User talk:Fusionmix/Archive 2

With most of these users, their edits seem to be to their own userspace; they haven't vandalised at all. Might want to give them some more time.

A quick read of this and this may prove educational. Hint: In the first one,"G" stands for "General". --Calton | Talk 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My appologies. I thought i was being tame! lol. wont happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepetto (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 Apr 2008

yes sir. also, ive been waiting for a reply from admin j.smith for a while now to discuss his deletion of the longpen article, in hopes to write one myself and not have it deleted in like fashion to the previous article, but alas no reply. do you know if he is an active admin, or could you point me in the direction of someone else to figure out what went wrong. merci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepetto (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 Apr 2008

Ya, i know how to sign, just doing a million and one things at work, and somehow didnt hit shift or notice. in a related note, im awesome. lol. moving along to longpen, as i wrote to j.smith the company is very small (~dozen employees), myself being included. as such, it is very unlikely that the article was in fact some form of advertising, especially without me knowing about it. Which is where my concern comes in, for if someone not involved with the product was accused of blatant advertising, how can i hope to write an article on this very neat piece of technology without my bias coming through? thanks again.Jepetto (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know why you insist on keep adding this "scrin OPd" section to Kane's Wrath. You're either a GDI or Nod Fanboi because the basis of these claims are nowhere near the actuality of the gameplay. In reality, Fanatics need a major buff and nothing of the scrin or their subfactions need any changing. (Havoc1310 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Fusion, did you show the same concern to Starfire and his friends when Novangelis and his supporters labeled whatever they did as vandalism? What's with your double standards? And please don't tell the obvious and talk down to me. Many users get upset when you belittle them and pretend to know more than them. Fair?Examineroftruth (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the one continuing the fight is you by having reverted the edit for not logical reason. Like Wikipedia's rules require, reference your reason for doing something; your personal feelings are not a reference.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. references a specific articleExamineroftruth (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, Starfire was being harassed. Second, since when does merely banning a user mean that what they did was vandalism? Do you have any evidence to support that logic? You don't find it strange that Starfire's contributions have been blanked out completely? No discussion history, not profile history, no nothing. Is that the usual treatment of a "vandals"?

Can you explain any logical reason as to why Novangelis removed this part from the open pollination edit made by Starfire?:

Starfire: An example of an edible plant grown using open pollination is the heirloom tomato.

Novangelis: Popular examples of plants produced by open pollination include the heirloom tomato.

Removed by Novangelis: "The opposite of open pollination is hand pollination." and reinstated by him was the nonsensical references to "hybrids" which Starfire correctly identified as a nonsensical contrast, hence why he made that statement. Hybridization is not the opposite of open pollination since part of open pollination's main feature is that it results in hybrids, the reason being, that beens and win do not selectively look for the same plant to cross pollinate. Humans however, using hand pollination often take special car NOT to allow hybridization since in often leads to undesirable offspring, which in fact the edit before Starfire altered stated.

Look at what the edit said before Starfire changed it:

"Open pollination increases biodiversity" in other words results in hybrids.

It then says, "but results in some plants less suitable for their environment or intended human use." (like I said, often results in undesirables).

Now here is the nonsensical part: "This is in contrast with hybrid pollination". What in contrast? It appears as if the user Rkitko is contrasting open pollination with hybridization which he just said RESULTS in hybridization (which he apparently forgot or didn't realize since he said "increases biodiversity". For him to make that mistake by the way is an indication he didn't have anything close to expertise on that subject.

And if you want evidence of how Novangelis was trailing various users to muddy what they did, see for yourself: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1264745

It's been seen by at least 300 people.

But for another quick example of how Novangelis attempts to one up users that he personally does not like, and for promoting Christianity as he seems to perceive, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_C._Clarke&diff=201156057&oldid=201146780

Now, look to see who first came to the page on Arthur C Clarke, and who edited it first: Starefire, or Novangelis? What did Novangelis say as his reason for removing Starfire's edit? So, you've got it backwards Fusion, you're helping a troll as the others have before you. Just a coincidence, a conspiracy? No: it's common on Wikipedia for users without training in logical thinking or a solid understanding in what evidence means to make careless judgments like you have, no offense.

Fusion, I warned you, don't be quick / careless to judge again. Stop using your feelings as an excuse to make edits, that is really childish and you are being no better than Novangelis by behaving that way.Examineroftruth (talk)!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_atheism&diff=195077514&oldid=192145626

Guess who showed up first on that page? Guess what happened when Novangelis got there? So, how long do you think Wikipedia will sanction what Novangelis is doing? Does Novangelis reverting to a previous biased edit on History of Atheism, which can easily be determined is biased simply by going to Calvin's page and looking at the references, "seem" innocent to you too? Notice also how Novangelis' edits on the religion section of Arthur C Clarke was almost completely undone and how Starfire edit remains nearly the same, I'm not talking about the edit I just made to it last, but the one before it. Also notice how Starfire's reversion of Novangelis' reversion on Calvin remained? No one came to his defense on that, not that I can see, I didn't check because I'm very tired, but I don't see any citations like, "undid Starfire's edit, rv to Novanglis". So it's not simply Starfire noticing what he's doing.

Also, if what's in that mininova folder on him is too hard for you to believe, if you just can't believe an obvious troll on Yahoo Answers like him could possibly be helped by so many Wikipedia moderators (which you seem to have accidentally have done yourself), look what he admits right here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20080115222821AA8gHsO

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071030072329AAYjt30

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:zoEUmXtASwsJ:nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20080405050150AALLykS+%2B%22novangelis%22+%2B%22chosen+by+grace%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (notice how novangelis admits right there to believing that chosen by grace has been all over wikipedia and knows that he's been repeatedly banned?

Notice also that these atheists on that last link I posted above this sentence, are admitting to campaigning against questions made against atheists? Do you see novangelis objecting? Interestingly, that atheist is asking for his question NOT to be deleted. Also, ask yourself: how does novangelis know about these "30 accounts" on Yahoo Answers and 10+ on Wikipedia, UNLESS as can be seen on some of the pages I showed you, he's been stalking this user / users? Who i the world has time to compare the differences between 42 accounts unless that person has been devoting a huge amount of time to it? If his focus was on a variety of users of ANY religion of philosophy, then you could say he's simply someone who doesn't like trolling, but to obsess on a single user (do you see him complaining about any others?), and to repeatedly speak out against the Bible, does not show an even balanced view. Y

And guess which novangelis this is here?:

http://www.molecularstation.com/forum/dna-forum/1316-evolution-revolution-dna.html

Could it possibly be the same one from Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia? Does it take a genius to figure it out with that comment he left against taking Genesis literally? So, does it take a genius to figure out that Novangelis is POV pushing, harassing, and is biased against religion, and therefore has no business editing any pages on religion or evolution? What does it take, for him to come out and say, "I hate religion" or "I hate Christianity" for someone to finally put a stop to him editing? Do you think Dawkins or Hutchison would have any business editing the creationism or Christianity page on Wikipedia? Who but ignorants or hate mongers seriously thinks that neither of those two authors are biased against the the Bible?

You can see Novangelis has also taken great interest in the Wikipedia page on Yahoo! Answers, which big surprise, he showed up on AFTER his Yahoo! Answers friends were cited for harassing Christians, Calvinistic Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Examineroftruth (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Personally, if someone's going to vandalize, they should at least make it funny. :) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This guy vandalized my page like five times and I didn't know it until now! RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)