User talk:Collect/taut

from User Talk:Tautologist for archiving here

I said the Kingsgate texts would be solid cites for what Muthee said at the church, but you never posted them. The article is not being "censored" -- we are just trying to keep a high standard for biographical articles. Any cites you furnish which meet RS requirements are fine by me. I am sure if an article were about you that you would want someone as stubborn about facts as I am on your side. Thanks! Collect (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, that computer that was just mapped, in the spiritual warfare of which you and Jclemens and your associated church groups think is a manifestation of an edit war, belonged to a young lady whose mother is well connect attorney from New York, who is well connected both with NOW and with enforcement authorities. She was just showing the young woman how censorship works on Wikipedia, and it looks like some folks may be needing more than a just a Wikilawyer as it will be appropriately investigated outside of Wiki, given the line that was crossed last night with this witchcraft accusation stuff, scaring that young lady like that. Some might find they need more than Wikilawyers to defend their censorship, as there will likely be a referral for the appropriate investigation, with all of the extensive written documentation of censorship attempts that will be looked at from a perspective outside of Wiki to see who is involved in the incident. One can simply look at my last edits, and the current versions, and it is obvious what is going on and who is involved. Jclemens’ arguments that it is not an assault if there is not “homicidal intent” made in the WAoG article speaks volumes. Maybe you should have found the content of some of those Talk2Action articles, about how this church group tries to censor things, to be reliable sources, with the physical aspect of their "spiritual" warfare, before you allied your computer skills with the witch hunters. The young lady who was scared off is not even yet in high school; is this what you trained at MIT for? Shame on you, Collect. Tautologist (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I made no accusations of anything about anyone. Might you explain where this post came from? Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about what happened outside of Wiki last night, and one can simply look at my last edits, and the current versions (compare this[2] to this[3], and compare this[4] to this[5]]), and it is obvious what is going on and who likely was involved. Others outside of Wiki certainly will look at those comparisons. You might also want to take a close look at the "mapping" and "dominion" articles at Talk2Action, and the deleted source articles from Talk2Action, to see just who it is that you are helping with your MIT computer skills. Also you are the one who started the attacks on Women's Enews and NOW, and now look what has happened, outside of Wiki. This is exactly the kind of thiing that Collin Powell was just talking about this very morning on NBC. Again, shame on you. Tautologist (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Nothing off wiki by me that could in any way affect anything you cite. My position is just what it has always been -- use solid sources. If I edit anything, the "history" trail shows it. And feel free to look at my "user contributions" which are pretty clear. BTW, I never made any edits at all to WAG. I trust you knew this. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one you and Jclemens and the church people involved in what happened need to try to convince anyomore, not one at Wiki is, and there is a pretty obvious written record of who is invovled. Again, I suggest you read the comparisons of the articles and read the reliable deleted sources to see who it is that you helped out. You may notice that in addition to praying for the death of pastor Njenge, there was a building in America that was prayed to burn down, for having Bhuddists and people who do trancidental meditation in it, and the building miraculaously burned down. Also, your groups have "mapped" extensive lists of Jews, with the excuse that they are to be targeted for "transformation". Try reading the sources before you get further invovled in the explict and open censorship movement of this church group, and the "physical manifestation" of the "spiritual war" Kalnins talked about in the deleted content. Yes, there is an extensive talk page record of your edits and POV. Again, I am no longer the entity you and Jclemens and your church group need to argue to. Tautologist (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a member of no "groups" that you appear to think I am in. Period. No mapping of anyone. No burning of any buildings. I am simply I, a person who thinks that facts are what are needed and not arguments. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is like Muthee claiming that he did not know what his mob would do to Njenge, as all he was doing was praying. The record speaks for itself. You are a obvioulsy a smart guy, who knows whether the CBC and Womens Enews cites are reliable, which you deleted, and did so after you were the one who told me how to preface the sentences with "Enews reported", with what you were calling "commentary". And now your deletion of the CBS and other information is frozen in with the protection Jclemens was trying to get with an edit war, just as at WAOG. But this is all trivial compared to what happened last night, which you and User:Jclemens can try to explain away by saying that you don't think CBS and Womens Enews were reliable (you did the deletions, and did so after writing how to preface the sentneces with "Enews said", which was done and deleted by you anyway), and that is how things got out of hand to the point of leaving Wiki to the real world. It is interesting, as your fiscal views likely are similar to mine, though not your POV regarding creation of a "Dominion" theocracy here, and the positions of those in the deleted content, censored by you just as the church emails requested (which no one reading Wiki could ever learn about, given your deletions). It was strange that Colin Powell was speaking just as I was drafting my first comment about this, this very morning, and it seemed like my thoughts were coming out of his mouth. Tautologist (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to the RS Noticeboard. See what third parties said. I am absolutely opposed to theocracy. I just happen to have a very annoying belief that facts are what is needed. And I have no idea what "church emails" you are talking about -- I certainly have received none of them! Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

1. What happened last night outside of Wiki should not be argued to me, so you and Jclemens should deal with whoever you need to on this. 2.You said to preface the sentences with what you considered not to be reliable sources, but which were being widely cited in thousands of international news stories, with a clause as to who first reported the things, after which you asserted you would protect the information from deletion, and argue for its protection. (So did Jclemens.) Then you deleted them after I did what you said to do. If you were sincere, why is there any discussion at all? Unless you simply made a mistake and failed to note that the Witch's restoration had the clauses prefacing the sentences that you asked for. You might want to take a look and see if you made a simple error and should be arguing to put the prefaced sentences back in. But given what happened off Wiki last night, it appears you will not do so. 3. You deleted all of the Kinsgate stuff except what Jclemens wanted to allow to be seen. Was this yout intent? Otherwise why are you not arguing to put it back in? 4. You deleted the CBS stuff. Again, was this your intent? If you made a mistake in a hurried reversion, why are you not arguing for these facts, which you had not previously objected to, to be put back in? It seems pretty clear what is really going on here, as you are clearly smarter than the average bear, and unless you made a simple mistake in a hurried reversion, and have not yet noticed it, you would be arguing to put the sentences back in with the preface clauses that you, yourself, asked to be put in. Tautologist (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)