User talk:Lordkazan/Archive 2

Comments At the top of your talk

I'm recting to Dasondas' comments on User talk:Crimsone, and those comments really should be removed Lordkazan - no matter what your opinion, those do count as personal attacks. Robdurbar 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How is the truth, which i have diffs to prove, constitute a personal attack? Lordkazan 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of how it is phrased. Regardless of the veracity of the statement, the need for civility here remains. Thank you. -- Avi 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So WP:CIV advocates censorship? I have PROOF that he did such. It is a simple statement of the fact that I will not acknowledge comments from him, and why. I could put the diffs there. It is not a personal attack by any reasonable definition when it's demonstrably true. Lordkazan 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the statement constitutes a public declaration of intent to use WP:CIV#Reducing_the_impact Point 3 "Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community." Lordkazan 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a contravention of that statement. If you were to simply say that "I do not wish, and will not to respond to comments by Desondas", that would be your perogative, and would be ignoring what incivility you see in the situation. If you had no comment whatsoever, then THAT would be operating "as if the offender does not exist".

What purpose does your statement serve anyway, other than to have other users take a bad view of somebody you have a problem with? If Dasondas had the same statement on his page, he would be told the very same thing. --Crimsone 17:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1) To save me the effort of explaining to people why I'm not responding to his comments, 2) as a documentation of the demonstrable truth. Lordkazan 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an issue at all if you all simply went away and left me alone - the quotation of WP:CIV I have was recommended to me by an admin. Requesting I remove demonstrable factual information, simple because it makes a user look bad (maybe they should have thought about that in advance?) is censorship, a contradiction of my principles - and a contradiction of wikipedia's entire atmosphere. Lordkazan 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you that Dasondas should apologise for what they said - whether it was intended or not, he or she should be able to re-read the sentences in question and see how they could be construed as offesnsive and as labelling you antii-islamic, when I don't think you have been. I'm not gonna push the issue either - its just that Dasondas made a complaint which had not yet been responded to. This is a user talk page - it is not an encyclopedia article and there is no need to follow encyclopedic principles on it at all. Avi/Crimsone are correct that you have every right to ignore Dasondas, and even to inform the user of the fact on their talk page; but lists or comments about disliked users, or users who you will not work with, are really things that should be kept to one-self. Robdurbar 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and your free to have it. It's my opinion that I have the right to, on my own talk page, post a list of users that I will not deal with, and why. If he was simply to apologize to me - his entry would go bye. I gave him ample opportunity to apologize, instead he choice to again tell me that I was "virulently antisemitic and islamaphobic" when they had NOTHING to do with religion beyond the fact that some religions engage in the practice that I am opposed to having forced upon individuals who cannot/do not consent. It personally insulting to me - i have both jewish and islamic friends. I am fully supportive of religious freedom (despite being totally opposed to religion) so long as practicing their religion doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. The practice I oppose is an infringement upon the rights of others - it is forcing their religion upon others. Anyone objectively taking a look at this should be able to understand that, and anyone not making knee-jerk reactions should know that it's against the practice, not the religion. I know several jewish people who are opposed to circumcision. Heck - jewish circumcision wasn't foreskin amputation until the 3rd century CE! It was thusly changed because before then it had been merely a scoring of the skin and could be concealed, and the rabbis didn't want jewish athletes to be able to conceal it! Bah, now i'm lecturing like a college professor! His complaint is without merit, I have nothing on this page about him that is nonfactual and cannot be demonstrated to be truth via wikipedia diffs. If he has a problem with me, he can do the same thing I'm trying to attempt with him: ignoring him! Lordkazan 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my opinion; its my interpretation (backed up by other users above) of the Wikipedia community's opinion, as expressed at WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility. As I said before, I'm not going to get drawn into a long discussion here - if you really want to keep it there, then I won't personally take it any further. However, one last thing I will say is that the factual accuracy is relatively irrelvant. I could provide you with diffs showing that user x is a complete and utter d******d, but that would still make it a personal attack if I said who I was referring too --Robdurbar 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"(backed up by other users above)" argumentum ad populum. I asked an admin via IM, and he's the one that pointed out the part of WP:CIV I quoted above.

