User talk:Nordic Crusader

Hi! Feel free to leave any messages or comments here and I will endeavour to reply as soon as possible

June 2007[edit]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Nordic Crusader, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —MJCdetroit 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Sefringle^Talk 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the comment I left on the aforementioned discussion, regarding the deletion of a userbox:

*Comment I see Sefringle has moved his boxes to User:Sefringle/userboxes. I also note that he has an anti-god box with ~~God~~ struck out, anti-communism with Karl Marx struck out, anti-fascism with a fascist symbol struck out, he is against the war on drugs, he opposes George Bush and has a pic of GW crossed out, yet he sees fit to tell us that we MAY NOT oppose the UN and MUST NOT say so on our userpages. This whole discussion is completely obsurd and must be settled as soon as possible. It's ridiculous that we are even dignifying Sefringle with this discussion! --Nordic Crusader 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently considering contacting an admin about the Personal Attack warning, pending the opinion of other editors regarding whether or not my comment was acceptable. --Nordic Crusader 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, this is a tricky one. I saw your comment and I think Sefringle overdid his authority to remove comments under WP:NPA. The argument was sound, but, in my opinion, only the last line of your comment was applicable to removal by NPA, and thus Sefringle only should have removed the last line of text. I think he took advantage of the guidelines on WP:NPA and deleted your whole comment, but I have no means of proving this theory. What I would do if I were you would be to go ask an Admin, as they would know who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Now, if I were in Sefrinle's place, I would not delete the comment even if I feel it violates WP:NPA, because I believe that anyone is entitled to their own opinion and comment on the talk page. I would only delete using WP:NPA if it was an outright attack, not part of a person's opinion regarding some argument I made. However, I would be a little more careful so no one has the ability to delete using the NPA guidelines.
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EndUN Userbox[edit]

Hi, you recently participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN discussion. I have reluctantly submitted the closing statement by User:Tony Sidaway for deletion review. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1#User:DieWeisseRose.2FUserboxes.2FEndUN. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 02:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about your username[edit]

Hello, Nordic Crusader, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. Asterion^talk 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering discussion before launching into the policy. I'm sure I can clear up this confusion! My name doesn't imply anything racial, infact putting the Nordic with Crusader is probably historically completely incorrect. The Nordic is referring to probable ancestry before we European folk conquered what is now Britain a few 1000 years ago. And Crusader, that refers to the Crusades, whenever they were. I'm not particularly religious, but the Crusades were, in my opinion, some of the greatest wars in history. So I put the two together! I know what you a getting at, (that I'm possibly an aryan son of Hitler fighting against the world as a Teutonic knight, or something to that effect.) Don't worry though, my name isn't intended to be inflammatory in the slightest, and is in no way a reference to 3rd Reich beliefs. Hope that clears things up! --Nordic Crusader 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to understand that it is very hard to assume good faith when you are engaging a user who chooses a particularly controversial name, with no way to issue an immediate disclaimer. All this, when put side by side with your collection of non-Wiki related userboxes will always guarantee you a strong response from some people, who would not bother to find out about your rationale if the behaviour they see coming from your account is constant reverts and edit wars. Personally, I would say it is counterproductive if you are trying to get your views across. It is quite late in the UK, we could continue tomorrow where we left it. Regards, --Asterion^talk 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is interesting though to see a reaction, that is, here in New Zealand we have never had civil rights issues or racism of any great degree, mainly because our historically monocultural society. The town in which I live is almost one hundred percent white. Therefore words like negro, colored, etc etc are in common usage and draw no reaction whatsoever.

Calling yourself Nordic or a Crusader here would probably be met with a 'ok, great' as people would simply not care. The point I am trying to get across is what may seem controversial in America to a negro simply is not here. I'm not sure about the present racial situation in the motherland (Britain) or what offends etc over there. What I assume (I may be completely incorrect) is that after WW2, England, like most of Europe, was filled with anti-European-history propaganda, to try and get away from what Adolf Hitler stood for. And as he made use of many such pieces of history, such as Nordic heritage, this was also dismissed as being racist. New Zealand simply did not have, nor did we require such propaganda as we are so far away. We simply sent our armies to fight for the motherland, without any real ideological participation. I'm sure something like 'Celtic Crusader', 'Democratic Crusader' or possibly even 'Anglo Crusader' would not have drawn offence. I hope I have gotten my point across, rambling on as I have.

hypocrisy[edit]

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?Muntuwandi 11:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not familiar with that proverb, however I sort of understand it yet do not see its relevance. --Nordic Crusader 11:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your POV pushing, which has nothing to do with real science. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Negroid Caucasoid Gorilla Comparison.jpg[edit]

Can you please explain in the article's talkpage at Talk:Negroid why you believe it is neccessary to add a picture with a comparison of "Negroid" and Gorilla skulls. Thank you. --Ezeu 04:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is OR, and especially not relevant to the article. It's POV pushing, and not related to any real science. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC vs. BCE[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. Wholesale replacements of one style for another are not encouraged. Rmhermen 13:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of speedy delete tags[edit]

Please do not remove speedy delete tags from pages that you have created yourself. Diff. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Since it seems clear your purpose here is to edit war and push a specific, racist agenda, you have been blocked indefinitely. The relevant discussion is here.-Wafulz 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Whoooa hold on! Someone has caught the wrong end of the stick here. There was a huge discussion along with that picture, describing how in the context of its article it is not racist. Furthermore, I am not an 'edit warrior', and infact have tried very hard to enter into dialogue with the editor (Muntuwandi) whom seems to hold the most objection to my editing the Negroid article. [1] [2] By the way, that is the only 'controversial' article I have edited. I don't know how to link to the image discussion now that it has been deleted, and the contributions have disappeared from my contributions list. Also, I never received a warning, nor am I aware under which policy I am in breach of.

