User talk:Kjaer

Welcome!

Hello, Kjaer, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Khoi khoi 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Ayn Rand/Raymond Boisvert

As a contributor to the discussion on whether or not to included Raymond Boisvert's criticism in the Ayn Rand article, your input is currently requested at the Request for Comments on this question. Thanks. Macduff (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overworked "such"

Your comment: (→Path to war: not all press, just "such" press (one "such" is not overmuch). Actually, it's not effective English, because it uses the word in an unconventional manner. Perhaps you will consider rewording it to avoid antagonizing your readers Tedickey (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus

I understand your reasoning on the reversion of the publicchristianity.org link - it does seem to be promoting some wacky ideas on its main pages. However, the essay in question seemed to me an accessible and reasonably balanced summary of the history and current state of the historical jesus issue; even the glowing reference to Luke's willingness to seek out evidence is defensible, if debatable. If you really think it's too POV, I suggest you have a look at some of the other external links. Apollos? William Lane Craig? Please. The POV gates were wide open already .... --Rbreen (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rand - Greenspan

I think most of our edit-conflicts on this thing are coming about because you're trying to summarize something that's not actually in the source. The Washington Post article that's cited talks about one specific event - Greenspan's testimony before Congress. Greenspan may have changed his views before then, but that's not stated in the article, so if you'd like to alter the text to reflect that, you'd need another source. Idag (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move: Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism

There is an ongoing discussion about moving Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism. You may be interested in reviewing the arguments and offering your opinion. The discussion is here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I informed SteveWolfer (talk · contribs), Newbyguesses (talk · contribs), JJL (talk · contribs), and KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) about the current move discussion. Those four participated in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) move discussion, but Ethan a dawe (talk · contribs) didn't weigh in on it, so I didn't inform him. If you think he would be interested, you can let him know. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Thought I'd mention that I found this addition to my watchlist to be informative, clear and amusing all at the same time - well done! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please be aware of WP:3RR. Better still, edit in such a way as to not have to be aware of it William M. Connolley (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gipuzkoa

LOL I can't win. I agree with you but the general consensus that was reached on various Basque pages was that the English form to be used should be Guipuscoa. However, I shan't argue if this page prefers Gipuzkia. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz, thanks for your good humor. I did look at the Guipuzcoa page. Frankly, the objections to using the Basque seem political. And I had never even seen the supposed English "Guipuscoa." It is almost like arguing whether the article should be Lviv or Lvov and settling on Lemberg or Edinburgh versus Dun Eideann and choosing Edinboro. The Basque spelling of a Basque name, the word "official" and the google count are enough to convince me. Kjaer (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - sometimes only humour helps me survive wikipedia ;). I have come across Guipuscoa, including some German publications. I think it was originally formed in analogy to Biscay/Bizkaia and go avoid the soft/hard g problem in English, not entirely for political reasons though that thought never seems to be far on anything Basque related! Akerbeltz (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Altaic languages. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not reverted the article, but have moved a controversial and redundant statement to a more appropriate part of the article. I have accepted other appropriate changes, such as adding the word "theoretical." The complaiants additions amount to stating the same criticisms twice in different parts of the introduction. The complaining party has made the subject dispute into a personal dispute with absurd charges and repeated posts to my talk page, as if he were a third party admin, not a party to the dispute. I am happy to see the subject dispute handled by a rfeuest for comment.

Decline reason:

You clearly undid the actions of other editors four times in the last twenty four hours. If you feel an addition is "controversial and redundant", please discuss the addition on the article's talk page and gain consensus before making further changes in the future. You can file a request for comment when your block expires. Kuru ^talk 19:38, 29 November 2008 (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.