Your analogy about factual accuracy is a false one - the term "dickhead" is seem as insulting. If you were to instead phrase that as being "rude" then it's not in any way a personal attack since it was factual.

My statement at the top of my page is likewise - it says what he did, without using perjorative terms, and is factual. I consider it uncivil to tell me to censor the truth from anywhere on wikipedia. Lordkazan 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

("argumentum ad populum") - User:Robdurbar and User:Avraham are also administrators. - You yourself will note how that impacts on your choice of latin (why latin I don't know - it seems to be the "in thing" online these days.) This is likewise my final comment on this. No answers to this are required - if you wish to get a more conclusive view, I recommend that you seek the opinions of other admins. --Crimsone 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

because latin is proper nomenclature for most logical fallacies. Lordkazan 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

Gay marriage being considered social justice is only your point of view and not a fact and wikipedia articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Please revert your edit to the Gay marriage category. In the future, please refrain from adding your point of view to articles. It is considered vandalism. 75.3.23.157 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that it's considered a social justice issue. You vandalized a category page. Discontinue your vandalism immediately. Coming to the page of someone who is cleaning up vandalism to complain about POV when you were doing POV edits is only a way to get yourself watched more Lordkazan 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you are confused on a couple of issues.

You don't seem to know what social justice is.

You also don't seem to understand wikipedia's vandalism policy. Adding your opinion to an article is vandalism and removing point of view, as I did, is not vandalism.

I hope that clears this up for you. 75.3.23.157 16:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your insulting suggestions, i know exactly what Social Justice is, and your removing that tag from the Same-sex marriage category is POV-pushing vandalism and will be reverted all day long. If you continue to vandalize you will be blocked from editing wikipedia Lordkazan 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely that a German atheist could understand what social justice is. 75.3.23.157 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see you are opposed to anything associated with religion, that means you would oppose social justice (assuming you were actually telling the truth when you said you know what it is), and if you believe that gay marriage is apart of social justice, you would oppose gay marriage. 75.3.23.157 17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked further on your user page and see that you do support gay marriage, so it looks like I was correct about you and that you lied when you claimed to know what social justice is. 75.3.23.157 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I know very much what Social Justice means. Now STFU Lordkazan 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe now you know what social jusitce means (probably not), but it was clear you didn't at first and you just lied about knowing what it is. You are very inconsistent in your beliefs. 75.3.23.157 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing

Please don't visit my talk page simply to leave inane, inapplicable warning templates. If you have a substantive issue with one of my contributions, please explain it in detail, preferably on the article's talk page. I did not "blank" anything. I removed clear violations of WP:NPOV and I explained exactly why I did it. Please assume good faith. Cheers, DickClarkMises 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You blanked content that had clear citations to reliable sources. Lordkazan 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While WP:RS is important when determining whether a source ought or ought not be included, it is not the sole source of insight into how to determine the content of an article. WP:NPOV's section on the perils of WP:NPOV#Undue weight is instructive here as well. After all, the criticisms are currently structured in such a way as to assume a particular POV in the encyclopedic voice. Take, for example, the following:

In describing Regnery's position in the publishing world, Nicholas Confessore, then writer for the leftist American Prospect, said,

Welcome to the world of Regnery Publishing—lifestyle press for conservatives, preferred printer of presidential hopefuls, and venerable publisher of books for the culture wars. Call it—gracelessly but more accurately—a medium-sized, loosely linked network of conservative types, with few degrees of separation and similar political aims. Just don't call it a conspiracy.[1]

Regnery has published books by authors such as Newt Gingrich, former Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour, Barbara Olson, and Ann Coulter. Regnery has published books about AIDS by Peter Duesberg (who claimed AIDS was not caused by HIV) and Michael Fumento (who claimed that AIDS was more likely to be contracted by homosexuals than heterosexuals).

