User talk:PeacePeace: Difference between revisions

Blessed are the peacemakers. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I probably will not give you an answer. I wish peace with all. I avoid making personal attacks, though I have endured them from others here. If you come here wanting to fight or attack me, I will probably just erase it and move on, still wishing you the best. So realize if you have come here to make a false attack on me, you already have gotten your answer here. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

If you are a Wikipedia administrator (or higher) come to post something on my talk page, please do me the favor of identifying yourself as such. And realize that I understand that Wikipedia is an aristocracy, & it does no good for me as a peasant entry level editor to argue with you or to defend myself if you came here to bully me or to impose your POV on me. I also realize that if I should complain about someone posting defamatory comments about myself or of lying in claiming I attacked someone (when I did not), the response (from a bully) is likely to be that I am at fault for claiming defamation instead of the person who defamed me for defaming me. So it is unlikely to accomplish anything positive for myself by posting a defense. So please understand why I generally avoid defending myself against such unjust charges here. My lack of defense does not mean that I accept a false charge. Of course it is also possible that someone may come here to give constructive criticism -- in which case I thank you for it. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Your comments appreciated here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Do_we_need_to_do_some_consolidation_of_multiple_overlapping_US_cannabis_articles.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone at peace today, exercising tolerance, not violating NPOV?

Communicate: . . . Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. . . . Stay on topic: . . . Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. . . . Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent . . . .

Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on . . . an editor.

Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.

Note: in the Guidelines threats are not recommended and these are not friendly. & let us all assume "good faith." (PeacePeace (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MY RESPONSE TO IAN.THOMSON'S BULLYING AND FALSE ATTACKS:

The complaining Administrator has posted falsehood and libel; he is harassing and bullying. But as Wikipedia is an aristocracy, what can I expect out of a kangaroo court? Specifically:

"problematic edits"? They are a problem to the extent that they run counter to the POV of the Administrator, who cannot tolerate NPOV, even in a discussion on a talk page.

Suggesting an objective NPOV, rational approach to QAnon is quite proper, though I know little about them.

The essence of the disagreement on Seth Rich has nothing to do with conspiracy theory (weasel words to avoid rational discussion). The point is not whether a group of people came up with a theory; the question is twofold: a) Was Seth Rich the leaker? (there is good evidence from reliable sources for that; b) was Seth Rich's murder done by the DNC or their operatives (so far as I know, no good evidence for that). But the issue should be handled rationally, not basing conclusions on 1 democrat private source Cloud Strike, even if Cloud Strike was picked up and believed by a number of agencies who never examined a computer.

Using "moonbatshit" to settle an issue indicates intemperate lack of NPOV.

Unsourced material should be removed. Whether or not Nazis were in favor of men-lying-with-men, or persecuted them requires presentation of reliable research.

Of course the MSM is not a reliable source on Trump or GOP since MSM is rabidly anti-Trump & a participant in political warfare. Political opponents are not reliable sources.

No evidence was given by the administrator that I ever said willfully presenting false information was not lying. No evidence was given that to speak of someone living in a Kenya hut is racist. Judging & jumping to conclusions is a characteristic of rabid protagonists in political warfare, which apparently this adminstrator does.

The "allegedly alleging" statements are too confusing to be given serious concern by any but a kangroo court.

The administrator gave no proof that there is widespread police brutality, as opposed to isolated instances.

When did I ever say it is OK to take right wing claims at face value without examination? How is it that left-wing allegations should be taken at face value?

"hung out a lot" requires adequate establishment from reliable sources. "a lot" is weasel words. How often, when & where? "Hung out" is again weasel words. Specific associations not vague smear words are required with reliable sources to avoid libel. So what if I recommend something on a talk page? Who is so bigotted that they can't stand a suggestion they disagree with?

When did I defend the reputation of Zero Hedge. I have no recollection of that & know little of Zero Hedge. & if I did that on a talk pages, so what? Are administrators & editors so bigoted & prejudiced that they cannot stand suggestions they do not agree with?

Nothing had been proven in court about Steve Bannon or and body else. And to call it a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory! To call it a Wall fraud scheme, is also potentially libelous as no proof has yet been established. Do you want Wikipedia sued? This is judging before the evidence. It is a fact that Brian Kolfage raised about $25 million for a wall. It is also a fact that about 4-5 miles was in fact erected. How does this compare with the price the federal government is paying, something like $30 million a mile? Money was raised; wall went up. You probably don't like it & want it stopped by any means?

Indeed SPLC is not a reliable source, but a warrior in the cultural war.

   "SPLC is not a reliable source, but an opponent in the cultural war"

Birtherism is weasel word, a substitute for a rational consideration of where Obama was born; which consideration is worthy of research-- not that it makes any difference as his mother was an American. So what if somebody claims Obama was not born in USA??? Why the big concern over it?

