User talk:Archilles last stand

(Erk apologies; twinkle misdirected to the wrong user page!) --Blowdart | ^talk 11:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm a newbie. Have no idea what you are on about?!

Ah, you would have seen a notification that your talk page changed; which was me adding something that didn't apply. I just didn't want you confused. Having said that your last rollback for Usury, which restored "The bible is an arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text, dealing primarily with religious themes and issues. It is not a textbook on modern banking, economic and lending systems." is certainly inflammatory, opinion and not encyclopaedic, hence I have removed it. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is just your opinion. I can't see anything remotely "inflammatroy" about it. It asserts, quite modest, self-evident points that even a professional theologian would be content with. I've inserted your "claim" claim --- although I have no idea how you can make such an completely, over-the-top, absolutist statement, utterly POV, and monumentally non-"encyclopaedic." Archilles last stand (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Usury. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did my remarks, which you allege were the only issue; then have to do with you deleting the newly amended passage, which included 'Blowdarts' "claim" assertion?!?!?!?! (Archilles last stand (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

OK let's consider. You added commentary without citation and inappropriate commentary at that. The article does not claim that the bible, or indeed any of the religious texts quoted are textbooks on modern banking. Indeed given that the article includes historical references that commentary is a nonsense on those grounds alone. Then there's the matter of opinion, where you describe the bible as "arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text", yet for some reason leave the other religious texts alone and finally you state that the bible deals with religious themes and issues, which would is fine (but more appropriate for the Bible article); except that the section is within the "Usury within religious texts" section making the commentary redundant. Please don't vandalise wikipedia with your own personal agenda.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Usury. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

The vandal is you. Deleting important details relevant to later points. All you've stated above is pure POV. Since the section is headed New Testament, how is the general mention of "the bible" not relevant to the NT section which is the bible of Christianity!? WHAT, are you talking about?

In terms of sectarian, the very text itself speaks of numerous sects, schisms and infighting. Have you even bothered to read it to know what you are talking about? That is not a POV but in the text itself! You are making completely false assertion. I'm editing a specific section which I took the time to investigate. If you want to do the "other religions" as you say -- be my guest.

And what else is it other than "arcane text" a modern text" do you even know what the word means?

So what the freckles is really going on here; and why are you people screwing around with this pedantic rubbish? It's taken two, maybe three of you to ramble quaint and irrelevant pedantics, but not one of you has made a singular, practical, demonstrable effort to suggest "hey," this is how the passage ought to read and be should be put together!

Just cut the bullshit.(Archilles last stand (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I fail to see how "The bible is an arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text, dealing primarily with religious themes and issues. It is not a textbook on modern banking, economic and lending systems" is actual research. Even if it were without citations it could be rolled back and removed. Opinions on the nature of the Bible are not suitable for a section which simply quotes from it and other religious texts. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Usury. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing and threatening me you fascist ass. You are just mumbling unsubstantiated POV.

You have not refuted one point I made.

I do not know if you are a bunch of religious or ideological nutters, but sound like -- just get lost.

You not helpful. Have not been helpful as per Wiki help with new editors. You are vandalising my contributions repeatedly without a rational cause or reason.

If your stalking, threats, harassment and vandalism do not cease, it will be reported. (Archilles last stand (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Usury.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Usury. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you began the reverts and vandalism this means you up for blocking first.

So:-

(a) How do I block you?

(b) Who do I report your obsessive harassment, threats and vandalisimng my edits to (over some stupid fables)?

(c) Once you provide the above data; that will be the first constructive thing you will have accomplished thus far. (Archilles last stand (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you consider the reverts vandalism then you should put warning templates after each occasion on my talk page. If after the final warning it continues then you can report the behaviour on Administrator intervention against vandalism. You can report perceived 3RR violations on the 3RR Noticeboard. And finally if you want to report harassment and "threats" then the Incidents notice board is probably your best bet. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the above cover (a)?

Where are the templates?

Too late to do any more. I'm buggered. Yawn! (Archilles last stand (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Original research and opinionating on Usury page

Hi there. I would like to discuss this edit, in which you have been involved in an edit war.

