User talk:70.108.117.53: Difference between revisions

Welcome! Last edited: Last edited by: 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Caden (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your IP address, 70.108.117.53, is registered to Verizon DC, an Internet service provider through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy, so you may receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. Review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Per your comments at Talk:Muhammad/images, please remain WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for soapboxing, see WP:NOT. --Veritas (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you had better delete half the talk pages out there. Muslims are notorious for this and for their censorship. What I posted was in fact true. Muhammad did marry and have sex with a 9 year old girl. That is indeed sick. I stand by what I wrote. Truth is an absolute defense.70.108.117.53 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your dumb, straight people commit more hate crimes on gays than the other way around, and i'm sorry your butt-hurt about that. It's the 21st century, your religious ignorance is outdated, and I'm sick of hearing of the double standards the religious community commits. And regardless of all that, you throw a fit about double standards when an innocent boy in gunned down and murdered. You have no heart, and are guilty of hate it the same fashion that the killer is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno, please keep your ignorant personal opinions to yourself. Nobody is interested in your propaganda. There is a double standard so get over it. And for your information, homosexuals commit just as many hate crimes against heterosexuals, so wake up. The public never gets to hear about homosexual hate crimes because the national media covers it up. As for the E. O. Green School shooting, there's more to that story that the public is not being told. The suspect is a 14 year old heterosexual boy who was being hit on and more than likely was being sexually harassed by an older homosexual boy. It should be common sense, if you are homosexual, you DO NOT ask a heterosexual kid to be your valentine. That's just crazy and it's disrespectful too. It also imposes upon boundaries. CadenS (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a forum, and in fact Jesse Dirkhising has an entry WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked. The whole article is designed to propagate the Matthew Shepherd propaganda. Jesse is used as a prop. It leans towards the idea that he was "willing." He was just a child and couldn't be willing. That whole article needs rewriting. Don't try to sell me the BS that wiki is somehow not a forum. We both know that's untrue. Gays work very hard to downplay their hate crimes and wiki is one place they do it.

• 1. You are going to have to argue this on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising
• 2. Please do not try to adopt any POV. See Wikipedia:POV - Avoid use of "tragedy" etc. within articles - Let the disasters speak for themselves
• 3. Try to go into more detail in the talk page. (Do not edit the article until consensus is reached) Examine the article piece by piece and try to point out what you feel is incorrect or inaccurate.
• 4. Do not use Wikipedia:Personal attacks and please Wikipedia:Assume good faith

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about dealing with the homosexual POV? Why do they get a pass? Oh yes, I know. Some people are worth more then others. In wikipedia some POV is worth more then others.70.108.117.53 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have no text, no citations, no evidence to back your claim. Please present sentences ON the talk pages and explain how they contribute to the POV. Also making accusations is assuming bad faith and that will not get you anywhere on here. Try to reword your sentences and remove the confrontational tone. I know you can do it. Just say "I think X sentence in Y article is POV because of Z." It's not hard to do. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, make a new section at Talk:Matthew Shepard and title it "WHY I think this article is POV" - Go through the article and take notes on the talk page. Explain why certain sentences are POV. Other editors will agree or disagree with your sentiments. Assume good faith. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also what I mean by "this is not a forum" is that the talk pages are ONLY used for discussing the Wikipedia article itself and its development. Expressing personal opinions about cases is not allowed on talk pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about dealing with the homosexual POV? Why do they get a pass? Oh yes, I know. Some people are worth more then others. In wikipedia some POV is worth more then others.70.108.117.53 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is messing around with this page? I really resent those with POV arguing that I am POV.70.108.117.53 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps editing this page. What is going on? If it is whisper then he needs to stop.70.108.117.53 (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dirkhising death was not a hate crime because he was not killed for being homosexual. Maybe you should read about what a hate crime actually is because i don't want you to continue to use the term ignorantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So 2 gay men raping and killing a boy isn't hateful? That's just nuts.70.108.117.53 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that when a more pc commentary is added that it is defended as "neutral" and no one may alter it. I reject your pov comment to my comment. Typical that you try to silence opposition to your pov by claiming that I add pov. The irony is palpable.70.108.117.53 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have another look at the Jesse Dirkhising page? It is NOT WP:NPOV and that makes it a really big problem. It's clear to me that it's nothing more than the POV of several editors who have taken over the Dirkhising page. Take note of the edits, sources, material and references used. It's all one sided. How can one assume good faith when we have editors pushing their own agenda through typical propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CadenS (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I suspect that the homosexual lobby has taken over that page. Why you might ask? I think you may already know. It is not a real plus for the gay agenda. It would take someone with lots of clout to get it edited. Or you could just pay someone off at wikipedia, say 5 grand. No one takes wikipedia seriously because of the POV problems.136.242.180.162 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's extremely important that the page on Jesse Dirkhising remain focused on the real issue of the story, which is the violent rape and murder of a young boy by two male adult homosexual pedophiles. It should not be distracted by any side issues, such as homosexual editors who continue to use his page as part of the homosexual agenda by hiding homosexual hate crimes. As you know, this case was the subject of a conspiracy by the national media to hide homosexual hate crimes. It is more common than most people know. The national media covered up the Jeffrey Curley rape and murder back in 1997, two years before the Dirkhising case. Curley was an 11 year old boy, who like Dirkhising, was violently raped and mudered by a homosexual couple. Not too politically correct to say, but it's a fact. It's also interesting to point out that Curley, has no entry on Wikipedia. I wonder why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CadenS (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Curley v. NAMBLA is about Jeffrey Curley. Please assume good faith just as other editors will strive to do towards the contributions you make. All content is subject to the same basic rules and all are welcome to edit on wikipedia. Benjiboi 01:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curley v. NAMBLA is not about Jeffrey, it's about his parents suing NAMBLA. It's difficult to assume good faith when content shows otherwise. CadenS (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curley v. NAMBLA is about the Jeffrey Curley case, as much as the world's encyclopedia is going to write about him that seems to be the article to do so in. If you think a separate article can be written on the subject you're welcome to try. Wikipedia has articles on all matter of subjects and is not censored. Keep in mind that it will held to the same standards as all other articles. If you feel you're unable to abide by policies there are many other wikipedia-like projects (like conservapedia) available that might be more in line with what you'd like to see. Benjiboi 03:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, please stop making assumptions about me. I never said that I felt unable to abide by policies, so please stop it. All I want to do is to help make articles, such as the Jesse Dirkhising entry, better. Your suggestion on a separate entry for Jeffrey Curley is a good idea but I'm not sure if that will work. CadenS (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies CadenS, I was responding to prior comments and actions and should assume good faith towards you as well. I didn't try to put words in your so will try to restate, if you feel wikipedia is simply never going to reflect your point of view there are other similar wikiprojects that may be more to your liking. You are certainly welcoem to contribute here but please show the same civility towards all editors even if you don't agree with them. Benjiboi 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of censorship on wikipedia. Editors with the power take control of articles and never allow any edits they don't like. Benji knows this as he smiles like a crocodile. Often you hit a brick wall and are accused of POV by someone who is ensuring their own POV remains untouched. Homosexuals are having a harder time playing the victim. Notice how many states have overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage? You can't fool all the people all the time.70.108.117.53 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70.108.117.53, Wikipedia is not censored and the rest of your statement falls under soapboxing and assuming bad faith. Benjiboi 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]