I certainly never claimed that the DNC murdered Seth Rich; I believe the evidence is against it. And I never posted such on Wikipedia. If you want to consider theories of Sean Hannity you should address the claims & evidence. Repeating as a mantra "conspiracy theory" proves nothing. If Sean Hannity said Hillary was an alcoholic epileptic (which I doubt), document it and refute it. Such a claim is not handled by repeating the mantra "conspiracy theory." If it is though, you need to list the people who got together and concocted it, give good evidence that they did from reliable sources.

I don't recall ever putting anything is "scare quotes," neither do I know what that means. But if I had, so what?

Speaking about a murder of a child in the Zimmerman case makes you & perhaps Wikipedia liable for a libel suit. No murder took place. A young man (not a "child") over 17 years old ambushed Zimmerman per evidence when Zimmerman was heading for his truck. Per evidence, Zimmerman was getting beaten with head knocked vs concrete, a lethal weapon by Travyon Martin. This is what the evidence, even evidence produced by the prosecution established. The verdict was not guilty. A great amount of research has been done by Joel Gilbert in his book, The Trayvon Hoax. Go read it. The child pictures of Trayvon Martin are a hoax, putting on little child pictures way out of date. Zimmerman did not approach Trayvon with a gun per evidence. Trayvon approached & ambushed Zimmerman, who was forced to shoot to save his life when he was on his back.

Chosing the Washington Times over WaPo & MSM is NPOV. If you don't like it, you are free to revert it, as I don't edit war. I don't really know what you refer to, if it is a comment on the article's Talk page. You seem to think that a comment on a Talk page which disagrees with your liberal agenda, is a damnable sin.

If an article speaks about a man wanting to visit his children when he has a dispute with his wife, & she blocks the visits, as "a man wanting to visit HER children," is an outrage. I suggested on a talk page, (not making the edit) that it would better say HIS children. The man wants to visit his children, not her children (he wants to visit because they are his kids, not hers. That is not dame-smacking chauvinism. And your calling it that is bullying by an adminstrator.

This appears false, the claim that I treated Anabaptis views as almost the entirety of "non-RCC" views." And it is you who added the word "merely". Saying professed Christians leaves open the question of who is the real Christian. & are you again objecting to a discussion on a talk page? Lets see your proof that I asserted one denomination hold the fundamentals of the faith while another does not. When did I put that into an article?

What is wrong with noting that Campus Crusade for Christ changed their name?

On the Rapture the point is that all Christians are obligated to believe in the Rapture because 1 Thes 4:17 says "we shall be raptured" = rapimur = we shall be caught up. Often the Rapture doctrine is confused with Pre-Tribuational Rapture theory; the timing of the Raptures is in dispute. If somebody believes that the Rapture is of the spirit at death, that does not mean such a person is not a Christian. But the rapture is a Bible fact, itself. BTW, I don't recall editing an article & saying in an article that all Christians believe in the Rapture. Are you again carping over a comment on a talk page?

The belief in a Rapture has been traced back to Pseudo-Ephraim at least, which is not a "mess." Your pejorative "mess" is uncivil and improper. If you believe the source is invalid, give a rational reason.

If you have some proof that I edited an article and denied that Catholics disbelieve Joseph's children were from a previous marriage, post the proof or retract.

The statements put on internet sites can be evaluated for accuracy. I never said that all fundamentalist claims on Joseph were true. And what do you mean by blog? Do you dismiss scholarly sites as blogs because the writers believe the basics of the faith?

If you have some proof that I asserted that Anglicans and Lutherans do not have "saints," either post it or retract.

If you accept books as reliable sources because Oxford published them, then you endorse the Scofield Reference Bible. So please have Wikipedia announce that for SP the SRB is a reliable source! These publishers can publish works which contradict each other, which is quite common for Biblical and Theological writings. To summarily dismiss the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society out of hand, is just prejudiced discrimination.

I wrote that the range of evaluation of Catholic theology on Mary is across a spectrum and that some consider it mariolatry. You very dishonestly attributed that POV to me as if I wrote that on WP.

I wrote that some baptists don't consider themselves as protestants, as having a heritage from those who came out of the RCC. That is just a fact. It is established history that there were Christians in the middle ages who did not accept the pope, before the reformation.

You seem to like to put words in my mouth, like mere before objectors. Corporal punishment has a long approved history in the USA; and it is proper to speak of objectors.

Ian.Thomson seems obsessed with me and has a desire to squash me on Wikipedia, but he has no legitimate grounds. Apparently he objects to anything I post which suggests that his liberal POV is wrong.

So now I have this kangaroo court going which I think will be dominated by liberals who insist on their POV, having no regard for NPOV. It is driven by Ian.Thomson's personal opinions, not NPOV. But I assure you that in the end justice will be. Done. Are you ready to give account for every idle word you spoke & act you did? It is appointed to man once to die, but after that the judgment.

Finally I call for the removal and banning of Ian.Thomson for harassment, posting falsehoods with personal attacks, intemperate language, and bullying.