Let me state first and foremost that I agree with your opinion here. Actually, I couldn't agree more, and you summed up my feelings on the matter rather succinctly. (If you don't believe me, check my user page for my opinion on this issue)

However, it is just that: opinion. As this is a highly controversial statement, and one which many people would find inflammatory, it needs very good secondary sources to back up the assertion. I feel that you have engaged in a bit of original research here, in that you are characterizing the Bible based upon your own interpretation, one which many people would disagree with. Also, I am not sure you are correct that nobody is using the Bible as guidance for how to make laws! Unfortunately, heh...

Anyway, while the kind of edit warring we see on that page is discouraged (please see WP:3RR), Blowdart is correct that the statement cannot be added to the article as it stands, at least not without high-quality sources to back it up (and even then, the comment seems somewhat out of place in the Usury article).

Please refrain from edit-warring, and if you really feel tharticle would benefit from something commenting on the Bible's usefulness as a legal text, please try to find some secondary sources to back it up, preferably something that comments specifically on the Bible's relationship to usury.

Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysweet, thanks for the welcoming comments. I had no idea a mere, seemingly insignificant paragraph, would cause certain people such stress! Quite amazing.

Let me just clarify an apparent misunderstanding you hold; I am not "advocating" the bible for anything personally.

It is a bunch of superstitions and ideas ancient people clung to before the rise of empiricism and the scientific method. My insertion had nothing to do with any "usefulness" as apparently you thought, or even advocacy?!

What I sought to do was objectify; giving as many perspectives as one might, in a short, prefatory passage; as my comments further on down, seek to clarify.

So, OK Jaysweet, as to other issues; no one really bothered to make any real and genuine sense of what they were doing. Just largely haphazardly deleting my contribution.

Blowhard was vandalisng my edit with barely a shred of fact or reason to it. Just spouting pedantic Wiki 'cut n paste' screeds and making threatening remarks about blocking.

At no point did he substantiate or prove what assertion or statement I had made was inaccurate.

He apparently also does not have a grasp of the English language; does not know what words like "arcane" or "sectarian" mean. I cannot be held accountable for someone else's illiteracy and ignorance.

I do not see how what I had written was pure POV? who disputes it's veracity? no one so far has even done so in any substantive or meaningful way! just dogmatically cried "POV" -- do we throw it in the well, and see if sinks or floats?

The points I made are asserted by mainstream Xtian pastors and theologians themselves.

A certain minor point that Blowhard disputed I amended, and inserted his very point into the passage, and he still went back and deleted it!

It seems he's on some sort of crusade? more interested in the edit war, making threats than constructively helping.

So explain precisely what is either "controversial" or "inflammatory?" not your POV, but objectively.

I agree that after refelection, the passge, althouigh intended to preface the entire section, probably does not connect or read well, as it stands, and can be improved.

I'd forgotten the exact reason for the original prefatory? But vaguely, it was to objectify the previous insertions which were leaning and indeed refelective; of ultra Right Wing political screeds.

They frequently use "USURY" to vilify Jews and other perceived modernist enemies and use the bible to support their extremist, anti-USURY politics and propaganda.

Google is your god, type USURY; if you have half a brain -- you get the picture instantly.

Obviously Blowhard is extremely ignorant; or maybe politically and culturally introverted and naive, to have made the ill-informed assertion that "no one claims" to use the bible as a financial, economic text, relevant to modern banking and finance. To the ultra Right one could also add Christian theocon Reconstructionists, theocrats or theonomic thinkers and adherents, who assert the bible is a law-life-text book, to be used as the basis in every modern sphere of life; social, political and economic.

I suggest Blowhard and his eager vandalizers, actually do some research; and move beyond their obviously clueless state.

So? (a) does any of the above make sense? (b) where do we go from here? (c) given that there is abundant evidence that many individuals and diverse groups do claim and use the bible as an economic textbook, relevent to modern finace and banking, I believe the prefatory remarks are objectively relevent if, for the moment not precisely constructed in a more readable and circumspect manner.