The first part is fine, and properly explains who Confessore is, as well as disclosing his own political predisposition. The quote, while flavorful, doesn't poison the article or anything. I think it is actually useful. However, the last paragraph is altogether out of place, and seems to be aimed at discrediting the first group by lumping them in with the AIDS skeptics. Now, I happen to think that the first group is pretty lame, but at least they are referred to in the Confessore quote. I don't see the relevence of mentioning Duesberg and Fumento in this section, unless it is to hit readers with an obvious bit of unnecessary, POV-violating bias. DickClarkMises 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the content Lordkazan 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me be more explicit if I can... Where it says, Regnery has published books about AIDS by Peter Duesberg (who claimed AIDS was not caused by HIV) and Michael Fumento (who claimed that AIDS was more likely to be contracted by homosexuals than heterosexuals)., the article offers no reason why this is critical information. The inclusion of that line assumes a POV in the encyclopedic voice, and that is a policy vio. Now, if we wanted to have a different section under criticism for the AIDS skeptic stuff, that would perhaps be of use, but there needs to be a good source to which we can attribute this as a critical view, if indeed it is going to be under the criticism section. I would especially object to the last bit, about Fumento, where it seems that the encyclopedia expects the reader to already be of the opinion that homosexuality does not increase the likelihood of HIV/AIDS infection. There are plenty of reliable sources, including [1] and [2]. From the latter, we see that at least some experts claim that "Anal sex is the most efficient means of sexual HIV transmission. It is clear from many epidemiological and biological studies that most HIV transmission between men who have sex with men occurs via unprotected anal intercourse. Studies of homosexual men have shown consistently that the receptive partner (bottom) in anal intercourse is at higher risk of HIV infection." DickClarkMises 17:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Then remove the sentence you object to, or better yet - start a discussion on the talk page - than blank the entire section! Lordkazan 17:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see this diff. DickClarkMises 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a better edit then, this is all cleared up then. Have a nice one Lordkazan 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Only Account

Please do not state lies about me. Not all my edits have been vandalism. You are just mad at me because I showed that you were lying about knowing what social justice is. 75.3.23.157 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your slander will not be tolerated, get off my talk page vandal Lordkazan 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you had an education beyond computers, you wouldn't need to resort to junior high school level name calling. 75.3.23.157 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Begone, your activity is crossing over into the realm of harassment and if you ever contact me again I will file a complaint Lordkazan 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart/Freespace licence

May I know that if Derek Smart (as he claimed) is not the holder of the freespace licence then who is currecntly the htolder of it after interplay went bust? Kerr avon 06:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody actually knows.. it's in limbo Lordkazan 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So Derek Smart lied when he said "Derek Smart, yeah, that would be me, got the license from my friends at Interplay (a publisher I had very good experiences with)" [3]

Kerr avon 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No.. put the quote in context - thread title "Freespace License. What if..." - begining of first post "....Derek Smart, yeah, that would be me, got the license from my friends at Interplay" - it was a conditional, one that never ended up taking place Lordkazan 16:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jakew / Circumcision

Hi, Lordkazan! After reading through a tiny portion of all the edit war and bannings revolving around Jakew and that godawful Circumcision debate, I answered to Avi posting on my IP page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:87.78.178.52. I just wanted to give you general kudos. I think we share a similar point of view and maybe a similar temper. As I explained to Avi, I am not going to participate in that giant waste of time, as it seems people like Jakew (or Nandesuka) do have too much aggressive energy. In my opinion, they are assholes not because they have whatever twisted POV they obviously have, but because it overrides and abuses their own intelligence. So, instead of doing some very necessary introspection, Jakew just refines his strategies. I think he is just an excellent example of what is wrong with the very structure of Wikipedia. I mean, let's face it: There is no grassroots movement, never was. And that's because of people like him.

And btw: I am also non-religious but nevertheless spiritual and I, too, think that circumcision must not be performed especially on the grounds of the religious belief of a kid's parents. Psychological bias in education is bad enough, although a determined person can shake that off in time. But no one can shake off the trauma of unconsenting genital mutilation, for whatever dubious reason it happended.

