Difference between revisions of "Talk:Criticism of Dioism"

Latest revision as of 14:04, 3 July 2015

The Book of Dio

Ambiguous... What do you mean by "being of Erepublik Standards"?

The first think should be the topic about it being deleted by Admin several times, before allowing it to stay on forum. After that it was moved by the team into the Wiki for a better feedback and update.

Sources for this is not required.... I think....

--Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

This one was added by Waseem, so you'll have to talk to him about his source. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

I think the problem was that the Book was (and still is) (current changes should solve that) OFFENSIVE for various Sweden Citizens, various Spain Citizens and Koroush. And add sources of the debate on this issue. --Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

I personally have contacted the people of Spain and Sweden, as well as Koroush, over IRC about the offensiveness of The Book. Here are the responses I've received.

• Spain: They generally don't care about their involvement in The Book. A lot of them find it entertaining. Kartalon tends to crack jokes about it every so often.
• Sweden: They find the book hilarious. They don't really care about being called "pig disgusting" (Prop Joe cited it as their reason for attacking Germany), besides the fact that repetitive use kind of wears out the joke.
• Koroush: He's only arguing against it to troll Dioists. He's going to deny this, of course, but when he does, I'm more than willing to provide screenshots and chatlogs and whatever else you may need.

- –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

This dispute is about the Book being biased. Sources again.... --Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Talk:The Book of Dio#About bias - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

Why did you put this here? This statements does not criticize... ;) --Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

I don't know, it wasn't me who added it. {{User:AgentChieftain/Template:Signature}

The Circles of Dio

Sources again... :D --Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

cool story bro. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

Again, the date is about the Circles being offensive. And sources? --Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

User_talk:AgentChieftain#Remove_word - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

Dioism

• Dio's banning in December/January because of his donations list. All charges were dropped after a through investigation.
• People saying that Dio does not exists (I remember this being an issue discussed in March, when I entered the game).
• Various uncorrelated facts between the Book of Dio and other Dioism related articles. I put one source on AgentChieftain's Talk page of one of this.
• Criticism by "The New Church" - I mean all the topics created by miladmzz and Vaclav in the forum - Society or in Off-Topic.
• People criticizing your seriousness on the matter.
• Content copied from other games/movies.

For all this, again sources would be nice... Have fun at editing! --Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

I can't provide sources on the first two myself (Admin never provides public reasons for bans). The First Church criticism should be added by the First Churchists themselves, but they are abstaining from adding their material to the Wiki until they have established their own beliefs. Honestly, Voltare, and BBJ can probably confirm this. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

And another thing.... Dioism doesn't have a history (this is for another page to create).... I mean:

• your group decided to form a religion;
• why did you decided this;
• how you decided this;
• how did you elect "Dio" to be the "God-Emperor";
• what were the obstacles if they were any.

For this it would be nice to be real, not fictional. Some RL background of - first people in Pakistan, promotion of Erepublik in 4chan, first obstacles within the game as a group (I mean December, January, when you were "attacked" like the "goons" are "attacked" now) and so on... --Belea2008 chew the fat 16:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

I remember explaining most of this to you via IRC with the help of everyone else. You should have the logs of this, but if you don't, I'll take a look for them. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

The whole point of the feedback

This is criticism on Dioism, so:

• it should be facts, therefore sources are required;
• Dioism template does not belong here - Criticism of Dioism is not a part of Dioism culture;
• Religious Views template - again - does not belong here - because this page is neither fictional, nor based on Dioist cultural views.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? --Belea2008 chew the fat 17:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, I'm doing my best to provide you with sources for these arguments.

However, Criticism of Dioism is significant in the realm of Dioism, as it's something we deal with every day via the forums. If you don't think it belongs in the topics, then I can create a page with something like apologetics to provide the points of Dioism.

Also, I've added Pakistan/Religious Views because the page contains both sides of the arguments: the views of the Dioists, and the views of the First Churchists and others. It is indeed non-fiction, but it does contain our views to an extent.

- –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 18:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)

NPOV

You said "which is true", can you prove it? --Mini "Template boy" Bill wanna chat? 20:19, 3 September 2008 (BST)

[1] :) --Aryamehr talk 20:21, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Ok --Mini "Template boy" Bill wanna chat? 20:23, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Why Bob instead of Koroush? --Mini "Template boy" Bill wanna chat? 20:23, 3 September 2008 (BST)

They decided to change it because it was offensive to me. --Aryamehr talk 20:24, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Ok(but link the source if possible), and I also accept you last edit(for the first time maybe :) ) --Mini "Template boy" Bill wanna chat? 20:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Altnabla removed "Koroush" because he complained about it.

Also, NPOV means that you cannot include "which is true". The article cannot take your side. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 20:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)

That's right --Mini "Template boy" Bill wanna chat? 20:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)

1- My name is not supposed to be mentioned, remember? Admin decision.