Edit warrior, seems to hold racist intents.

seems to hold racist intents. The image may have indeed appeared to promote that, when taken out of context of the negroid article and that is precisely what was being debated. We are supposed to be a Democracy on Wikipedia.

I feel an indefinite blocking, or a blocking of any description is completely unjustified. The image was under a very constructive debate and was heading towards a sound resolution when this blocking occured.

Decline reason:

Reviewing the situation, I feel that the block was proper. You do seem to be promoting an extremist, racist POV despite the objections of others; the skull comparison image was a rather blatant example. — Krimpet 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Attack[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by Muntuwandi (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot down in Action[edit]

The Crusade is grinding to a halt a fear, pending the overlords reviewing my case. Hopefully it will fall in my favor, as I have registered Nordic Crusader on several other wiki projects, but have yet to start contributing to them.

Here is a lesson for every budding editor though, don't make the same mistake as myself! I am, or was, intending on contributing to many articles and was looking forward especially to improving articles on New Zealand birdlife. However I got bogged down on the Negroid article, and related pictures, leaving myself open to assault. The lesson is, don't allow yourself to get bogged down, chances are you will be the one ending up on the wrong side of a block! Just leave the article for a few days, or even weeks, possible even seek the advice of a third party.

If anyone has any questions about my edits, post them here and I will reply here. --Nordic Crusader 04:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

But I wasn't being racist. I took the utmost care to be sensitive yet scientific. Surely this whole matter could have been avoided by letting the discussion over the image run its course? If the consensus was that it was innappropriate, then it would have been deleted. I do not hold a racist POV and am truly annoyed at myself for getting bogged down in that darned article. I wanted to contribute to it, but there are so many other things I want to contribute to so much more! Especially articles about my beloved New Zealand. Please don't let this one differing in opinion and misunderstanding be the demise of my account. I had contributed to many other articles, keeping in mind I havn't been here long, and had just started contributing to articles about New Zealand birds, which is what I had intended to spend my weekend doing had I not allowed myself to become bogged down with Negroid.

Decline reason:

Your edits, in combination with your user name, cannot be interpreted other than as promoting a racist P.O.V. In combination with your disruptive edit-warring, this made blocking you the appropriate thing to do. If you want, at least, to have a chance to contribute again, you must convince us that you understand what you did wrong and that you will not do it again. — Sandstein 07:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The image did promote a racist agenda in the article you were to add it. You were not being "sensitive" and "scientific" what-so-ever. And I called you on it. I took that image discussion page off my watchlist after my last comment to you, because it was futile and I was convinced you were pushing an agenda. The image was in no way constructive to the article, as you say, and you know it. You have violated the WP:3RR on the article Negroid. And taunted Muntuwandi (trolling), with the 3RR warnings, among other things, and trying to push him into discussion that was obvious to him, and others, futile and frustrating. Plus your user name is offensive, especially when editing topics such as these. But you did allow yourself to be "bogged down" in the Negroid article, and that's the point. Hopefully, you'll learn and come back a better editor, and stay with what you know. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'll have to. It's a shame though, I really liked this username, and have registered it on several wiki projects. Play with fire and you'll get burnt I suppose. The username isn't offensive though. Is the Nordic Council a racist organisation? --Nordic Crusader 04:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Nordic Council is racist, but don't know much about it. But you have to know that using "Nordic Crusader" while editing articles such as the Negroid article can be, in itself, a bit of concern to others, because of history. Of course being Nordic is not racist, but the name with "Crusader" added to it, again while editing sensitive topics such as race, is very suspect, even if your intentions where good. Take care. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your claim that you had no racist POV falls quite flat in the face of this gem of yours: This picture is relevant to the article and is not racist simply because there is a gorilla there, as the Caucasoid is also in the picture, the Gorilla is simply given as a datum. It does not infer that the Negroid is less evolved, it simply shows the difference in evolution, from a Gorilla, a place in evolutionary history which we share in common. --Nordic Crusader 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC) This very blatantly tries to imply that the gorilla is the last common ancestor of the Negroid and Caucasoid types of H.S. Sapiens, as if they were separate species (not possibly sub-clades of the same subspecies, not even subspecies, which has been disproved for nearly a century, but bona fide different species, which I'm not sure anybody ever believed in). This is unfortunately nothing but a gross misrepresentation of science.--Ramdrake 12:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to bait me into an argument, so that I thereby shoot myself so severely in the foot that both it and any chance of this username returning to wikipedia is forever lost? I will not bite.

I wanted to edit that article, and even constructively debate the points, but not if it's going to cost me the ability to edit other articles. I'm really pleased with this username and can't think up another anywhere near as good. --Nordic Crusader 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind, can you please restore my userpage? --Nordic Crusader 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hayden5650[edit]

Why would User:Hayden5650 edit your user page, taking out the message that you would answer questions on this page? Diff.. Looks pretty suspicious. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he sent me a txt message (cellphone) and asked me to --Hayden5650 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He could have done it himself, don't you think? He can still edit this page. (As far as I know, anyway. Being blocked, one can still edit one's userpage.) - Jeeny ^Talk 00:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Username[edit]

Let it be noted that, when I joined wiki a couple of months ago I joined under the name Nordic crusader. Note the lower case 'c' in 'crusader'. I had this changed through WP:CHU to Nordic Crusader. Just thought I'd let it be noted that my name has been under the review and discretion of Bureaucrats. It is not racist and is not promoting Nordicism. --Nordic Crusader 11:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]