- I know. My edit message 'reverted vandalism by shortdog; reverted to version by Hojimachong' was mangeled. If you click on Hojimachong in the history of Christianity you will get to shortdog. Not sure why this happend.
Point taken on European liberal parties. Have contributed minor point to discussion on liberal and applied a minor edit to the article.--AustinM 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT) Thanks for reverting the Christianity page. --TimSvendsen 20:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Warning: you posted a derogatory comment to my talk page after I warned someone else not to post further discussion about on that topic (Wikipedia's bias) there. Each content page has a talk page for postings comments. Another example of an inappropriate posting will result in the blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 14:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
You must be a communist. I PROVED to you that global warming is a myth by giving you a link! Why are you questioning it?! - Sauli 10:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- This comment just shows that you have no clue what communism means. You proved that you were able to google. --Order
- Without the communist remark, my answer is: iirc, all you did is quote an article about a danish scientist, saying that global warming is overhyped, and that the way its there exist no reasonable definition of average global temperature. I actually think similar about it. Now your 'argument': First, he doesn't say that its not true, just that it is bad science (I wouldn't actually go that far). But the actual problem with your argument is, that a single researcher opposing it doesn't make it a myth. Just as little as a single researcher makes it a fact. User:Order 7 april, 00:50 (AEST)
- 1 Hitler
- 2 Liberal
- 3 German Homeschooling
- 4 Censoring Talk pages?
- 5 somewhere you might be welcome
- 6 Stubs
- 7 Hitler
- 8 Re: Hillary front page article
- 9 FBI discussion
- 10 SVU
- 11 Confusion....
- 12 Check it out
- 13 Playing gotcha
- 14 Off-topic discussions seen as unproductive
- 15 a warning
- 16 Atheism
- 17 Fig leaf gibe
- 18 please see my last post on the dawkins talk page
- 19 Science and falsifiability
- 20 Quit
- 21 AIM
No, you didn't, Rob did. Sorry, if I did attribute it to the wrong person. User:Order 26 March.
I'll score that little debate as a big win to the Germans - well done! Makes up for the World Cup ;-) Ferret 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well, we already have. Ferret 17:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for your support with very well put arguments. --schifra 07:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Censoring Talk pages?
TK, why did you revert the last comment by ResistanceFighter on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. User:Order May 21 11:40 (AEST)
Order, I have an old saying: "Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!" The last comment there, FYI, on Fighter's talk page was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting there, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- : What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. User:Order May 25 User:Order May 25
- Normal on RW or WP, as you might have noticed by now, is not "normal" here, right? Sorry for the too hostile tone above, man, but doesn't change the answer. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:49, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
That's cool. You explained it well. User:Order May 27.
- Trying to cool things down a bit, and leave more room for debate and not get things superheated. Your help is always appreciated on that. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- Hi Order, thanks for commenting the spin put on the paper about the higher minimum wage teenagers dropping out of school. You saved me the bother. The last time I commented on dubious interpretations of news articles or suchlike on the Main Page I was blocked for a month. Proceed with care;-). You might like pop round to my user page. TK requested I improve it. I hope you like it better than my old version. WhatIsG0ing0n 11:28, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, its not easy to remain calm, especially if the offender, say the sloppy party, can call you names and make unsubstantiated claims, while if you try to fix it you cannot even use sarcasm (bootable offense), and have to backup everything, twice. Trice. On the other hand its also easy, because you will rarely be confronted with facts and arguments that have significant weight. BTW: I can get what the problem was with your previous site :). User:Order May 30
somewhere you might be welcome
nationalwiki.com, somewhere to dispel pseudoscience and fundamentalist dogma. it is full of liberal deceit though (things like facts, open discussion, acceptance). Goldenratio 05:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- What fun are facts? They are constraining the free thought way to much. Sounds like a liberal thing, this bias against freedom. User:Order May 30
We're trying to keep the site free of as many stubs as possible except in the case of one or two sentence articles, so we can know what to improve. DanH 14:46, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
- And also go ahead with Weimar Republic. You can erase all of it and start over, as far as I'm concerned. See also the link I left at talk:Weimar Republic. --Ed Poor Talk 12:55, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I am fairly reluctant to start editing, because there is a lot of "folk history" about Hitler around, like that he got elected because of hyper-inflation. Doing it well requires some research, and I'm not an amateur historian. I just dislike simple explanations. User:Order
- As far as I am concerned, sysops who will not discuss such suggestions to editors are way out of line. I will be keeping hitler locked, and locking Nazi Party, and rolling them into one. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:41, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
== deep breath ==Order, it was a joke. Sorry if you took it seriously. I know you have made valuable contributions to the article. Bohdan
- We probably all spend more time on this site than is good for us. User:Order 29 July
- We probably all spend more time on several sites than is good for us. Wouldn't you agree? :p --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 01:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
How do you know that I watched an entire week of the Daily Show yesterday? Man, you are good. User:Order
- Why yes. Yes I am. I am amazed at just how perceptive you suddenly seem to be! --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 04:06, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Re: Hillary front page article
As someone who has actually had a statistics class, I applaud you for trying to set the record straight on the front page. Good luck though; that same fallacy is made over and over on here and bringing up the point will only get you called a liberal. I guess only liberals can correctly phrase the findings of a statistic? Jazzman831 23:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
- Don't you start calling me a liberal as well. Just because I can read tables. But, frankly I am always amazed at (1) whenever you point to an error made by one of the sysops, you are called liberal, and that is often the only argument. (2) That so much effort is done to defend such sloppy errors. It would be much easier to just fix it. User:Order
- Ha ha, I wasn't calling you a liberal, that was making fun of other people who incorrectly label you that way. Those two points you made will be the downfall of this site if they keep on that way...
- I was sincerely complimenting you; since everyone on the main page seems to be against you I figured you could use some support. :) I was just saying that I've taken a statistics class (two, actually) and a large part of the "dirty work" is how to correctly use the statistics. There is a huge difference between what the Pew poll says and what the headline says. Whoever posted the headline would have gotten that question wrong on a stats exam! (They then, of course, would blame it on the liberal intelligencia or something *rolls eyes*). Anyway, fight the good fight. Jazzman831 00:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
- If you want to have fun with statistic follow the links to the data used in [Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia], point 24. User:Order
- Heh, yeah, that was probably one of the first things I ever saw on this site. And if it weren't for that I would probably take a lot more things here at face value. Talk about irony! Jazzman831 00:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Word of advice - just drop it. You didn't break any rules, but you're questioning a touchy subject. Unless you're not in violation of 90/10, you need to let it go or else they're gonna give you the stick. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 12:25, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Huh? I didn't edit that section at all. JoshuaZ 00:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
My mistake. Sorry. User:order
- No problem. That was the strangest post I have ever seen. Bohdan 00:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
- I really think your services and help are not that necessary, Order. Would you care to make another remark? Please? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 04:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
I am happy to make another remark. On what page? User:Order
- Apparently it's not since it's been reverted.
- Although it is "allowed" by some sysops...at least their stated opinions: RE:
- If other editors have a right to put their own questions and comments on someone's talk page, then surely they also have a right to remove them from that talk page.
- Philip J. Rayment 00:46, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with Philip. "Destruction of evidence" is a trolling term, inasmuch as it is patently false, as Philip points out. More to the point, intemperate remarks, made either by mistake or in the heat of the moment, should be able to be removed, if the situation resolves itself. Just a matter of manners with me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Watch how long (short) this post lasts. U2 12:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Check it out
Hey Order, check it out, look what WP says here:
- "Wang Jingwei was a Kuomintang (KMT) leftist who had broken away from Chiang Kai-Shek's government in March 1940 and defected to the Japanese invaders.
- Claiming to be the rightful government of the Republic of China, it flew the same flag and displayed the same emblem as Chiang Kai-shek's National Government. However, it was widely regarded as a puppet state and enjoyed no diplomatic recognition, except from the states of the Anti-Comintern Pact. 
Hmmm, leftists invited into the anti-Comintern pact. How are we ever going to explain this one? Rob Smith 18:03, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
In what respect do we have to explain it? Without knowing the background I'd say that it seem like the typical chaos in a civil war situation. But it also show that "leftists" can be opposed to communist, for whatever, and to me unknown, reason. User:Order
- Either opposed, or cowardly subversive collaborationists. Point being, we can no longer make the blanket statement that the anit-Comintern pact was made up of "right-wing fascists", especially given the point that such an authoritative source as Wikipedia admits that non-Comintern leftist Chinese were joined to the Axis powers.
