User talk:Evud

Hi Evud,

Thank you for help! Could you suggest what exactly should be changed in the article and which references should be added? Or you could go directly to the article and edit. Thanks.Biophys 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gharr and edits on Venus Project, Zeitgeist, and other related pages

Not a lot you can do, I'm afraid, except if they're edit warring. Just try and improve articles as much as your can, and talking stuff over is usually the easiest solution. --Sloane (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories delete discussion

To keep the above captioned page from being cluttered I am moving the discussion with you excerpted from that page here:

Keep - Normally, I'd delete, as it seems like a clearing house for any wacko to spread their theory. Rather, I'm for keeping this page, because it will serve as a useful sociological description of people whose personal belief systems have gone off the rails. I'll be monitoring the page, and deleting anything that has the slightest whiff of crankery. --Evud (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're taking alot on yourself User Evud with such a threat, as that is what it is tantamount to. You can view the page and its contributors however you please: your views do not make everyone else's "crankery". Consensus in such a contentious matter is required, and be sure you will be subjected to it along with everyone else. It's the Wikipedia way in such circumstances. Being "Bold", fine for cleaning up claptrap in "trivia" sections in articles with overblown "In popular culture" headings and such is one thing; at this page it is not acceptable.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a threat, but the fact you think it is one says more about you than me. I'm merely saying I'm going to attack contributions with poor reasoning and evidence on that page relentlessly, because poorly supported crankery -- and conspiracy theories ARE crankery (see Michael Barkun's Culture of Conspiracy and Ted Goertzel's "Belief in Conspiracy Theories") -- don't deserve to be on Wikipedia, sociological explanations and descriptions of conspiracy theories combined with rebuttals are another matter. After all, this place was founded on the Enlightenment and rational ideals of Diderot's Encyclpedia. --Evud (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, amigo, you're coming on way too strong. You've made as of this morning 69 edits at Wikipedia since 2007. There are people involved in this discussion who've made 5,000 and 10,000 and more, who have much more experience as Wikipedia editors. Saying you're going to be "relenteless" in "attacking" yada-yada, and that anything you deem to be "crankery" is is indeed taking alot on yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's also a forum. When editors don't agree Wikipedia Consensus is required, not unilateral proclamations of yourself as judge and jury. Rationality, enlightenement, they're all relative. Tone it down. Recognize that this is a contentious subject with multiple opinions, and at this point you are not in posession of sufficient facts on the matter to take the high-handed stance you are. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river Wikiuser100. Number of edits from editors has nothing to do with the validity of ANY of my arguments, and is a piss-poor set of reasons. See also: Argument from authority. Given your terrible reasoning here and on the talk page of OBL conspiracy theories, it's pretty obvious that you are a true believer. As to your claims about rationality being relative, utter hogwash. Arguments and evidence can be evaluated based on certain patterns of reasoning. I provided links to scholarly sources supporting the claim that conspiracy theories ARE crankery. You can hide behind your claims about consensus all you want, you aren't fooling anyone. --Evud (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispense your bile elsewhere. You're not Diderot. Nobody appointed you Wikipedia God. You're just another volunteer editor. We're all in this together trying to make it work. Act like it. Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's all you've got. Your reasoning skills suck. Go play with your conspiracy theories, child.--Evud (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!

Hello Evud, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.