent from your edit history... Try to lay off the personal attacks, comrade, and you shouldn't be accusing other people of "thuggery." Oh, wait, I forgot...human-rights abuses ostensibly done in the name of achieving "social justice" and a "class-free" society are acceptable. I guess it's nice for a dictator to have an ideology that lets him summarily declare any person, group, or ethnic minority that he wants to get rid of to be "class enemies." And it's even nicer to have so many of what your hero Lenin called "useful idiots" to provide cover for those human-rights abuses in the media. (For example: people who edit Wikipedia articles about bloodthirsty, nihilistic groups like the Workers World Party to make them seem indistinguishable from the party that I'm registered to vote for.) Maybe the Hollywood actors who like Fidel Castro so much should visit the gay men who he put in concentration camps. When Stalinists like the WWP try to masquerade as liberals, it just helps Ann Coulter sell books and gets Creationists elected to Congress. I hope that they're proud of themselves... - Skaraoke 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your objection to my latest edit of Workers World Party? - Skaraoke 08:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit contributed nothing substantive to the article. If you really want to talk bad about them, why not utilize the "controversy" section? You would have to reference an outside source complaining about Hungary, of course, but I'm sure somebody has something like that floating around. Out of curiosity, what got you on their case in the first place? Humbabba 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, there already is such a source cited in the article. Anyway, I first learned about WWP when I found out that A.N.S.W.E.R. was one of their front groups. I already knew how vile A.N.S.W.E.R. itself was (e.g. I have seen video from an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally in which a Muslim keynote speaker denies the genocide in Darfur and calls the issue a Zionist conspiracy), so it seemed natural that any group that was trying to "clean up" its reputation by working through A.N.S.W.E.R. must be even more dangerous. The members of WWP have every right to be what they are, but they need to be honest about their beliefs and their agenda. They won't, of course, because they know that most decent people would be appalled if they knew what WWP stood for. Wikipedia should not be complicit in the cover-up, and it should not validate the Left's nihilistic blind spot regarding the depravities of every group that has claimed to be "Marxist" in nature. IMHO, the "neutrality" policy of Wikipedia often works like a Trojan Horse, allowing a POV mob who has taken control of an article to summarily declare their POV to be "neutral" and "self-evident" to the point of not needing proof and everyone else's POV to be "beyond the pale" and subject to an impossibly high standard of proof. The mob then uses the selective enforcement of rules of "etiquette" as a tool to to suppress dissent, and they justify it under the pretext of "keeping the peace." Ironically, this is exactly the kind of tactic that Leftists/progressives would deplore if "The Man" used it against them in real life. I've learned a lot from the articles about math and other hard subjects (except when vandals change the values of important constants), but I've become extremely frustrated with the situation with the political subjects. Am I crazy for seeing things this way? - Skaraoke 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crocodile Dundee

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Crocodile Dundee. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HyperSonicBoom 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

oops, wasn't vandalism, just incorrect revertHumbabba 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)