Talk:Communist Mississippi

End of the NPOV issue now??

User:Fabusism2005:Fabusism2005 12:51 (Ohio Time), April 11th, 2007 in the year of Yahweh.

Post it on up!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402616

User:Fabusism2005:Fabusism2005 02:39 (Ohio Time), January 10th, 2007 in the year of our Lord.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ahem. Sorry. But, well, see the last part of this article.

Now, the entire matter has been discussed in NS' Moderation forum. To put it simple: CM proclaims that he is lacking enough intellect to believe that putting a link he was explicitly told he wasn't allowed to post in the forums into his signature, and thus, into every single post he makes was not illegal.

Now, I'm perfectly certain that he is free to rant about it in his own forums (And hell, he is doing it). I do not believe that NSwiki is supposed to be used for one-sided rants about how the NS moderators are biased and generally against $Political_Movement (I will refrain from ranting about the equally one-sided style of the entire areticle, though).

Given this... I would request the (currently) last section of this article to be turned into either 1. Something with an actual Neutral Point of View, 2. Be killed completely.

Oh, and the explicit statement given by the source of the current version, regarding him/ her/ it intending to explicitly ignore NSwiki's NPOV policy sounds less-than-acceptable, IMHO.

Rezo 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I think not, sorry... No, wait, I'm not sorry. See, I provided links to information so folks can decide for themselves. I think anybody with an IQ of at least room temperature can see how the deletion was a result of massive mod bias. That is after they see all the proof put forth by my side. I don't see the other side putting forth anything other than, "Well the mods said they said this to him." See, I'm actually putting forth links to information.

Pretty straight forward, don't you think?

Lacking enough intellect? You mean I can't read folks minds. When they say, "Hmmm, you're surprised people didn't respond positively" it somehow is supposed to say to me, "NEVER, EVER! Post that again, have nothing to do with it, or else!" I'm sorry, but most reasonable people won't see it that way. You have no case against me, you can't substantively debate me, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against my character (ie. insinuating I'm dumb and lacking intelligence). You're already conceding defeat. You have no grounds on which to debate me, and you know it!

Fabusism2005 8:44 am Eastern, March 13th, 2005 in the year of our Lord.

You were explicitly told to never post it again. You then added it to your signature, thus having it in any and all of your posts, and you are surprised?

You know, for a self- admitted extreme rightwinger, you're quite a bit into searching for pointless excuses, given that it is pretty much what you're against, no?

Point stands. No NPOV, so it is supposed to be killed. If you want NPOV, go, write 'VE was deleted following a variety of disputes. The DOS followed <Links to the relevant threads>.

And nothing else.

Oh, and I might add that you were, in factz, resurrected after the second deletion, which wouldn't have been necessary, were the mods actually biased. Oh, of course you aren't liked. Amazingly enough, people believing that 99% of mankind are going to hell, racists and religious bigots do tend to be disliked by the vast majoriuty of people. For example aforementioned 99%. However, this does not' mean that actual bias was present. As a matter of fact, aforementioned resurrection (You know... Something that means that ZE MODZ! actually admitted to be wrong) suggests the opposite.

And you were retarded enough not to use that chance, instead insulting 99% of NS' userbase.

Not actually seeing, or, alternatively, ignoring this fact just means that you're clearly unable to follow even the most basic concepts of logic.

And this articlöe still needs a Neutral Point of View. Great, no? Rezo 16:54, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I have posted the links, the links you claim I was explicitly warned at, you are wrong, and the links prove it, you're wrong, it's that simple, stop your lying, stop your ad hominems, you can't substantively debate me, it can't be done. So you resort to ad hominem attacks and movements to silence my voice. I was revived after they deleted me for having an IP address from Cleveland Ohio, the same general area a DOS player had his. It's not a crime, and admin reversed it. The mods were biased against me, why else would they have deleted me simply for having an IP from a city, a city of 500,000 and suburbs of 2,000,000 that a DOS had?

Fabusism2005 4:57 pm eastern. March 13th, 2005 in the year of our Lord.

CUT THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. No time for me to NPOVize it now but if anybody else wants to do it, they get a WikiCookie from me. --Goobergunch|? 22:53, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Look, it's pretty simple, really:

1. You turn it into something resembling NPOV (You know, represent both sides instead of using the wiki for your own 'revenge') and quit your pre- school tantrum 'I will edit it back!' attitude, or

2. I will do it.

Rezo 08:48, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I got bored and figured why not edit it and make it NPOV... I was tired of my old article being in the NPOV section... I think it is concise and to the point and quite neutral now...

User:Fabusism2005:Fabusism2005 11:47 (Ohio Time), November 16th, 2006 in the year of our Lord.

Whatever jackass set it so that I cannot remove the NPOV without it trashing half of my book... Grow up and get a life... The deletion controversy is left for folks to decide, it is neutral, stop screwing around...

User:Fabusism2005:Fabusism2005 7:05 (Ohio Time), December 19th, 2006 in the year of our Lord.

I've moved the last two entries in this talk page to the bottom of the page, to maintain chronological order. Regarding the last comment: Nobody has "set" this article so that the NPOV tag cannot be removed without "trashing" the article. If you've encountered an editing problem (as you appear to have done), please explain exactly what happened, and what you were trying to do. Also, since the last edit to the article itself simply seems to have messily deleted part of it, I'm tempted to roll it back, but I'm going to wait and see what the author wants, and what opinions other NSwikipedians express. Aridd 00:38, 20 December 2006 (GMT)

I cannot remove the NPOV without it removing parts of the article... Please just roll it back, remove the NPOV issue (since I believe my editing the bulk of the deletion section clears that up), and then just add it to category factbook, and some other category (perhaps one that signifies I am not on NS anymore, but did make quite a splash while there). I'm not good with this stuff... I'd be much obliged though, if somebody who was skilled, would consider doing it.

User:Fabusism2005:Fabusism2005 06:15 (Ohio Time), December 20th, 2006 in the year of our Lord.

I've rolled back the latest edit. I've also added the article to the "nations" category (it's a nation article, not a factbook article). Regarding the NPOV issue, I'm going to contact users Goobergunch and Rezo, who appear to have been the most involved, and ask them whether they believe the article is now NPOV. Removing a POV tag is a matter for community decision. Incidentally, I still don't know what you mean by "I cannot remove the NPOV without it removing parts of the article". That isn't true, so obviously you're not going about it correctly. What exactly did you do, step by step, so I can understand the problem? Aridd 22:36, 20 December 2006 (GMT)

I can't possibly be bothered reading through the IC-related bits (Because... Gah, that'd violate some wiki rules on my account). 's far as the deletion controversy goes - once a link to the respective thread in the NS Moderation forum's up, too, I'd consider it NPOV. Rezo 17:18, 23 December 2006 (GMT)

It's a scientifically proven fact that NS moderators are biased against real Americans.