User talk:RucasHost/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure how that pov, please elaborate. If a 'critiscm' employs blatant misleading and re-interpretation of facts to make a 'point' it is unfair to the wikipedia community and violation of pov. Christian or not, the Christian Bible is, in many parts, based totally on anecdotal evidence. This isn't a negative statement on the Christian Bible, it's just neutralizing the unfactual basis of the statement. Please refrain from name calling. Aceholiday (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "name calling" and this is under the wrong heading. Please see my full reply on your talk page. --RucasHost (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Please stop with violation

Dude. The Bible is the factual reference of the criticism. The criticism alleged partiality because it was based much on "acecdotal evidence." I'm not denying this is technical 'criticism.' However it is in violation to leave a factually inaccurate statement intact. The Bible is, rightly or wrongly, heavily based on anecdotal evidence. This statement is neutral. Your discussion page notes many other examples of similar violations you've caused. I'm reverting the page back. Please keep to wiki standards. Aceholiday (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't violated any rules, you have and you don't appear to be very familiar with them. The statement you added is irrelevant, obviously not NPOV, and obviously original research. Whether or not the Bible is based on anecdotal evidence, which you haven't provided a source for, is irrelevant because the article in question is not on The Bible, it's about an Internet conspiracy movie. --RucasHost (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Alright guy. If you're just going to revert with no discussion and refusal to abide by wikipedia standards I'm going to have to nominate your account for deletion. Given the discussion on your history at Wikipedia, you're contributions violate the terms of Wikipedia. Please strive for a greater integrity with Wikipedia. Aceholiday (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is the POINT of the criticism. Somebody, somewhere, has criticized this movie because it's based on "anecdotal evidence." This implies a negative connotation. Tbe Bible is criticized much in the movie. Much criticism against the movie is derived from pro-Christian stances. I don't know how to make it any simpler, man. The Bible is the point of the argument! If it's a 'victim' of anecdotal evidence too, then the whole point is rendered false. Please specify the reason for deletion or I'm going to have to nominate your account for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceholiday (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominate my account for deletion? It's obvious you have no idea how Wikipedia works or that there are policies concerning POV and original research. The reason I removed your statement was that it was irrelevant, not NPOV, and obviously original research; if you disagree with that you might as well go ahead and "nominate my account for deletion". Good luck with that! --RucasHost (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Your archives are virtually all complaints regarding your fascist edits of christianity-denouncing material. Who cares if John Edwards is prochoice? Leave people alone. You want to worship God, fine. But don't push the rest of us down with you. There's a site for the unscientific material that you're spewing. It's called Conservapedia. But until then, Wikipedia is not a posting board for Christian, religious, or slave making propaganda. Seriously man, grow up. Aceholiday (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're nuts. Please continue with your attempt to "nominate my account for deletion". --RucasHost (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me sir. Per Wiki policy all edits are to be given 'good faith' attention. The insistence on using negative connotations and derogatory remarks is not appropriate. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, it's no problem. I can show you where to find out about wiki policy. However, Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a posting board for Christian and/or unscientific propaganda. Please explain how the Bible is not based heavily on anecdotal evidence. Aceholiday (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was polite to you, it's not my fault you don't read my replies. For the last time, whether or not the Bible is based on anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to the article in question, is unsourced, and isn't NPOV. Accusing me of using Wikipedia as a "posting board for Christian and/or unscientific propaganda" just makes you look silly. If anyone is soap-boxing, it's you! --RucasHost (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen you're user page? How about your archives of criticisms regarding biased editing. I don't care what you believe man, but don't push it on others. Have you cared to even watch the documentary before posting knowledge of it? Aceholiday (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at what you just wrote, there's a very obvious grammatical error. --RucasHost (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who CARES?!? Forget it. I've tried too many times to get a respectable issue resolved here. Fundamentalists like you show no regard for intellectual thought or reason. That's why you believe what you believe. Open up. There's so much more to the world than being a sheep for an idea you can't prove, understand, rationalize, or even comprehend. And when I try to go point-to-point with you, the only reply is a statement about grammar. I feel sorry for you. Aceholiday (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue; the text you added to the article is completely irrelevant and original research. I find it rather ironic that you would insult my intelligence when you obviously can't write; it's also rather ironic that you describe yourself as open-minded but insist that you are right and accuse those who disagree with you of being idiots; but regardless of the irony, I have better things to do than argue with you -- over the Internet no less. If you want to have a friendly intelligent discussion about Christianity then I'm always up for that, but if you're just going to waste time insulting me and trying to convince me that a statement about the Bible containing anecdotal evidence belongs in the Zeitgeist article then I have nothing left to say to you. --RucasHost (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [1]. Thank you.--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. --RucasHost (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SeaWorld article

Hi RucasHost, you've made 2 changes:

  • Trimming the criticism about not explaining evolution - I prefer the version that clarifies that SeaWorld claims to be educational.
  • The conspiracy theorist, sadly I've never heard of this gentleman, and he doesn't have an encyclopedia article here. Could you explain why he is notable?

Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the above - I didn't realise you meant Alex Jones (radio) - I'll disambiguate. Addhoc (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Response Squad

Hi. When adding the notability banner, you mentioned in your Edit Summary the policy that Notability is Not Temporary. But if you concede this, then why add the banner? What exactly is your position on the RRS' notability? I tried looking on the Talk Page to see if you started a discussion about it, but couldn't find one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My position is that they only had temporary notability -- not real long-term notability -- due to their "blasphemy challenge", unless there is something else to make them notable they aren't. --RucasHost (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But the policy you specifically cited in your Edit Summary is the one that states that Notability is not temporary. How is this? Moreover, the Blasphemy Challenge is not the only thing for which they are known. There is the May 5, 2007 debate they had with Way of the Master, and their conflict with Kent Hovind, both of which are mentioned in the article. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Look more closely at the policy cited, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.". --RucasHost (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Did you read the second part of my last message? There are three distinct events/sections in the article that took place at three different times. That is not a "short burst of news". Nightscream (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)