This is an interesting lesson learned. It appears that hysterical complaint works in favor of some editors. I did not revert any editor's action four times. I moved, reworded, and otherwise tried to accomodate a controversial POV statement added redundantly to the lead of the Altaic languages article. I did not remove the reference. Indeed, the only action of the other editors was to revert me. Anyone who actually reads the edits will see this. Kjaer (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand anon

I don't think the anon plans to participate in anything in the talk page. I left repeated messages on his personal talk page and he ignored all of them. Idag (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon's at it again. You seem to be more knowledgeable about the Branden thing than I am, so would you mind looking through his edits? Idag (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Please learn to respect citation and agree contentious issues on the talk page. Some of your edits are approaching POV pushing and/or vandalism --Snowded TALK 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who simply revert edits. Each of mine has offered a different attempt at a reasonable wording Kjaer (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page to this. However I have just had to for a second time insert the actual text of the citation on Objectivism over your revert saying I had not read it. This is getting really silly as is your attempt to reduce the credibility of any critic of Rand while accusing other people of POV pushing! --Snowded TALK 19:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the exact words of a citation with your own paraphrase (which alters the meaning) is not acceptable behaviour. Especially given that the first time I insert it you revert with the statement "did you even bother to read the source?". A mixed economy is not the same thing as socialism by the way, your qualification on that is both confusing and poor English. If you revert cited material again I will issue a warning for vandalism. --Snowded TALK 06:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Ayn Rand. Thank you. --Snowded TALK 08:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Ayn Rand. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --Snowded TALK 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to discuss disagreements rather than just reverting with POV accusations at the drop of a hat. You know perfectly well that using objectivism as the description of randism without some qualification is controversial. I have suggested a compromise on the talk page of the list of schools. Please engage. --Snowded TALK 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wrangle is now over and finished. The article has been fully-protected for one week. Please take the time to stop perpetuating the silly edit-warring with warnings, posted on users' talk pages and discuss the matters under dispute on the talk page of Ayn Rand and other pages, all the time assuming good faith, and striving to reach consensus. I do not expect to see a perpetuation of this dispute by templated warnings about 3rr or other matters whilst the dispute is being discussed. DDStretch (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is a very welcome new year's gift. Kjaer (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me.

But if you think CABlankenship is puppeteering, I think you should report him. Zazaban (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the midst of seeing how to do that. Kjaer (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by an Admin with an Admitted POV

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption on Talk:Ayn Rand after warnings about contravening WP:TALK. Reviewing admin please email me before unblocking if that is your decision.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. DDStretch (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that DDStretch, who has expressed his disdain for Ayn Rand, has blocked me for expressing my disdain for people editing that article based upon their POV speaks for itself. Forgive me if I title this section myself.Kjaer (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the block against Idag was hardly fair. I perhaps should have understood that any response by me, whether or not I avoided using whatever specific language it was you wanted avoided, DDStrectch, would seem objectionable to you. But Idag did not call anyone any names, and it is hardly necessary to block him while blocking me to appear fair. I suggest you unblock him. Kjaer (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kjaer, for contesting my block. For what its worth, I do not believe that Kjaer is pushing a POV, as he correctly noted that, in the past, he has defended anti-Rand edits. While I disagree with him on this particular issue, I believe that it is unreasonable to block someone for 24 hours for expressing an opinion on a talk page. Especially considering that the opinion was expressed in a civil manner. Idag (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyuan languages

Regarding your edit on the article Ryukyuan languages, you compare CMG Greek to other dialects; however, I've looked at Greek language, Varieties of Modern Greek, and CMG, and found no explanation of what CMG means or stands for. It would be great if you could please link to an explanation, or rephrase the section in Ryukyuan languages to be clearer. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation is for Common Modern Greek. It would probably read better as "standard modern Greek". The difference between it and Tsakonian is explained at Tsakonian language. Kjaer (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ayn Rand

Thanks for the message. I've made some comments on User talk:Peter Damian, which I hope will resolve the problem for the future. Can I suggest that you talk with him directly if you feel there is more to discuss? If you are still concerned, then asking for help on WP:Wikiquette alerts or even WP:AN/I may be a useful way forwards, but they do generally like to see an attempt to resolve these kinds of things by discussion between the people in dispute first, which is why I suggested you contact him directly on his talk page. My time may be taken up with other matters, but I happen to know that other administrators are watching the page, and so they may act without prompting if they think things are getting too out of control, but please feel free to take the steps I've suggested if you think you need to sort a similar matter out yourself.

I will also suggest to User:Snowded that, although WP:REFACTORing pages is acceptable, it can sometimes cause some confusion, and so care should be taken to inform people clearly about what is being done, and special care must be taken to avoid distortion by refactoring.

