Portal talk:Current events/2008 February 10

message: The editor who has added Scientology persecution has recently been warned for typing almost the exact same hateful speech on other pages. Every one of his edits under the IP he uses is an edit bashing Scientology. I really do not care about them or their beliefs but they do not deserve to be badmouthed in a place reserved for contemporary global affairs. I know I owe you no explanation, but it cannot hurt to have my thoughts on the matter in words. There is a time and a place for everything. Current events is not the place for intolerance. I add and edit the portal almost daily. this is by no means a claim of ownership, only meaning that I think I know what I am talking about and my opinion on the subject should have some merit over somene whose sole purpose for adding the item is intolerance. I'm sure every day there are anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-american, anti-isreal, anti-sweatshop, anti-fur, KKK gatherings, neo-nazi marches, the list goes on and on (im not claiming any position on any of those examples). The point is that this is not the place for that. Current Events. say it with me. Contemporary geopolitical affairs that are of interest to the international community. A "protest against a church" (exactly what it says) is not current events. WikiTony (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the fifteenth time, i never accused you of being a nazi, or KKK. I only compared your behavior to theirs (quite fittingly, actually). I also did not accuse you of libel. I do not think you know what libel is, seeing as it is impossible to do on this encyclopedia. As for the slander, yes. You are slandering the name of an organized religion who has not who has not committed any known wrongdoing. You are defending a group (a group I can only assume you are a part of since you are so persistent in your attacks against their church) who anonymously hacks into the website of a church. In my country (USA), this is highly illegal. What you are doing is publishing (and defending) illegal activity. hate crimes. terrorism. You may not like these people (obviously) but regardless of what they believe, they do not deserve to be hate mongered. especially not here. And trust me, i have read about the issue and am not "kneejerking." You have an admitted bias against these people (your disability). Please take your bias elsewhere. Also, you keep saying your intent is not against the church but rather against the "usery" (a term that is not in this encyclopedia). That is clearly not what your edits state. what it does state is "protest the church." what you say you mean and what you say are two very different things. WikiTony (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so you never called anybody a nazi, you just said "quite fittingly" that they're acting like one? An utterly useless distinction to justify continued ad hominem attacks. This is a portal for current events, not a soapboxing platform for or against Scientology or Chanology. The incident in question got considerable news coverage, and it's patently absurd to describe the addition of this text as vandalism. Certainly we should be careful how this is presented, but that doesn't imply it should not be presented at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: haha oh man. even when i say "im not calling you a nazi," you think i'm calling you a nazi. what a gem you are. you do sympathize with religious persecution and intolerance, so maybe you do have some things in common with them, but no, for the squigillionith time, i am not saying you are one. And yes, hacking into a church's website IS highly illegal in the united states. In fact, in most jurisdictions it falls under hate crimes, and in our post 9/11 world, under the PATRIOT Act, can be considered terrorism. Please keep this in mind when defending and publicizing the actions of intolerant individuals. You say, again, that the focus of the protest is against the "usery," not against the church. that is not what it says. it clearly states "protest the church." If you mean what you say, the very least you could do is clarify.
Thanks for reaching a compromise. I was not involved with, nor did I approve of the DDOS. DDOS's are still not 'hacking into'. Anyway: I don't really care that you're calling me a nazi. I'm just pointing out how juvinile you were behaving. But now that we have an agreement, let us never speak of this again. 128.255.187.32 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There was no compromise. What you wrote and what I wrote are two totally different things. And, of course, I did not call you a nazi (or anything else). WikiTony (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Events 

message: The users who have been edit warring here have been blocked for 8 hours each. Please do not edit war as otherwise the page will be protected or further blocks issued. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks