User talk:Khranus
|
|
| Contents |
Text from User talk:24.222.105.251
Please don't add silly stuff like fnord to pages that don't have any real connection with fnords. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:08, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising or you will be banned and your IP blocked from accessing this site. Thank you. Angela
Dear 24.etc (IPs are so impersonal)
May I apologise for the deletion of your comments, without any response, from satanism. What it is, is we put articles on the "talk page" - in this case, talk:satanism. You can access a talk page by clicking "discuss this page". I've had a word with the person who deleted your comments, and asked him to move them to the talk page next time. You can find your comments, and my response, at talk:satanism. Similarly, I've moved your comments on Pius XII to talk:Pope Pius XII, and Zippy and I have responded there.
I understand your frustration, but as Cimon and Angela point out above, vandalising pages isn't really going to help. Oh. I've just checked, and someone's blocked this IP. Ho hum.
Martin 09:56, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- We encourage you to be bold in your edits, but to also back up claims with credible sources. The only sources I found that claimed Pope Pius XII was a Nazi sympathisizer were strongly partisan, while more neutral sites had extensive information on his being at worst publicly neutral while privately aiding Jews by, for example, granting them Vatican citizenship en masse to remove them from Axis control. --Zippy 18:49, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
All that 'neutral' means is politically correct. And actually most often the politically accepted view is very flawed, because it is specifically the view which is most popularly accepted.
Considering that about 60% of the world population is a Christian of some kind, the chance that Pius XII will get the ridicule he deserves is highly unlikely.
I thank you for un-blocking me. This is a great site, but it appears that there is still some bullshit to work out with 'objectivity' (a farse in my opinion)...
What we need to do is have one article that's objective, that appears from one angle, but then have, say, a right authoritarian, left authoritarian, right libertarian and left libertarian article writte on the same subject, which can be accessed from the main subject header. This way true political neutrality could be gained, by not merely expressing a moderate view, but by also expressing all the views from all angles of perception. This would certainly compliment such an open-source project as this.
The only true objectivity lies in the ambiguity of simultaneously extant opposing perceptions. Just as light is a wave from one angle and a particle from another, perhaps history should be treated as ambiguous--and never can one absolute view be described as 'objective'... It would be great to see articles written from all corners of the political compass, because this would greatly augment the depth and effectiveness of this site as an open-source encyclopaedia. Who should I talk to in administration to lobby this idea?
- You could try discussing your ideas at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view once you've read the NPOV policy. Angela 00:58, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
- You should take a look at http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/ -- its user:Fred Bauder's site-- and is based on just this idea of yours. You and whoever else may be on there this month can have a good time. -SV
Comment native to this page
Hi, welcome to the Wikipedia. For a more "post-larval" approach, you may prefer the Internet-Encyclopedia ( http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml ), which runs on the same software as the Wikipedia but doesn't follow our neutral point of view policy, instead giving one article for each viewpoint on a subject. --Camembert
I like wikipedia as well, and considering that it is an evolving system, I see a post-larval future in it. -Khranus
When communicating through the wikipedia with larval humans, please be cautious and not insert copyrighted material even if intending to paraphrase later.Ark30inf 03:29, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's a quote, though, not the entirety of even a chapter of that book. Therefore it doesn't infringe on any copyrights. From what I've read and heard from a lawyer friend of mine, journalists and encyclopaedias are allowed by law to insert quotes, even up to that size, as long as they give a proper citation. (And I just think I should mention the irony of this. Leary, who called for the disintegration of Copyright, is now the subject of a minor copyright dispute. lol What a sad world we live in.) -khranus
- Yes your right, but you need to read what Wikipedia is not --were not a source repository -- for that you can try wikisource at ps.wikipedia.com -- but its an old software wiki and is not considered running up just yet.-戴眩sv 03:39, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)PS and sign your sigs with three or four of these: ~.
