User talk:Lord Haw Haw29

Hello, Lord Haw Haw29, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)In the boradest terms the Blasphemy Challenge can be considered hate speech.

Fall of Constantinople

The Fall of Constantinople, no matter how costly to the Ottomans, no matter how weak and pathetic the Byzantines were, was a very decisive moment. I have had it up to here with European nationalists trying to Deny the Turks the glory they deserve. I myself am quite a lover of Byzantium, but the Ottoman Empire became the most powerful country in the world for many years and the capture of their future capital and defeat of their long time primary Christian enemy, the Byzantine Empire, ended the four hunded year war between the Greeks and Turks that began since 1050's . You'll notice your edit left 4 references that show why the fall was decisive. Scholars are unanimous on this too. Tourskin (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, although Europe was not as prepared as it should have been. In any case, why don't you take a look at Ottoman-Habsburg wars. I am working on this article, documenting the defence of Christendom. Join in if you will. Tourskin (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

I had to revert your last edit to Jesse Jackson. It messed-up a reference, and didn't add anything useful to the paragraph besides some original research. Please see the talk page for a specific discussion about the Obama remarks. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rational Response Squad. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Unless you can find a prominent figure that calls the Blasphemy Challenge "hate speech," it is simply your opinion and not encyclopedic. Thank you. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: you need a statement from a prominent figure (like William Donohue or Bill O'Reilly) that is properly sourced in which they claim the challenge is hate speech. A comment from a screenname on the internet which you think shows hate speech will not fly. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lord Haw Haw. Thank you for your message. Two things:

First, if understand correctly, this was in reference to my re-insertion of the phrase "what they consider" to the Lead of the RRS article, and the rationale I gave for this (correct me if I'm wrong on this point), but I'm not sure what precisely you're trying to say. Did you mean to say "irrelevant" instead of "relevant", and were attempting to opine that what they consider irrational is irrelevant to you? If so, what does this have to do with how to improve the article, given that that's what Talk Pages are for? The RRS is indeed a group that confronts claims that they consider irrational, and thus, the article about them describes them as such. Do you disagree with this description? If so, on what basis? The editor whose edit I reverted tried to remove the phrase "what they consider" from the passage, so that the Lead described their position as a matter of fact. Since you obviously disagree with the RRS's position, I might've imagined that you'd agree with my decision to make sure that the passage properly describes their position as an opinion. If I misunderstood you, let me know.

Second, statements like the one you left on my Talk Page ("Beides most atheist arguments are highly irrational. Most of you guys just spew out hate speech instead of an intelligent and civilized argument.") are considered a violation of Wikipedia's Good Faith and Civility policies, as well as Talk Page guidelines that restrict such pages to discussion on how to improve articles, and not to vent your personal frustration or opinion on a given person, group or religion, especially if doing so constitutes a personal attack. If you want to discuss these things with me, go to www.nitcentral.com, and post on the Religious Musings boards. But please do not attack or insult me ad hominem, as I do not discuss such topics with people who refuse to do so in a civil manner. If you need any advice learning more about Wikipedia policies and how to edit, just drop me a line, but again, please conduct yourself in a civil manner. Repeated violations of these policies could result in being blocked. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Just please confirm such things before you accuse someone of such a thing. I suggest you use Diffs to illustrate the edtis you're talking to, much as I was once admonished to do. You also don't have to start a new section for each Talk Page post, as all such posts of the same topic or discussion can go in one section. As for your comment, I think you wanted change "what they consider irrational" to something like "The RRS is against religion which is irrational", I can assure you that I never advocated such a passage (LOL), as such a passage is obviously not NPOV, and is something I'd change when I saw it, since I always remove POV passages and vandalism when I find it, whether it's to the RRS article, or to Kirk Cameron's article ([1][2][3]), so I'm guessing you misremembered me as the author of that passage. I make it a point not to let my personal viwepoints affect my adherence to the NPOV policy.

As for atheists, well, I'm sorry your experiences with them have caused you see them that way. Most of the ones I've encountered are quite open-minded, and rational, and hardly bear resemblence to fascists, with a few notable exceptions (like the RRS, and a couple I've encountered here and on other sites). At the same time, I've met quite a few theists whom I consider good friends, and a few here and there that certainly fall into your less-than-savory description. (Can we agree that there are people of all stripes and persuasions on both sides of that conflict?) Again, thanks for your message, and head on over to Nitcentral if you want to discuss these topics with me or other people further. On Nitcentral, you'll find a bunch of people of every religious persuasion--conservative Christians, Jews, atheists, Wiccans, Muslims, etc, and most of them are pretty friendly and intelligent. Nightscream (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pugs

Pugs are great starter dogs! They are soo sweet and playful. Just be warned, they do shed! That's their only downfall! I have 3 though, and I'm in love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logrolls (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy

I don't understand your edit on her page.

(cur) (last) 02:25, 15 September 2008 68.103.31.116 (Talk) (25,551 bytes) (Undid revision 238280020 by BJBot (talk)) (undo)