To what are you referring to? Who said that anti-Comintern were right wing fascists? i am puzzled. User:Order 3 August, 11:07
- Oh, here's something else we need to fit in somewhere, Stalin's Order of the Day on February 23, 1943---one month after Roosevelt hit upon the Casablanca notion of unconditional surrender -- Stalin stated for public consumption that "it would be ridiculous to identify Hitler's clique with the German people and the German state." Rob Smith 21:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
That would be Stalin's take on "collective guilt". But I figure there are more scholarly contributions to this debate. User:Order 3 August, 11:07
Since you already forgave him , you have no business accusing him.
Do not engage in the typical liberal tactic of ignoring everything a conservative says and then pouncing on one "weak aspect" of their remarks. Talk show hosts do that to get ratings; encyclopedia contributors should not do this at all. --Ed Poor Talk 08:45, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
- 96 out of your last 100 edits were on talk pages. And you don't seem to be able to click on the "E-mail this user" link. What *is* your problem? --Ed Poor Talk 19:52, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Off-topic discussions seen as unproductive
Order, please stop engaging productive writers in talk page debates like this one. If you want to have a debate, you know full well that you are entitled to create a page like Debate:Does the Bible justify racism?. --Ed Poor Talk 10:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
- The discussion isn't whether the Bible justifies racism. I hope we can all agree that it doesn't. It is about whether there are people who use the bible to justify racism. And closing your eyes that these exist doesn't help if your concerned about racism. Order 19:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
- I'm primarily concerned with good articles. Plenty of people are out there "fighting racism". But 49 out of your last 50 edits were talk, so I'm giving you a 3-day block. Take a walk, read a book, etc. --Ed Poor Talk 19:13, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Please do not put lame atheism apologetics in the atheism article. Lame atheism apologetics are not appropriate for a conservative encyclopedia. I don't want to block you and please heed this warning. Conservative 21:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
- Where would atheist apologetics go if not in the article titled "Atheism"? Samwell 21:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, here's another warning - but first let me quote you:
- equating Stalinism with atheism is as much a fallacy as equating Christianity with the Spanish inquisition
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it seems to be a denial of any link between Stalinism and atheism. This would seem to be an error, as Stalin promoted the atheism inherent in Dialectical Materialism, which is the philosophical core of Communism.
- There is a link. Marxism and later Stalinism were both materialist atheist theories. But Atheism and Stalinism aren't the same. Order 00:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
I warn you not to make false or confusing statements in talk pages. You wanna make an argument that persuades other users, try Debate:Was Stalin an atheist? or something like that. Don't use talk pages as a soapbox. --Ed Poor Talk 23:54, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Stalin was an atheist. Sure, did I say otherwise? I discussed Lysenkoism, a materialist theory of evolution, and it did cost a lot of peoples lives, especially its inhumane and fruitless application in agriculture, so it is worth mentioning it. Order 00:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Fig leaf gibe
please see my last post on the dawkins talk page
please see my last post on the dawkins talk page. Conservative 15:38, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
- Its an interesting discussion to say the least, but as long as the revert war is going on, I'll keep watching rather than participating. Order 22:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
- There is no longer a revert war. I also believe that you commenting on my historiography post might be helpful if you do it in the right spirit. Conservative 22:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, it is important that you comment in the "right spirit", Order. :P --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 22:30, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
- OK, I'll go have a few drink for lunch, and give it a try:) Order 22:32, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
- TK, hope I didn't have too many. Conservative, I am also a bit concerned, now that also McIntyre weighed in, that you got more than you bargained for. Peace be upon you. Order 02:52, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I stop usually at one, darn it! Too many buzz killers here. You gave a reasoned response. It is too bad Kenservative will not apply the same reasoning to several of "his" other articles, isn't it? The one's he has kept locked for months, not allowing any other editor to touch, and on the rare occasions he does, always reverts their additions, without ever once applying that "historiography" approach of reason. Oh well. Cheers! --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 05:37, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
Hi, Order. I like what you said:
- The article is about falsifiability. It says that scientist can have it wrong. They propose a theory, look for evidence, and then its wrong, and they have to amend or change the theory.
This is all you need to know. Order 17:40, 16 December 2007 (EST)
You never seem to be logged in even when editing here. Do you have an email address that you could register here? Ajkgordon 10:42, 9 January 2008 (EST)
My email works. Had my computer reinstalled. Give me a sec to reinstall AIM. Order 11:01, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Nah. When clicking on the email this user link, I get the "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." message. I'll wait for you to pop up on AIM. Ajkgordon 11:02, 9 January 2008 (EST)