lol...what? And I just realised that I forgot to signature that... Whatever.. It's late. Khranus
What do I think of the UN? I think that its perhaps the most ineffective bureaucracy in history (and thats saying something when you have the US Congress and the EU). But it does provide fine dining and cheap parking for a whole gaggle of diplomats.Ark30inf 03:47, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
lol! Indeed... Though personally I think it's a lot more sinister than that... In their suppposed quest for world peace, they sure have, for instance, issued a hell of a lot of unfair civilian-murdering economic sanctions, and seem generally way too easily swayed to interfere with wars they have no business with. Seems to me nothing but an allliance of aristocrats bent on world domination. Khranus
- You look like youre done vandalizing pages, now arent you? Thats good, cause otherwise we'd have to boot you, and I dont want to do that. Get off your soapbox, stop taking drugs before loggin on here, and you may actually be somehat useful -- another cog in the machine. Whatdyathingkaboutthat? 戴眩sv 03:59, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, part of it was logging on whilst under the influence... lol But also just anger with how much power to sway public opinion an old and corrupt institution such as Catholicism has... Constantine, Josef Stalin of the 4th Century CE, the bastard... Khranus
re:main page talk - Meta (http://meta.wikipedia.org/) may be a better place for such a comment. Angela 23:25, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
[:Image:Dinosauroid.jpg] has been listed at Wikipedia:VfD as a probably copyright infringement. I've added a link to the museum copyright clearance service to the image page to assist you in documenting its status. JamesDay 11:23, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why exactly do you think it's a copyright infringement? You don't seem to have acted up about any other pictures... Though it seems in general that there is a huge memetic battle over the reptilian humanoid and David Icke articles... Amazes me that people would go so nuts just because something is outside their reality tunnel... Evidence that humans need to evolve--and fast. Khranus
- For the record, checking that we don't have images or text that violates copyright is something we have to do constantly. Violating copyrights can put the whole Wikipedia project in danger. Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Please don't take it pesonally. Just answer the question or fix the situation if there's a problem. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 07:53, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Is there any reason why you keep removing the sentence from Reptilian humanoid pointing out that the mainstream does not take these theories seriously? DJ Clayworth 15:24, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Explained in talk:Reptilian humanoid
Please review Wikipedia:Wikiquette -- Someone else 07:02, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Listen to Someone else. Your comments to him have been completely un-called for and are in clear violation of our policy (which is linked above). --mav 07:47, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I usually respect your policy, but I also have a VERY relativistic view of the world, and in this relative case, I was quite justified in making 'comments' about him. He nonverbally insulted the several people involved in the S&B article, and such insult can only be returned with insult. Silly obsession with 'policy' can't make up for the hassles this guy has caused all over the 'pedia. He has a bad reputation. Khranus
Hi, please don't create articles with nothing but an external link. If it's worth creating an article, it's worth at least a sentance or two saying what the article is about. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 07:52, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Obviously. I'll add a sentence if you'll be a fuss-budget about it... Christ... Khranus
When people go around cussing others out, it attracts notice. I'm watching youuuuu... -- Cyan 09:01, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wait, so you are seriously telling me that this is over obscenity? What a joke! You people are pathetic! I thought humanity was over that in the 1960's... Khranus
It's not over the obscenity per se. It's about being rude/polite to others. -- Cyan 09:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I prefer to call it "consensorship". You can't get your way unless you can get other people to agree to it. It's tough, but you're going to have to start working with people instead of against them; that's why it's called a collaborative encyclopedia. -- Cyan 09:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, man! If you havne't noticed, Anome was working against me as well. It appears that INDEED it was only the obscenity issue which was being addressed. Non-verbal violence is okay, but verbal violence is...unacceptable? You can't justify your irrationality with semantic bullshit--this is about obscenity. Admit it. Khranus
