User talk:Notapotato

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:Weatherman90, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Hello weatherman90

Thank you for that serious and important sounding warning. I'm sorry you find my edits to your page unconstructive and consider them vandalism. As I have said before, whoever is foolish enough to plaster their asinine stupidity all over the web runs the risk of having it ridiculed. And not just by me.

No. Thank YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notapotato (talk • contribs)

Any edits that deconstructively change the content of my page or any other page in wikipedia is considered vandalism. I urge you to reconsider your edits and not make a habit of repeating them, as you will be stricken from your ability to edit. Weatherman90 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute while I check whether there are any rules against blithering stupidity on Wikipedia. I'm new here, so I'm not quite familiar with the customs of the place. Notapotato02:17, 19 November 2006

Perhaps you are just too narrow minded to reconsider your own views, and choose to dismiss all other views as blithering stupidity out of your pure laziness and unwillingness to make an effort to understand one's viewpoint. Weatherman90 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, Mr Weatherman. Not all other views. Your particular views. I understand them, in as much as I comprehend their content, though not your continued insistence that behind them there lies some sort of sentient thought. If I didn't understand them I could hardly disagree with them. You are merely returning the accusations I made of you, without making any attempt to refute them with rational argument. I will stand by my accusation of Blithering Idiocy until I see something to convince me otherwise. I am open minded, yet fairly sceptical in that respect.--Notapotato 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more narrow minded than many people that I have come across on wikipedia. To call yourself open minded would be a flat out lie. If I came across a terrorist's wikipedia page, and his page was plastered with content having to do with the necessity of the elimination of the United States, and a complete contradiction of all my beliefs, I would not vandalize the page, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your choice to try and silence/ridicule my opinion is very rude and unnecessary, and I would never do the same to you if you maintained a page here with liberal ideas. Your inability to restrain yourself from ridiculing one's beliefs clearly demonstrates that you are far from open minded. Weatherman90 21:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "inability to restrain myself from ridiculing your beliefs" as you so eloquently put it,merely demonstrates the perfectly ridiculous nature of your beliefs. Certainly any Wiki page displaying extreme or ridiculous views be they political or otherwise is an infringement of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is as true of your personal page as it would be of the hypothetical anti-American page you describe. Both are equally deserving of deletion.Notapotato 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]