User talk:Tcsh

Welcome!

Hello, Tcsh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! karmafist 00:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moral responsibility[edit]

Please stop re-inserting a link to Noam Chomsky into the Moral responsibility article. While you may feel that Mr. Chomsky has something to say about every topic, personal fandom is not appropriate reason to include his Wikiquotes in a philosophical text. One can just as easily find quotes by any number of persons on the topic of morality and responsibility-- there are, in fact, almost 500 Wikiquotes with "moral" and over 700 for "responsibility". If you wish to include some claim as to Chomsky's view on moral responsibility, please do so within the body of the article. However, you may want to take notice that none of the Wikiquotes for Chomsky actually refer to "moral responsibility" as a philosophical concept presented in the article. —LeFlyman 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's on topic, and not less philosophical in nature than the other links. Your personal opinions are quite bizarre. There aren't any other Wikiquote articles with sections on moral responsibility, and if there were, it'd be great to include them too. And also, you decided in your edit summary that Chomsky isn't a philosopher, and people who added categories in his article decided otherwise. Stop censoring it and let others decide what they want to read. Tcsh 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the Three Reverts Rule which you are currently in violation of. As such, I've placed a notice on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. —LeFlyman 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I wasn't aware of this rule. OK, I won't revert anything again in less than 24 hour periods. Anyway, you shouldn't delete the link while discussing it, that's rude. Would you have liked it if I had insisted on deleting something that you added to the article, while arguing about it? Tcsh 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are a new editor; but please do spend some time reading up on policy. There's nothing "rude" about removing improper links; the purpose of editing on Wikipedia is to create accurate and useful articles, not just to throw in everything we think should be included. Again, if you wish to incorporate some statement of Chomsky's views inside the body of the article, feel free (but do expect that it will likewise be edited!) Take a look at these pages, for more useful (and sometimes contrary) info:

Also, it's considered good form to reply to users' comments on their own Talk pages, as people rarely "watch" others' pages. If you'd like to add a response, you may do so at User talk:Leflyman.

Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. —LeFlyman 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize only with regard to the 3rr rule. I didn't say anything about "desist in reverting link to Wiki-quote". You contradict yourself by first deleting the link with the excuse that he isn't a philsopher, and then claiming that I can "incorporate some statement of Chomsky's views inside the body of the article". I see no reason to follow your bizarre orders, you can edit the article yourself and show how you would incorporate it, if you wish. The only "improper" issue is you deleting the link, there's nothing "improper" about this link compared to the other links that you "thrown in" there. And the rude issue is that you keep deleting it. Tcsh 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to reflect on Wikipedia's Civility policy and Assume Good Faith guildelines, as I suspect your belligerence won't get you very far on Wikipedia. So far, according to your edit history, you've demonstrated an interest solely in editing on issues related to Noam Chomsky. Perhaps you might heed the Wikipedia etiquette of "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check." I've placed a note on the matter of your inclusion on the Talk:Moral responsibility page. Please feel free to respond further there. —LeFlyman 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De nada[edit]

No worries. I share your ire at the continued re-insertion of text that most editors feel doesn't belong. Tcsh is POV-pushing in the clearest fashion. Perhaps hearing it said nicely from a second voice will help alleviate the bad feelings around there. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky/Castro Pic Debate[edit]

You need to stop your trolling! By you specifying that you have never said that the picture is appropriate, while later saying that you believe that it is appropriate, is to be deceptive in order to hamper the discussion. The debate is precisely whether the picture is appropriate or not; which is obvious from the previous entries! Since you have been reprimanded for you misconduct before, so I will simply remind you to study the Wikipedia rules of conduct. PJ 10:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Trolling contribution[edit]

I see you've got form in trolling. In the "criticisms of Chomsky" article you are pushing a stalker's efforts to harass a journalist by publishing his business email & phone number. You need to get over it and take account of the other comments on this page.--Gezza 09:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]