2- This religious text is in favor of Pakistan and Dio Brando, there is no doubt in this.
3- This religious text does not cover any historic events at all.
4- It's true that it's based of the storyline of Planetscape.
5- Who are the other various members of the community who are siding with the Dioists?
6- You are not supposed to mention me again on the Circles. Do you want me to bring admin into this? We agreed on not having my name on neither Circles or the book.
--Aryamehr talk 21:04, 3 September 2008 (BST) And as chiefTan said himself, Altnabla removed it and agreed to change the guy to Bob instead of me. Who this bob is though i don't know but they did it so.. --Aryamehr talk 21:04, 3 September 2008 (BST)

1. They didn't say to remove your name. They said to remove the insults from The Book of Dio. In other words, your name can still be mentioned as long as we are not insulting you in the process.
2. The Book is. This is not the book.
3. Very wrong. It covers the history of Pakistan, as well as other early events in the game.
4. Still, you cannot haver this article in favor of your opinion. Read WP:NPOV.
5. The Greeks/Turks/Mexicans, as well as a few people from around the world (TheSupernatural, RufusHonestly, Boris A, etc)
6. See 1. Also, your name technically wasn't in The Circles.

- –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:13, 3 September 2008 (BST)

1. Calling me evil is not insulting, when I am not actually evil?

2. This is talking about the book.

3. No it does not, how does it cover the history of Pakistan? It does not cover the history of anything. Provide some pages so ::::::I can see then. No, not the sand pages.

4. It's not having it in favor of my opinion, it's a proven fact.

5. I want to see them agree with it. I can't believe you like that.

6. Yeah, it was.

--Aryamehr talk 21:23, 3 September 2008 (BST)

1. Note that this article is titled Criticism of Dioism. This page is criticizing the fact that the Book calls you evil.
2. This page is still not The Book. I've done my best to make sure everything I've added is not biased, and I'm confident that the page is as close to a NPOV as I can bring it.
3. Did you even read The Book?. I don't have time to find every reference for you just to disprove a minor point of your argument. I will find a few when I have a minute, but in the meantime, read the book before you claim what it does and doesn't talk about.
4. WP:SELFPUB
5. Why can't you "believe me like that"? Sorry for poisoning the well, but aren't you supposed to assume good faith anyways?
6. Take a read.

- –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Proven vs Critic

I proved that it was based of that, it's clearly seen. So don't change it! --Aryamehr talk 23:57, 24 September 2008 (CEST)

It doesn't make much sense to say that you "proved" that it was based on that, because that wasn't a previously unknown or secret fact. Everyone knew that it was based on that, so saying that you proved r t is analogous to saying that you have just proved that the sky is blue or blood is red. Therefore, I think Agent's wording is much more appropriate.

By the way, it strikes me that you criticise people for basing their contributions to the game in external sources, when your own nickname is clearly based on the title of a Shah of RL Iran. --Al-Khwarizmi 17:28, 24 September 2008 (PDT)

No. No where was it mentioned by Dio on his article where he posted these that they were taken from there. The text was also edited! (plagiarism) and changed names to make it seem like you wrote it. It was "secret" until it was proven that it was stolen from somewhere else. I don't criticize people for basing their contributions to the game in external sources unlike you who criticise everyone and everything and cry because Spain does not want war, lol. Go back to your corner, this is for intelligent people not you. --Aryamehr talk 07:23, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Ignoring the fact that you do in fact "criticize everyone and everything and cry", you're missing two key points.

1. WP:NPOV: Using "proven" adds a bias in favor of your opinion in the article
2. WP:SELFPUB: Your thread hardly qualifies as an undisputed source

The purpose of this page is to present criticism with a neutral point of view, with both sides of the argument stated. It's an informative page, not a place for you to push your agenda. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 12:31, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Hey, stop bringing up wikipedia links that make no sense and has nothing to do with this just to try to do show off and act as if you know what you are doing, which you clearly don't. Please read what I wrote to Khwarizmi and educate yourself. It was proven, something that is proven you say was proven, not criticized. --Aryamehr talk 12:44, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

It wasn't a secret to anyone who had played Planescape:Torment, which is a cult classic. It's just as if you say that you "proved" that Monty Python plagiarised the Bible in their "Life of Brian", or that you just discovered that the Ewoks in "The Ewok Adventure" were taken from Star Wars Saga. If your notion of intelligence implies being surprised by the obvious, as well as resorting to out-of-place insults when you have no arguments for a discussion (what have Spain and wars to do in here?), then the word "intelligence" must have a different sense in your language than in mine. --Al-Khwarizmi 13:15, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

You forgot to add "Q.E.D." to the end of that comment, Al-Khwarzimi. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 13:31, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Hey

"# Dio was banned in December and critics used this to imply that he was a cheater. All charges were dropped."

Dio was banned several times and served his ban. What do you mean by all charges were dropped?

"Although it does cover certain historic events"

Due to the Dioism articles having fictional template I don't think this should stay here.

Opinions? --Aryamehr talk 11:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. This is a reference to his permanent ban for alleged multiaccounting, which was lifted after six days when the Admins found that he was not actually multiaccounting, but receiving gold donations from legitimate citizens and supporters. "All charges were dropped" is clearly referring to this decision.
2. The Book of Dio covers some events in Pakistan's early history, such as our foundation and our early foreign relations. As the remainder of the sentence states, it covers it with a strong bias in Pakistan's favor. However, the phrase you're pointing out isn't leaning towards either point-of-view's favor, nor does it lower the accuracy of the article, so I don't see a problem with including it.

- –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)