That's why I rather be banned from Wikipedia by Avi than adhering to the McKinsey methods of some Jakew. Just thought you could use some agreement, we all can, can't we?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.178.52 (talk • contribs) 12:46, September 18, 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. You may want to visit Masturbation, Gliding action and the discussion at Circumcision. Additionally you may want to go to user_talk:jakew. Isn't there any way to present this to anyone in charge like ArbCom? I mean, he should abide from going into it like that for the sake of WP:DR. 87.78.178.102 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Nandesuka has banned from editing and is simultanously reverting edits I made on Circumcision scar. Could you please restore that edit? It is clearly appliying to a debate that ended in July and Nandesuka only states "banned user may not edit" as comment on his revert. 87.78.150.238 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Recusal

You should recuse yourself from moderating anything involved in Circumcision because from your history of edits in relation to it I don't feel that you can be unbiased on the subject - you've supported Jakew who has a history of abusing the rules to push his POV - which is itself a violation of the rules, he just manages to get away with it. While you see the people coming in trying to balance the article as pushing a POV, simply because they disagree with you, we are none the less simply trying to balance the article.

Please be patient with 87.78.178.52, I will attempt to calm him down. Lordkazan 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your bias betrays you. I have been among the most level-headed editors, bringing sources for both sides, and trying to mollify extremism on both ends. I am afraid that your vitriolic, and I use the term properly based on your posts and edits, stance against circumcision is causing you difficulties in dealing with anyone who is not blatantly anti-circumcision. Your stance, and those of the anonymous IP, are, in my opinion, much more harmful to the encyclopedia in terms of rampant POV-pushing. I reiterate, please read WP:NPOV carefully, and follow it and other wiki policies if you wish to contibute positively. Thank you. -- Avi 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh seriously, how many edits have I made to the article itself? One, maybe two? I go to the talk page first, a place where discussion can get heated, but when have I EVER advocated the censorship of information that could be seen to promote circumcision? When? that's right - never. I've merely been militantly advocating NON-BIAS in the article, an article that is currently pro-biased. Your arrogance in claiming that you are one of the most level-headed editors to attempt to paint me as biased destroys your entire point. Lordkazan 18:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance? . I repeat, I try and verify claims from both angles, bringing sources, and trying to ensure both sides have fair play in proportion to the evidence and reliable and verifiable sources brought. Once again, please read WP:NPOV. The operative point is that articles cannot be inherently unbiased, rather, both sides should be represented fairly by reliable and verifiable sources with none given undue weight. The article brings both points of view, and brings sources and evidence for both points of view. What it does not do is take a stand one way or the other pro- or anti-. It brings the latest discussions of world-renknown medical organizations which for he most part themselves do not take a stand, but remain neutral. Even for those that do take a stand, there are different stances for medical, ritual/religious, and truly elective circumcisions. This is what the article should be, and this is what remains. For the article to start leaning one way or the other because editors such as yourself have made a near religious objective of demonizing circumcision, is against everything wikipedia stands for. Look at all of your edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Lordkazan You do not want an unbiased circumcision page, you want an anti-circumcision page, and that is not permitted in wikipedia. Is the page as it stands now perfect? No. But it is much closer to a neutral page than what you and the anonymous IP are trying to push, in my opinion. Thank you. -- Avi 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What you assert that I want, and what I actually want, are two different things. You cannot claim to tell me what I think, and if you continue to do so I will request that your adminship be revoked. The Circumcision article is biased in that it DOES NOT PRESENT ALL OF THE INFORMATION about the medical effects. Your opinion is baseless and insulting. Recuse yourself from this article. Lordkazan 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to learn to take life a little less seriously. There is something called a watchlist, it comes in very handy. As for my opinion being baseless, I am afraid it has asmuch basis as anyone else's opinion in wikipedia, which is nothing, because wikipedia is not basedon editor's opinions. Lastly, my apologies for any insults, perceived or otherwise. I will finish with that there is absolutely no basis for my recusing myself from the article; a stronger argument could be made that you should, based on your own claims, such as User:Lordkazan#Non-voltunary non-theraputic Circumcision is a crime. -- Avi 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you forgotten this or this, LK? Jakew 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claims are liable to be removed as such. Furthermore the article has moved away from making specific statements tword making a general statement - for both male and female genital alteration - that it can be controversial. Lordkazan 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking at the edit summary for the first I see nothing about unsourced claims. Indeed, your reasoning appears to be that you consider the sources to be wrong. "Removed because the studies have fatal methodology flaws that render them junkscience."

