User talk:MikeCapone

Hello, I thought you might like to know that User:JackLynch DOES have a bias. User_talk:Jwrosenzweig, check Jack's comment, he appears to have a very strong bias on this sort of thing. I wonder how long he's going to make Atheism his warfront? It's annoying me as well :-/ - Lord Kenneth 04:58, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Here is that comment:

Yes indeed I do love God, and strive to celebrate him in all that I do. As per mydog, 1. his name is intentionally offensive, and was only allowed at all for the thinest of reasons (apparently there was not "enough" complaint on the mailing list. 2. If his name wasn't intentionally designed to offend, but rather said something inane about God, like say "my dog ate God's steak", or any number of other stupid things which wouldn't be "misinterpreted" (he clearly ment to offend, and its no accident that the name does so. I knew that even before I saw his previous user names) it would still be rude and unnecessarilly disrespectful to refer to God in that way. 3. Some allegations (which I don't agree with, BTW) have been made that any name which refers to a religious subject in any way are necessarilly innapropriate. "Jesussaves" has come under attack for this. While I may not agree with it, this shows a precedent for persecuting those who make reference to religious figures, respectful or otherwise. 4. The only reason why this has been allowed for so long is the extremely disproportionate amount of anti-theist atheism found in general amongst academia, and in particular online. This is an unhealthful circumstance, and the ill effects are easilly noticable on any pages related to religious matters. Names like his only encourage this unfortunate lack of diversity, and make users such as myself increasingly uncomfortable with a community which so clearly allows disrespect for that which is sacred. Jack 01:36, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Atheism 2 spelling 3 Poll notification 4 Aristide 5 Thanks for saying thanks 6 Invitation 7 Greenburg 8 Article Licensing 9 Hey there back

Atheism

Please stop what your doing, it is in opposition to every available source (see talk:atheism) and is personally offensive to me. Jack 05:51, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nothing is solved in talk:atheism) and what you are doing is personally offensive to me and others I've discussed with here and on IRC. I know that you are just a theist who tries to stick his POV that god exists in atheism, so please stop it. Ahteism is the lack of belief in a god or many gods, not "in God"; written that way, it's implied that he exists and is especially POV in an article that aims at being neutral, especially since it's about atheism. The fact that other encyclopedias do it that way proves nothing; only that they also have their biases. MikeCapone

Let me understand this... I and all other well known and unbiased (not affiliated with a religion) sources of information are misusing the word (mispelling it with a "G"), and are POV. You, and the other editors of atheism (maybe 50 people max, and probably what... 80% atheists,,,) are NPOV, and unbiased? Is that what you are saying to me? Jack 10:09, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You may not be officially associated with a religion - I don't know - but you are a theist if what you wrote elsewhere on Wikipedia is true. As for what you said above, I know you were sarcastic but it's quite true anyway; "a god or gods" is general, refers to all gods of all religions of all times (from the roman gods to prehistoric gods to the xian god, etc). "in god" works too, but it's slightly less neutral as it somewhat implies that god exists, which is not neutral on the whole debate on the existence of god. The first way to say it didn't imply one way or another, which is why it is neutral. The third way, the one you like most because of your bias, "in God", is quite POV and offensive to me, as the subtext is: "this is an article about these silly atheists that don't believe in Him, who exists." So even though I am an atheist, what I'm trying to write is NEUTRAL, as I've explained above; you are the one who takes your bias to the encyclopedia. Stop it. MikeCapone 16:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"gods" does not include God. Its that simple. Jack 17:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"a god, or gods" does include the christian god (which you call "God"). --snoyes 17:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed it does. It includes the concept of a single god, or multiple gods, and is general enough to includes all conceptions of such through time and history. It's quite NPOV. MikeCapone 17:29, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

perhaps for the God-less ;) Jack 18:25, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You say it as if it was a bad thing ;) MikeCapone 18:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

