User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKology
|
|
From Talk:Gaia philosophy:
- Sadly, EntmootsOftrools is again attempting to start a flame war. His statements above are deliberate falsehoods. I never made any such claims about the naming of the string theory article; I have no such beliefs. In fact, string theory is a fine name for this article, since that name is the terminology that most English speakers use. For whatever reason, EofT follows me around from topic to topic, refusing to actually contribute to the article, but always making personal attacks on me. Whatever his personal problems, I advise people to try to distinguish between contributors who add to science articles, and trolls out merely incite flame wars. RK 23:36 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- So Gaia theory then must also describe the popular theories? I said "would" not "did". But my mistake. You are not honest enough to apply the same criteria to physics as to ecology. Other than that my point stands. EofT
- For whatever reason, EofT follows me around from topic to topic, refusing to actually contribute to the article, but always making personal attacks on me. Whatever his personal problems, I advise people to try to distinguish between contributors who add to science articles, and trolls out merely incite flame wars. RK 23:36 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- More lies. I *do* believe you discourage serious contributors, are both intellectually and incidentally dishonest, and generate disputes on many articles. Your own User_talk:RK page establishes that. Compare to mine. What you "add to science articles" is highly suspect due to your dishonesty. Disliking such as you is moral not personal. And I have no more or less interest in a page because you damage it. EofT
- False. A number of people weighed in on this topic, all of whom came to consensus on a new naming scheme. Continuing your personal attacks only convinces more people that you are trolling. Work productively on the encyclopedia, or please leave. RK
- "all of whom" is a lie. The name was changed as soon as it was created. You do not define "productively". Pointing out your lies is productive as it discourages others from following you. It is you who should leave, because you are clearly in the wrong place. Try 'textbook' (http://textbook.wikipedia.org) (discipline point of view) or I-E (http://internet-encyclopedia.info) (multiple). You are not 'neutral' and don't belong here. EofT
Hi. Anthere pointed out that I made a mistake in editing the Talk:Gaia philosophy earlier; I hope you will accept my apology. - Hephaestos 00:30 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- It is not a mistake to wish to reduce flame wars. However, it is a mistake to give in to bullies or let them define an agenda, or lie incessantly. If you are editing Talk pages at all, I hope you will place the commentary on the page of they that need to read them. For instance, the above needs to be read by RK, not by me again. Letting him avoid reading it is bad for the Wikipedia. EofT
Ents hate flames. We recall how Treebeard's outrage was stirred by seeing the evil wizard's blasting fire used against an ent during the battle of Isengard.
- Hoom. Indeed. However, we are an entmoot not of ents but of trolls. EofT
I also hate flames, or, that is, flame wars. For one thing, it distracts us all from our mutual goal, which is to make superb encyclopedia articles.
- It isn't all that difficult to find people setting fires, or, for that matter, who have agendas other than superb articles. For instance, meeting people, or making friends, or looking good, or just not looking bad. You are right that superb articles are "our" only "mutual" goal, but not our only goal as persons. EofT
One of the most effective (and easiest) ways to throw cold water on the flames is to acknowledge the other person's point. I did this myself just now in the "Zionism is racism" discussion. So, let us not be "hasty" but take the necessary time to discuss things.
- As you wish. However, I have made all the points that need making there. They are being ignored, literally all of them, and the results are predictable. Failing to follow the naming and neutrality conventions I suggest leads to inclusion of text that is redundant or in the wrong place, by zealots or just the bumbling but well meaning. I suggest again they simply be followed. EofT
I am not directing this to any one individual, least of all you, sir, but to all concerned. --Uncle Ed 15:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I am only barely concerned. The only reason I started that article was because User:RK, a known liar and selective quoter and whiner to authority, all of which I hate, claimed that someone (172, I believe) was a "racist" for believing that Zionism is racism. I did not wish to see anyone excluded for simply agreeing with *many* UN agency declarations (not all of the General Assembly, although there are many condemnations of Israel's behavior there) - that is not NPOV, is it? We would exclude nearly all Arabs under that kind of rule, which is no doubt RK's aim. The facts of the matter had to be stated, and stated neutrally. Clearly they would be spun, but, it would be better for Israel I think if they were spun by people from Israel (User:uriyan maybe?) and not by New York Jews. After all, who really bears the risk for this perception? Sadly, I suspect RK is now actually creating anti-Jewish feeling among a good many people, and that is a shame. If not yet a crime. EofT