Fuck no. -- Cyan 09:21, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Then it's about a conflict of memes. Which makes it even worse. You are using your power to reinforce memes which are favourable to your neurolinguistic imprint. Khranus
I did notice Anome working against you. But Anome has built up a fund of trust in this community, and you, well, haven't. It doesn't hurt that I agree with Anome about the copyright and the article content, but those are side issues for me. I'd like to help you figure out how get along with everyone else because I think your unconventional point of view is valuable to Wikipedia. But it doesn't work if you start pissing people off. I eat memes for breakfast. Yummy! -- Cyan 09:28, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You'd better go vomit, because you're sick--you've eaten too much of the Political Correctness meme. Khranus
Actually, copyright was created to balance the rights of the creator against the rights of the public. In recent times, the balance has shifted to the rights of the copyright-owner: a deplorable development indeed. On a practical note, Wikipedia likes to protect itself against being sued, as a matter of general principle. -- Cyan 09:31, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Gee--the rights of the creator, or more like OWNER/DISTRIBUTER, against the rights of the PUBLIC! That might not have anything to do with PROFIT, would it? Have you ever noticed how the world has just sort of been HIJACKED by corrupt corporations? Like the War in Iraq? Ever noticed that? Gee--what a coincidence! (protect itself... but isn't it a non-local entity, and each individual is responsible for their OWN legal issues? I'm not seeing what there is to protect... Even so, that's just cowardice. you're cowering before your government... Which makes you slightly pro-authoritarian...) Khranus
I do wish you'd actually read what I wrote. -- Cyan 09:36, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hello--I did. And that was my response. If you can't interpret that metaphor, that's your problem. Khranus
I don't know about your memes, but mine tell me to duck and cover before some corrupt corporation notices I'm stealing their copyrighted material and sics its lawyers on me. Does that make me a coward?... Yup. :-)-- Cyan 09:39, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, it makes you a wimp, unfortunately. Have you ever pondered the possibility that, if people stopped obeying these assholes--they simply wouldn't have any power!? Wikipedia is a baby-step in the right direction, but it's still weak. We need to break down this memetic autocracy that humans are currently suffering from. If everyone thought the way that Robert Anton Wilson does, for instance, I doubt that there would be such a thing as 'copyright' or organised religion, for that matter... I'm not saying that they share his memes. Quite the contrary, actually. Rather, they individualise their memes as much as he has... This would result in a severe decentralisation of power, and it would become completely impossible for any sort of monopoly to exist... Khranus
Entropy is a state of mind. Negentropy = information, and I do my best to accumulate it. I'm not worried about the heat death of Wikipedia just yet, though. Have you given any thought to trying to work out your differences with the other users in a non-confrontational manner. I tell you, the memes are strong around here. Infiltrate is better than oppose. -- Cyan 09:53, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The problem is co-ordinating people to throw off their memetic shackles all at the same time. Good luck with that. On another topic, it seemed to me that you hadn't read the second sentence of my post ("In recent times, the balance has shifted to the rights of the copyright-owner: a deplorable development indeed.") because you proceeded to yell the idea back at me. Odd. -- Cyan 10:03, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Opposition is necessary when confronted with people like Anome, who wish to propogate a single-minded meme without any regard for diversity. When someone tries to wreak entropy on an article the way he has, they deserve confrontation. I'm fighting for memetic Chaos, whilst a large workforce of dogmatists go about trying to denounce and dismiss everything outside their narrow-as-fuck reality tunnels. Khranus
While Anome may deserve confrontation (which I do not grant), you might as well piss on an electric fence, for all the satisfaction it will give you. Hey, it's your dick. -- Cyan 10:03, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Is this world a world of cowards, or what? Nietzsche was right--the Noble Morality is fucking dead! Khranus
Be a slave. It's fun! They give you hot dogs and other processed meat! -- Cyan 10:06, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
lol-Soylant Green is people!
But seriously... This is getting very old. Everyone seems to complain about the government, but no one wants to actually stand up and fight the government... What the fuck is wrong with humanity? Khranus (and just in case you're wondering, I fight for fringe memes not necessarily because I agree with them, but because they are unpopular, yet credible, and I want the memetic scales to be balanced a bit.)