Furthermore, in the second, you indicate that nothing could convince you of any source's suitability for inclusion: "There is no citation here, there is no good citation POSSIBLE here -all studies supporting are flawed." (emphasis added)

So - you asked "when have I EVER advocated the censorship of information that could be seen to promote circumcision?" There's your answer. Jakew 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Advocating the removal of unreliable information is different than advocating the removal of relaible information. Now get off my talk page, you very much know you're not welcome here. Lordkazan 19:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

May I respectfully point out Wikipedia:User page, in that neither user pages and especially not user talk pages, are owned by the user? Civilly yours, -- Avi 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Whaaa. I don't have to own this page to say he's not welcome on it, as evidenced by the fact that users can be banned for harassment. Lordkazan 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, you may say that he, or anyone else you prefer, is not welcome. I guess you can even say "get off my talk page", as I don't think that qualifies as a personal attack. -- Avi 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of popups

Please revert only vandalism using popups. Using popups to revert edits that are not vandalism (such as Atomaton's edit, which helped the page to conform to WP:EL and WP:NOT) is often considered to be rude. Jakew 14:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship is also considered rude, especially when used to push your POV - doesn't stop you from engaging in it. Lordkazan 14:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we all have certain suspicions about other users and their motives. Generally, however, it's best to assume good faith. In rare cases where that's not possible, the civil thing is to say nothing. Jakew 14:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then don't, Jakew. Those links are a an appropriate addition to the Circumcision opposition weblinks section, exactly where they belong. Automaton did not explain himself in the discussion beforehand or afterwards, so his revert constitues vandalism. 87.78.150.238 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying on your (the anon) talk page. Jakew 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So if I added useful articles proposing circumcision, you would reject them equally? That's laughable and you know it. Look at your contrib list. Well, this warfare kind of annoys me. Larry Sanger was right stating that trolls have taken over Wikipedia. And besides: This monstrosity of an article can well sustain up to a hundred web links. You are a POV pusher and the guidelines are not protecting you. The link to Sexually mutililated child cannot be cited well, because it's a page relying (besides listing sources) on graphical design and content and you know that, too. 87.78.150.238 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a response to your comment on my talk page. (BTW, I did discuss the changes on the talk page) Atom 16:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted that

That's a sockpuppet of a banned user, despite his protestations. Banned users aren't permitted to edit Wikipedia. I revert his edits on sight when I notice them. I should have said that in the edit summary, though -- I apologize for forgetting to do so. Nandesuka 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted on User_talk:Jayjg#Your_view.3F giving my reiterated assertion that I am not Dabljuh, despite the fact that I come from Germany. Nandesuka, you are leaving me no room to negotiate. But, if you will, please explain why you are so certain that I am Dabljuh? 87.78.158.150 14:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hamon Sword Stub

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks!

NauticaShades^(talk) 15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Jakew 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As stated in my revert message from your prior vandalism of this page with a incorrect template "Pointing out: admitted to intent to engage in bad faith editing, logical fallacies, and not suscribing to your interpretation of WP:NPOV IS NOT a WP:NPA violation".

See also my statement in WP:PAIN "I see you have readded the invalid warning template. This is a personal attack on me, the truth (as admitted by the user I was speaking to), and denouncing an ACTION do not constitute a personal attack. I should issue you an NPA warning since posting false warnings on other users pages is vandalism/personal attack - however I will not get into an revert war/escalating warning template war with you." Lordkazan 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, it's probably wise to let a third party judge the validity of such warnings. Jakew 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, it's wise not to ISSUE invalid warnings. Lordkazan 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest that we await the community's consensus. If that is that I'm being oversensitive, and that it is perfectly ok to describe other users as 'rabid', and to express desire for them to be 'severely sentenced' for their views, then I will accept that and apologise for the warning. Equally, if it is upheld, I ask you to do likewise. Agreed? Jakew 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ACTIONS, I'm condeming ACTIONS. Actions that he has ADMITTED to being engaged in, and actions that you are clearly guilty of. Do not vandalize Talk:Circumcision again - condemnations of ACTIONS are not personal attacks are CLEARLY STATED by WP:NPA Lordkazan 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hostility