So give me some clues how to tidy-it up and make it more NPOV? (Archilles last stand (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also please tone down your remarks and edit summaries. There's no need to be so confrontational.-Wafulz (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wafulz, STFU. I'll be decent to decent people. Not to willfully ignorant, pedantic pixel pushers, or stalking, vandalizing and threat-making morons. Have a wank elsewhere; get lost. (Archilles last stand (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you can't be polite, go and find something else to do. One more piece of rudeness like that and I'll block your account. I appreciate you're trying to help, but you can do so without being a dick. Neıl 龱 12:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Archilles, I will try to explain what is wrong with the edit point-for-point. Please also note that you are on your final warning regarding civility, as per Neil's comment above, so try to be nice to me when/if you reply :) :)

For starters, your placement of the comment only in the New Testament section is baffling. Surely, all of the allegations you make against the New Testament apply equally to the Hebrew Bible and Qu'ran? So why single out the New Testament? It's especially baffling because the "Hebrew Bible" subsection refers to the Old Testament, which I am sure you will agree is far more tribal and sectarian than the New Testament!

Next, your placement at the top of the section makes it clear this is an attacking, rather than helpful, comment. As soon as the reader sees "New Testament," the next thing they see is a comment from you implying that nobody should ever even consider what the New Testament says. That is clearly meant as an attack.

Even ignoring whether the statement is factual, in context I see absolutely no relevance whatsoever. The main section here is "Usury within religious texts". Now, like it or not, but a lot of our modern values were originally codified in religious texts. I happen to be of the belief that many of these values are hardwired within our brains (this is an active area of research, though, not a fact) and that these values long pre-dated anything we would call "religion." However, these religious texts did serve to codify these ingrained values, and in cases like usury, they were the first texts to put in place specific rules that reflect these ingrained values. Regardless of whether the Bible is arcane, tribal, or sectarian, the fact remains that these texts document important developments in the concept of usury, and that many of our modern legal concepts of usury stem from the Bible and other religious texts. The edit you continually reinsert seems like a totally irrelevant dig at the Bible. I just don't see your point.

Now, as to your assertions that the statement is indisputably factual... well, if you take the dictionary definition of those words, perhaps, but the words you chose are all clearly meant as attack words. You know it, and I know it, so don't pretend that it's not. In any case, that doesn't matter, because again, the comment is entirely irrelevant in context.

I hope you will understand this and refrain from re-adding the comment, and I also hope that you can refrain from personal attacks and incivility in the future. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am baffled by this sentence you wrote: My insertion had nothing to do with any "usefulness" as apparently you thought, or even advocacy?! Where did I use the word "usefulness"? Where did I imply that you were advocating the Bible?! I am really baffled. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Lewrockwell.com, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 04:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are POV pushing. The sources were provided. Including LewRockwell archives. The material is verifiable by Wikipedia own article of theocon Gary North who wants to turn America into a religious dictatorship. Try reading a bit and educate yourself.

You can't cite a Wikipedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say I was citing Wiki? I said the data is openly available, and verifiable even on Wikipedia itself.

How would you like me rewrite it, with the content in tact?

The Lew Rockwell archive did not contain the words "fringe" "ultra-conservative" or "theocrats". Greenspun.com does not fulfill Wikipedia's criteria on reliable sources and the Palmer article you included was a 404 error. The only thing verified by the archive was that North contributed articles to LRC: I threw in the "economic historian" and "Christian Reconstructionist" because they were mentioned (though not sourced) in North's Wikipedia article and seemed uncontroversial. Please realise that attempting to insert poorly sourced controversial information is a futile way to spend you time on Wikipedia, as you will not succeed in making the mud stick. Regards, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is so "controversial" about it?

How is LR not "fringe" when is rails against the "mainstream" and therefore self-depicts as "fringe" and politically profits and plays on that spin?

LR vilifies Lincoln in a personal and derogatory fashion, that point is being also attacked removed as well to give a sanitised, weasel worded rendition.

I will have another look at it. The Palmer link is working, and likely a typo?

Calling the website "fringe" (which I would not entirely disagree with, but that is my POV and does not belong in the encyclopedia), calling North an "ultraconservative religious theocon" who gained "notoriety" as a "failed" prophet, and who has "extreme religious bigotry" is clearly controversial. This is not a neutral description, it is editorializing. Controversial information about living people must be reliably sourced, lest Wikipedia be a webhost for libel.