When Gandhi and Lao Tse spoke of Civil Disobedience, they meant--DISOBEY ON A MASSIVE SCALE! They meant--stop following orders, because it is the ultimate sin when your rulers are corrupt. (e.g. soldiers in Iraq, for an extreme example, were 'just following orders' when they murdered civilians, and then ended up murdered themselves, because they didn't conspire to go AWOL like they should have.) Khranus
Well, first off, it's not my government. I like my government! Universal heathcare rocks. Wikipedia will tolerate almost anything you can back up with a source, and if you're polite about it. Have a go at Wikipedia:Wikiquette. P.S. I never really bought the whole meme idea. Didn't seem compelling enough, ironically. Anyway, it's my bedtime. Good night, and good luck, Khranus. -- Cyan 10:16, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What government, exactly, do you live under? I'll bet you anything you have at least one reason to be absolutely outraged with them. Khranus
In terms of memes, it doesn't matter what you call them. Call them 'information' or 'ideas' if you want. It's the same archetype. Light is both a wave and a particle--but it's still Light, and still has the same basic archetype embedded in it. So, let's say that, rather than organisms, these ideas are programs. In that case, it's time to update. Khranus
Hello Khranus. When uploading pictures to wikipedia, can you please put some info in the summary box, about where the picture came from. We need to keep an eye on uploaded pictures because of copyrite issues. If you took the picture yourself, say so. if not say who did, and that you have their permission to give it to wikipedia. Thanks Theresa knott 11:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Be nice us to us baby insects
Khranus, we might be only young grasshoppers to a tower intellect of your magnitude -- but we don't like being targets of verbal abuse. So please avoid profanity and other rough language when making suggestions to other users at Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ha, ha. How amazingly hilarious and clever! What exactly 'is' 'profanity' anyway? Have you ever pondered the notion that maybe 'profanity' isn't some solid physical object existing outside your neurolinguistic complex? The Map is Not the Territory. Khranus
- How the @#$% should I know? I'm only human, and I'm only responding to patterns of variously shaded dots on a computer screen. Are these dots solid? No. Do they form symbols which arouse neurolinguistic responses of pleasure and pain in our readership? Yes.
- If you want to have fun talking rings around people, how about fixing up some of the Arab-Israeli conflict articles? There's a "map and territory" problem called Palestine that sounds right up your alley! --Uncle Ed 00:20, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
hehe... Clever...
The point is that the notion of 'obscenity' can't be regarded as absolute. Since I don't personally believe in obscenity in the same sense that you apparently do, I have no reason to follow your personal rule of not saying certain words because they're 'bad'. It's as simple as that. Khranus
- Another point is that a vast majority of Wikipedians think it is a good idea to adhere to Wikiquette. It is not a matter of personal belief or of a notion being absolute, it's just that they are a set of conventions of civilised behavior that are generally accepted here. Whatever you may think about larval humans (or by whatever phrase you like to describe us), being rude will neither make you popular nor make Wikipedians view your edits with much leniency. Kosebamse 18:11, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I was not forced to change my username. I chose to do so. Tuf-Kat 06:39, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
Talk page abuse
Please stop posting your random thoughts on subjects in talk pages. That is not what they are for. Talk pages are to be used for discussing ways to improve the article. See Wikipedia:Talk page#What is it used for? (Note esp: "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia.") --mav 07:41, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
Message from Jimbo
In response to Kosebamse's complaint about "ramblings, contempt, insults, hostility", etc. -- the owner of this website user:Jimbo Wales, asks that you contact him via e-mail.
See his letter about this matter here (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008376.html). --Uncle Ed 15:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Jimbo does not own the website! He is just the president of the Wikimedia Foundation. All the foundation owns is the Wikipedia trademarks, the servers it runs on, some content that Jimbo donated, and perhaps the "collective copyright" of the collection of Wikipedia content. Individual contributors own the copyright to their own work. All they do is agree to release a version of their work to Wikipedia/Wikimedia under the GNU FDL. --mav 21:45, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
So now there's a wikipedia gestapo? I don't think I have to reply to any of this non-sense. If you have some sort of a problem with the memes I distribute, you can go ahead and distribute yours--but please, don't decrease the overall amount of information being transmitted. Khranus
As a matter of fact you do have to reply to this, or else leave. We try to be as welcoming and accomodating as we possibly can, but your overall behavior is completely unacceptable, and your refusal here to discuss it with me makes it regrettably necessary for me to ask you to leave our website now. You may email me to discuss the problem, if you like. Or, you may leave.
As to your threat to spend lots of money setting up a competing site... be my guest. The software and database are all available under GNU licensing. The number of people interested in working with you is likely quite low, of course. But who knows, knock yourself out, and have fun. Jimbo Wales 22:37, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, but for whatever reason I can't edit my own page--ever since someone did something to my page that doesn't show up in the HTML... I'm not sure why, of all pages, I'd be blocked from editing MY OWN, and I'd like an explanation. Khranus