Difference between revisions of "User talk:Order"

Revision as of 04:37, August 3, 2007

Just a note on your recent revert at Christianity; the vandal was User:Shortdog57, not Hojimachong. Tsumetai 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

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

*sniggers* --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

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)

Just so you know: I believe that your sig is broken. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 21:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Hitler

To avoid even more discussion, could you add the citations to your excellent additions to the Putsch? --~ TerryK ^Talk2Me! 05:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the attributions, good sir. --~ TerryK ^Talk2Me! 07:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal

I didn't put anything back, in that thread. Look closely. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 19:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you didn't, Rob did. Sorry, if I did attribute it to the wrong person. User:Order 26 March.

German Homeschooling

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 will see. ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:01, 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

Stubs

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)

Hitler

Go ahead.  :-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 07:16, 9 June 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)

FBI discussion

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)

Cool. User:Order

SVU

Huh? I didn't edit that section at all. JoshuaZ 00:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)