I agreed with your change to the sentence on Lincoln, as it is clear and uncontroversial that the articles criticise his character as well as his policies, but if someone challenged that perception, we would have to put in the precise reference.

If the Palmer reference is legit, it would be acceptable to add. Something like "Libertarian commentator Tom Palmer of the CATO Institute has criticised the website for its association with North on the grounds of x". However, the link you added, http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014604.ph is not working in my browser (Firefox). Regards, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 05:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014604.php is the corrected link

3rr warning

If you make another revert at Lewrockwell.com you will be in violation of the three revert rule and will likely be blocked from editing. Please don't edit war but rather, discuss sources and wording with other editors on the article's talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are POV pushing. The sources were provided. Including LewRockwell archives. The material is verifiable by Wikipedia own article of theocon Gary North who wants to turn America into a religious dictatorship. Try reading a bit and educate yourself.

The information in the article is being attacked by POV pushers. Have you "warned" them about their vandalism? Other than vandalism, what alternative sources did they offer, or constructive input?

What sources do you have that are superior than LR's OWN archives and theocon Reconstruction ist Gary Norths OWN writings? what is better than a prime source?

I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about the three revert rule. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well GG, you're not much help; are you?!

~~You've now made 4 reverts to the article ([1] [2] [3] [4]) in a 24-hour period, including a revert after you have been warned. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 04:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

My apologies, you have only made 3 reversions, I retract the above statement. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do have anything remotely constructive to add other than wasting your time with more vandalisms, threats and intimidation?

How many reverts have you and the Rockwell groupies made? Did you "warn" yourself? and them as well?

I haven't made any reverts, as the history shows. I don't care if Rockwell shits gold or rapes children, as long as the information in the article is responsibly verified. Regards, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I made any reverts, as my contribs show. Archilles last stand, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why you are 'talking' here GG? what 'alerted' you?

Okay GG Archilles last stand (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC) howzat?[reply]

To dude with the strange upside down name? I appreciate your last candour; and more so the practical assistance and will endeavour to refine my sourcing, phrasing and terminology. Archilles last stand (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I am sorry if you are having difficulties seeing my name upright, we must be editing from different hemispheres. Feel free to ask if you have any questions, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 06:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stevens (weatherman)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scott Stevens (weatherman), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Article space is not the place for discussions and opinions as your edit appears to be and I have tried to explain before. Instead of pushing your own opinion that something is "immediately evident" provide cited commentary from an acceptable source as documented on WP:Cite. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is cited in front of your noise. Try reading. It's refreshing.

Stop trolling my edits. Archilles last stand (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. - whilst the quote may be out of context; and you are welcome to edit that; the commentary around it is your opinion. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Justin Raimondo. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you rambling about? ""DickClarkMises" approved that edit. Why don't you try reading the "discussion" page instead of trolling my edits.

Stop your constant harassment and vandalism.Archilles last stand (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint Re: Trolling, Repeat Vandalising and Generally Abusive Behaviour of Blowdart and Blaxthos

contact me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Archilles last stand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ganging-up, trolling and bullying activities of two users Blaxthos and Blowdart

Decline reason:

not blocked --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm getting a "blocked" message, but that's not even my IP!?!?Archilles last stand (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are you have been caught by an autoblock, as your IP has been making unsuitable edits. Given your current behaviour on Scott Stevens (weatherman) and other articles, I was stopping by here to let you know I have blocked you for one month anyway; it was going to be a week, but as I see you have also been socking with your IP, a month is more appropriate. Upon your return, please respect other editors, refrain from adding unsubstantiated opinion to articles, and edit-warring. Neıl 龱 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT are you talking about now? I haven't a clue what you are now on about?

I've been here only a couple of weeks and aside from a couple of pragmatic and helpful editors; all I've copped is threats, ganging-up and abuse. 90% of the terms you are using I am not even familiar with. Most of the time you are talking another language, and you expect me to know everything straight off?!

And what "behaviour" on Scott Stevens (weatherman) are you referring to? The vandal Blowdart just came in started deleting everything, as if I'm supposed to be a mind reader. I gave the precise link to a quote which had been completely butchered and made to read something it was not.

What is wrong with exposing an obvious forgery planted in a Wikipedia article? Archilles last stand (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]