You appear to be in quite a hostile debate with other users, so I must remind to you stay cool when the editing gets hot and avoid making WP:NPA personal attacks. If you believe the users are violating WP:POV, then there is no need to insult them. Instead, the proper area would be a WP:RFC or perhaps a report on the administrator's noticeboard if they are breaking policy. Please calm down and remember to assume good faith of other editors, and if that fails, just ignore them. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence trumps assumption. I'm only "aggressive" with them because they persistently, and by ones own admission, push-pov in certain articles - primarily by censorship. I amd currently talking to several admins about the other users gaming of the rules Lordkazan 19:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page to keep things in one place, but if you are already speaking with other administrators about the issue, then I guess this is no longer an issue. Thanks for the explanation. Cowman109^Talk 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are these the "rabidly anti-circ" admins that you plan to bring in? Jakew 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The admins I refered to are not involved. and the reference was merely as a counterpoint to the atleast one admin you have in your pocket. Lordkazan 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No legal threats

Please review Wikipedia:No legal threats. This: "you should be tried and convicted and sentanced most severely" is unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A legal threat would be "i'm going to sue you", saying that "your behavior should be considered criminal and you should be tried" has the keyword "should" and therefore does not qualify as a threat, it is an opinion. Lordkazan 21:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any threat is unacceptable and your incivility and belligerence are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

disagreeing with your interpretation is neither incivil nor belligerent. Lordkazan 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jake and SPA

Your edit of Jake being an SPA to me seems petty and vituperous. Jake has one issue that he focuses on, as do many, and he has done excellent work over the past months bringing in peer-reviewd documentation and statements from the leading medical organization in the world. Looking at your contributions makes the term SPA come to mind more quickly, I am afraid. Please refrain from making disparaging comments solely for the purposes of smearing editors you disagree with. Thank you.-- Avi 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; I apologize for accusing you. -- Avi 18:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed he was a single purpose account, don't be dishonest in claiming that i did. Furthermore he may bring in peer-reviewed stuff, but he also keeps it out when it disagrees with his pov, no matter how good the citation is. He is gaming the rules, and you are not a non-biased administrator. You'll also notice edits to Tae kwon do, katana, hamon (created by me) and other articles. Lordkazan 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I posted on your talk page. As you could have seen from this pages history, I added that tag, not Lordkazan. Please read the article about spa. It's clearly not against policy to be focusing on one issue and I am not in the slightest intending to put into doubt the great value of user:Jakew's contributions, but it's still good to keep such a fact in mind when you are trying to argue with a user, that's what that tag is for, isn't it? I understand that you sometimes chime in for Jakew, but please abide from personally attacking Lordkazan for something he hasn't done. Besides: On the grounds of having counted all contributions of those two users I dare to say that Lordkazan's range of contributions is a lot wider than that of Jakew's. And please keep in mind what the SPA article exactly says: SPA has nothing to do with the quality of one users contributions but with the range of topics a user is contributing to. Thank you. Tit for tat 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. Now.

You have been repeatedly misrepresenting the ArbCom. As I pointed out here, I have not been warned for POV-pushing edits.

In spite of having been informed of your mistake, you made the accusation again: here and here.

I do not appreciate this, and I suspect that the ArbCom will not appreciate being misrepresented either. I request that you stop immediately. I would further point out that it would be a sign of good faith for you to correct your errors. Jakew 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm representing it AS SOMEONE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION represented it to me. Lordkazan 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please do not insert uncited, possibly defamatory information regarding living people into articles. Thank you. JBKramer 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're refering to Derek Smart, it's a true statement, i merely reverted someone else' censorship of the information. Talk to the original editor who added it about the citation, but it's known to be true - he admitted it himself. Lordkazan 18:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am. Do not insert that information without citation. Review WP:BLP. Thanks. JBKramer 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert it, i just reverted someone else' removal - it's KNOWN to be a true statement - talk to the original editor about a citation [follies has a record of all the usenet emails though] Lordkazan 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the remover. Truth is not the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia, verifiability is. Please do not insert uncited, possibly defamatory information regarding living people into articles. Thank you. JBKramer 18:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Please be civil

Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand how a descriptive comment can be thought of as insulting or uncivil. Arbitrary redefinition of terms in legal documents are way out of common sense, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. --Kjoonlee 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And you don't have to tell me anything. Speak with your edits on articles, if you want. :) --Kjoonlee 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You have to read WP:V, especially the external link that mentions what Jimbo Wales said. --Kjoonlee 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:COOL

Please review WP:COOL. Thanks. JBKramer 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not use one-click reverting on changes that are neither vandalism nor your own. Thanks. JBKramer 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that direct quotations are not a reliable source is vandalism, and don't tell me what I can and cannot do - there is no Wikipedia Policy prohibiting me from using popups to do ANY revert i feel is appropriate Lordkazan 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware that many editors consider rollbacks of non-vandalistic edits to be a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is appropriate to use descriptive edit summaries for your edits per WP:ES. JBKramer 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good for them, I am supposed to care about other people's opinion on that because? I use the tools I have to the best efficiency, if you don't like it that's your problem Lordkazan 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3rr

Please note that you are perilously close to violating the three revert rule, which states that no editor can revert anything other than simple vandalism more than 3 times in any 24 hour period. JBKramer 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I know how to count, thank you very much. BTW - so are you Lordkazan 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In that, sir, you are mistaken. I have but one revert to the article. JBKramer 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, the first of your two links was the first insertion of {{noncompliant}}. SupremeCommander's edit was not simple vandalism. JBKramer 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, those are valid citations since we're citing quotes on websites which we can confirm the poster is who they say they are. That makes his revert vandalism. Clearly your are not familiar with the history of this article User:Supreme_Cmdr probably IS Derek Smart (that the username he uses constantly), as is a SPA Lordkazan 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Netsnipe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) disagrees with you. JBKramer 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Does he now? citation? Lordkazan 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser

Have you put up a WP:RFCU? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

didn't know how to do that, thanks bro! Lordkazan 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding our recent poor interactions here. JBKramer 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He's perfectly within his rights to do that. --InShaneee 22:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:JBKramer

I am unfamiliar with your dispute with JBKramer, but I saw your recent edits to his talkpage. Your comments (here) are highly inappropriate as they violate the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Specifically, you cannot call another user an "ass." You also seem to have numerous personal attacks on your talkpage. You call administrators "abusive, in-group protective blind powertripping arseholes on the planet," "power-tripping, sometimes partisan, always unreasonable arseholes who think they are Gods-on-earth," and "arsewipes partisanly-support certain pov-warriors who they're friends with, abusing wikipedia rules to keep their pov-warriors in control of certain articles." While criticism of Wikipedia administrators is allowed, this goes too far. I respectfully ask you to remove these statements, along with the comment about Dasondas on this talkpage. Thank you. P.S. Near the bottom of the page you mispelled "vandalism." DRK 02:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on your talk page - summary follows

"ass" as a typo, pls read the sentance - corrected typo

revamped my commentary on the few admins (unnammed) who make many of you look bad

previous admins have told my my statement about Dasondas is fine since it's factual and can be proven as such via wikipedia diffs - please look up higher on this talk page Lordkazan 03:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood your earlier comment, failing to realize that it was a typo, but now I see that it is. I have warned JBKramer about making personal attacks[4]. I still encourage you to remove the comment about Dasondas here even if it is true and it does not violate Wikipedia policies because it may give other Wikipedians the wrong impression. When I saw the comment on Dasondas, along with your assessment of some administrators, I came (and seem to have jumped) to the conclusion that you bear grudges. This was wrong of me and I apologize, but other users may make the same mistake. I certified the basis for dispute on JBKramer's RFC because there has been incivility, admittedly on both sides. However, if I had the power I would make an administrator deal with this. One day of contentiousness does not merit an RFC. An administrator should have at least tried to mediate this dispute. DRK 03:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the dasondas info. And no apology needed on misunderstanding the typo! Lordkazan 03:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My only edit to the RFC was certification that there was a dispute[5]. My attempt to resolve the conflict was my first comment on your talkpage. Again, I would have preferred for an admin to step in, but they, for some reason beyond my comprehension, have decided not to. Note that an RFC is merely a forum for other users to comment on the user in questions' actions. No action is ever really taken until and unless the dispute goes to arbcom. DRK 03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got your name entered under {Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}. I wouldn't say you've failed. Lordkazan 03:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say I've failed in that I've been unable to get an administrator to step in and mediate. Still, I'll see if Inshanee can persuade JBKramer to withdraw the RFC and have him/her mediate this dispute. Cheers, DRK 05:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheist

Is there a reason that you reverted my edit at Atheism? Your comment on the talk page mentioned wanting to re-write the section (which I had done, not blanked it, as you suggested, though much of it was unsourced, and had to go), but you never actually re-wrote it. Do you have sources for the material that you added back in? I certainly don't, and it seems that in the time that it's been there, no one else has. Unless there are acceptable sources for this material, it's just OR, and it really does have to go. -Harmil 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but you can't keep bad content on Wikipedia just because you feel that it could be acceptable if there were valid sources, and it were re-written. You've put it back after it was cut down to the defensible bits. That means you're either saying that it's acceptable, well-sourced content, or that you are going to fix it. Which one? -Harmil 02:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Misbehavior / "PowerTrips"

I just wanted to remark that IMHO you are exaggerating a little bit. The section reads as if WP were actually "plagued" by evil POV pushing admins who Arbitrarily block users opposing their POV, which is clearly not the case. Subversive element 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't suffer burnout....

I think Jakew's primary objective is to thwart long term changes by wearing down contributors.

I'm sorry that I've been away caring for my parents.TipPt 17:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy - i'm getting married next month. Lordkazan 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- Avi 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I found it entertaining to be be accused of pro-religious POV. It may surprise you that I am, like you, an atheist (albeit weakly so these days). I just firmly believe in NPOV policy. :-) Jakew 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the subject

I'm not circumcized; and have distinct memories of getting teased as a child because mine "looked different" than the other boys in school (I attended grade school in the 1970s). OTOH, I live in a part of the country (Portland, Oregon) where it simply isn't much of an issue any more--many boys around here are uncut, and nobody makes a big deal out of it anymore. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that in other parts of the country, it still is a big deal.

My point is--given that it's a religious/cultural practice which isn't observed by significant parts of the world's population, anyone who says that opposition to the practice is "oustide the mainstream" is rather full of shit. Trouble is, most cultures who don't perform male circumcision see it as a non-issue, whereas those who do see anti-circumcision advocacy as an attack.

Anyway, take care,

--EngineerScotty 21:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User Warhawk

Supreme_cmdr has been banned for 48 hours for persistent vandalism. He appears to have returned under the appropriately named SPA and sock puppuet called Warhawk. I am discussing this on the articles talk page, can't the authorities determin the IP addresses and if they match the two accounts to ban supreme_cmdr and this warhawk who are ruining a good article.Kerr avon

Indeed they can (oftentimes at least). It's a process called Checkuser -Crimsone 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on the Derek Smart article. When there is such a heated debate, it is usually best to simply avoid reverting a user's edits more than once in the interest of them cooling off, and instead resorting to discussion. The endless revert war is clearly getting nowhere, so I ask that you please take a step back from the edit warring and go to the talk page of the article first. The article won't explode if it isn't in your preferred version (and it would likely be left in the m:the wrong version longer if I protected the page again, which is why I am resorting to blocking instead of protection now as the article has seen some improvement). Cowman109^Talk 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lordkazan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was restoring the page to the established consensus version after Warhawk blanked cited content. This article has a long sad history of edit warring unfortunately because Derek Smart supporters (and possibly DS himself (see Supreme_Cmdr, as that is the username he uses everywhere else) insist on reverting anything negative about him even if it's a known established fact with citations such as direct quotes from DS himself. (the blocking editor's message was "Edit warring..") Lordkazan 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is the kind of explanation we see all the time from people engaged in Edit wars. Obviously, if we assume good faith, we know you think your version was the right one. But that doesn't matter; it's disruptive to revert-war, regardless of how much you think you're right, it's not only about you. I know it can be frustrating dealing with obstinate users you disagree with... which is why we block people for that kind of behavior. Mangojuice^talk 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Checkuser complete

The Checkuser I've filed here has been completed. The users Supreme Cmdr and WarHawk are unrelated. The person handling the checkuser declined the request to check the IP, because of the aforementioned unrelated-ness. Shadow1 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)