spelling

Keep a better eye on my edits, and you'll find loads more spelling errors. I use a spell checker from time to time (spell checking whole pages) but outside that, theres not alot I can do for ya. Have fun correcting them (or sgt. baldy or one of the other "spell checkers" will do it for you). Jack 02:20, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is "God" instead of "god" one of these spelling errors? - Lord Kenneth 02:22, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Just wondering; are you dyslexic? MikeCapone 02:26, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you guys might enjoy a good reading of Internet Troll Jack 04:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We already know what you are, Jack. You've told me on IRC that the most fun you have on Wikipedia is in the talk pages; I don't doubt that you take great pleasure in pissing people off with your POV changes. You seem to spend most of your time going to pages that disagree with your beliefs and changing them so that they now convey your POV, which is totally against the spirit of wikipedia. If you are not bright enough to realize that "in one or many gods" is general and represents all beliefs around the world while being neutral about the existence or inexistence of a god, as it should be on a NPOV encyclopedia, and that "in God" isn't, you should leave the editing of these pages to people who are. Stop trolling and leave articles in NPOV. MikeCapone 15:22, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Lets see... you have now criticized my spelling, my intellegence, and accused me of dyslexia... and still have the audacity to call me a troll? I suppose I should just start ignoring you. Jack 19:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He never criticized your intelligence. We never assumed you had any to begin with. - Lord Kenneth 04:22, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

So I can't tell the truth (in this encyclopedia)? Your spelling is bad and you have said it yourself in stronger terms than I did (when I did I was very polite, especially since english is not my first language). As for dyslexia, I asked because it was a legitimate question for someone who writes "sentance" (and "intellegence") all the time -- if you suffer from the mental condition, it's not your fault and I don't see how it's an insult. Intelligence; Well, I can't say that you've showed much open mindness in the topics I've monitored. You can't seem to regonize the difference between a NPOV that doesn't promote either your views and the ones opposite to them and a POV with which you agree. MikeCapone 16:58, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Poll notification

Jack (now known as Sam Spade) created a poll at Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll on the capital G issue in atheism, so I figured I should drop a note about it to all the major participants in the editing on that article since Jan 11. I just went through the edit history clicking names that looked prominent, so if you aren't interested in the issue feel free to ignore it. Bryan 05:22, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aristide

My pleasure! Not every day a word like that jumps out at you from the morning headlines – very much fighting words in my neck of the woods. –Hajor 05:19, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for saying thanks

I am a bit surprised, I did not edit a lot in articles your edit history shows. Was there anything in particular you liked about my contributions? Just in case you are interested in this as well, would you mind checking my user page about the project about learning that I am starting? Please let me know. Get-back-world-respect 22:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember where exactly, but I saw one of your posts on a talk page and found it insightful, so I checked your user page and some of the articles you created and liked what I saw. In the past I've meet some people who made wikipedia worse and couldn't be reasoned with, so I felt that I should take a little of my time to show appreciation to someone who's at the other end of the spectrum. Your program to learn languages seems interesting, (I already know english, french and some spanish), but it seems to be a windows-only program and I'm on Linux. MikeCapone 00:18, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Some friends already advised me to rewrite in a language that is supported by all operation systems. Unfortunately I am not skilled enough for that as a programmer, but I will try and find someone. Get-back-world-respect 14:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Invitation

I fraternally invite you to add your name, to join the new community Wikipedians/Quebec. Thanks and welcome!
Je vous invite fraternellement à ajouter votre nom, à vous joindre à la nouvelle communauté Wikipedians/Quebec. Merci et bienvenue!
--Liberlogos 04:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for joining the community. Tell other Wikipedian Quebecers or people related to Quebec that you know about the new community so we can share better, help each other better and know each other better. See you soon!

Merci beaucoup de t'être joint à la communauté. Parle de la nouvelle communauté aux autres Wikipédiens Québécois ou aux personnes avec un lien au Québec que tu connais pour que l'on puisse mieux se connaître, mieux partager et mieux s'aider. À bientôt!

--Liberlogos 14:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greenburg

I added the most essential bad-faith evidence to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joseph Greenberg (economist), and User:Ruhrjung cited only it when he voted to Del. The voting has been open over 120 hours, but i don't think anyone quibbles about votes cast between that point and its move to /Old around 5 hours from now, if your interest continues. Thanks in any case for your interest in this VfD. --Jerzy(t) 18:35, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

I have read your well argumented cased and changed my vote accordingly. MikeCapone 18:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Hey there back

Hello back to you, and good luck in the Wikisphere!

Cwolfsheep 07:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)