On the matter of the page protection, I will merely suggest that greater efforts be made to strive towards WP:CONSENSUS by negotiation, and that in negotiation situations, it is expected that all sides in the dispute are expected to be willing to make reasonable concessions to reach a resolution which, if not totally acceptable, is at least capable of being tolerated by all reasonable sides and which abides by the key wikipedia principles which apply to the situation. At the moment, I see no compelling reason to vary the protection period, but if after it stops, edit warring begins, steps will be taken to stop it, if not by myself, certainly by other administrators.

I trust that is acceptable. DDStretch (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer, these kerfluffles come and go. Best to maintain a sense of humor about it. That people would spend so much time arguing ridiculous absurdities instead of improving the articles of their "philosopher" kings is a testament to the accuracy of George Orwell, Ayn Rand and Ray Bradbury's works. Trying to diminish and smear subjects based on political and personal bias goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Dressing these desperate actions up in a guise of academic rigor, is the height of irony. These "academics" are the keeper's of the flame, don't you know. But life goes on just the same. It's not really worth bothering over. People will still be talking about Ayn Rand a hundred years from now and they still won't know who hosted some quiz show back in 1989. Don't hold your breath for an expansion of Quinn's article, even those who cite him as an authority to attack Rand can't be bothered, or so it would seem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truly I was hoping Quinn's arguments would be quoted. Check out his "short definition" of philosophy. Terrific stuff. You couldn't make this kind of thing up if you tried. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You run the risk of being blocked form editing both for misusing the talk page, and for what will be said to be your incivility to the people with whom you are interacting. You may find it instructing to know what sort of people you are dealing with." I appreciate it, I'm not all that concerned. I originally created this screen name for a totally different reason, got sidetracked into the Ayn Rand talk page when I saw some of the utter crap that was being stated there by people who clearly have an agenda fueled by ignorance. "I'm not the only one". That talk page seems to have become a debate free-for-all. Ayn Rand may not have been infallible but if one is going to make a case against what she said, they should demonstrate something resembling a grasp of what she said. I've just been engaged in a "debate" with someone who denounces reason and they sure do. It can be seen on my talk page.TheJazzFan (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Wikipedia is communal. As such it's a fascinating and sometimes maddening experience that many of us are unfamiliar with. Personally, I've enjoyed getting a unique perspective on how a communist utopian system works. There are upsides and downsides. If you are going to be upset or frustrated with inane and sometimes absurd outcomes on article subjects you care about, avoid working on articles you have an emotional attachment to. There are lots of articles on all kinds of subjects here, but dealing with contentious issues in a communal approach is interesting to say the least. Facts and the truth, unfortunately, are not always respected or valued. So take it all with a grain of salt, water off a duck's back and what not. It's not worth getting blocked over and editing here should be fun. As with any community there are all types of people and in dealing with them there are joys and agonies. Such is the craziness of life. A week from now the present discussion on Ayn Rand will be irrelevant. As such, it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While your recent edit is amusing to me personally, it's not helpful. Please, if you're going to be pointy your adversaries are going to relish blocking you. Cool off. Have a glass of water. Take a look at some other articles. It's not worth it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the intro that was last edited by me? It seems more comprehensive and pretty reasonable to me. As far as content other places in the article, has a lot been removed? I think it best to move forward. It's easy to add back any good content that has been lost from older versions using the history. But trying to roll back to the end of December, I don't think is going to play well. I'm happy to join an effort to include the word philosopher in describing her as it is well supported by sources and allows the overly long lead sentence to be broken up. No one has provided good sourcing suggesting she is not a philosopher. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

See DDStretch's comments on the Talk page. And also, Wikipedia does not work by voting, and 7 to 5 does not a consensus make, especially when many of those who !voted in favor of revision did not take part in the extensive discussions on the talk page. Find a neutral admin to assess and close the RFC--which has only been open for a day, because I reject your closure of it and your decision. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer, when you put a section title on my page that says "please work with consensus," it comes across as a statement that I have been doing otherwise. If that's what you think I dispute it. I have tried to collaborate and compromise as much as possible on a hotly disputed article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for your response. Just something to keep in mind though, because if I get a lot of what look like warnings, it may make people think I am acting in some sort of renegade fashion, which I don't think is accurate. I appreciate your frustration and there are definitely some agendas at work. I don't know if it's possible to achieve general reversion, but I support reasonable changes to promote a balanced and accurate portrait of her life story and notable perceptions of her work including the best and most notable criticisms. I have tried to trim some POV from the intro and to include her opposition to communism which is at the core of her arguments and covered extensively in the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully urge you to agree to mediation, Kjaer, as it's the only way this article is going to get sorted out. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite

00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[1]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions

I am curious to know what your opinion is of the introduction as written. I would also like to know what your view is on mediation and whether you plan to participate, why or why not. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I understand your frustration and I agree with a lot of what you've said. As far as the next step, a lot of editors have signed on to the mediation and I want you to be a part of that effort. I know there are some POV pushers, but there are also many good faith editors. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but I think the interest expressed is generally a good thing and people who didn't know anything about Ayn Rand are learning a bit about her background and significance. Rome wasn't built in a day... If you're not going to participate in the mediation the matter will move up the chain to Arb com. This doesn't seem any more attractive as an option. What do you think? I'm going to contact Jmaurone and DAgwyn and ask that they participate, although I couldn't figure out the username for one of them so maybe you can help? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked both to participate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer, please sign on for mediation. Let's give it a try. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism comments?

You left this comment on my talk page "I understand and agree with you comments on multiculturalism."

Say what? I guess I wouldn't have thought to classify anything I said as related to "multiculturalism". Multiculturalism to me is a term of American liberal ideology. Maybe you could indicate the gist of what I said that you feel falls under that heading?TheJazzFan (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sindarin Ents

See my remark on talk: Ent#Sindarin_vocabulary -- Elphion (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Hi Kjaer, there's a note for you here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Philosophy

In the absence of consensus and to avoid edit warring I have have placed a request for assistance here and have named you in that request. --Snowded TALK 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Arbitration Request

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [2]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT

I am sure you have seen it, but in case not I made this post to ANI and also the ArbCom case. --Snowded TALK 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that my own statement of my identity is "discovered" here. From what I can tell of the meat policy, it is inappropriate to have people who do not edit an article edit on your behalf. There is no tit for tat. The people addressed are already editors. Can you show me a link to wp policy that makes it clear that it is innapropriate to notify editors of a debate upon which they might wish to comment? This is a sincere request, I have no problem adhering to the same policy that others like yourself adhere to.

BTW, why is Turnsmoney, a "new" but obvious experienced sock or meat puppet, the one bringing up this matter? I think his appearance out of the blue with immediate attacks upon another editor is the only thing truly suspicious about this affair.

I hope you enjoy reading all my edits here, Snowded. I look forward to you bringing attention to those edits where I have fought to stop people from censoring what might be seen as unflattering info against Rand, since I know your interest here is not partisan, but in the pursuit of justice.Kjaer (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that TallNapoleon deleted from his talk page

I left this on TallNapoleon's talk page related to the "debate" regarding his Anti-Rand paper seen on either TallNapoleon's or TheJazzFan's page and he subsequently deleted it with the comment "not interested". Yes, he does seem to be averse to the truth.

"You pedantically assert that words have meaning and then proceed to dance around to avoid defining them. Jazz completely outed your fallacious methodology.

Your analogy of "faith" in God & in the sun rising is beyond absurd. One is observation of an event involving observable bodies with measureable properties and interacting in a known, observable fashion - even if the mechanism isn't completely understood there's nothing to suggest they'll interact in a different manner during a given period. You most certainly can prove the validity of the assertion that "the sun will rise" (i.e. the Earth will rotate) - you can see it happen. The sun never *stops* rising.

So-called "faith" in God is an amorphous urge that doesn't even rise to the level of a valid assertion given that it's related to some equally amorphous pseudo-entity you've failed to define, thereby rendering impossible anything that can be called a "belief" that's worthy of serious consideration. You're trying to avoid that evidence requires a criteria against which to evaluate it.

Reason an evil idol? You're just another in a long line of folks trying to use reason to disprove the validity of reason, and as is always the case, utterly failing."TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy Sematary

"The logical fallacy that not saying "XYZ is true" is the same as saying "XYZ is not true" has already been shot to pieces, and its sad little zombie corpse is looking pretty ragged. If there's a WP:RS which says Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, please bring it out. If there isn't, there's no rational basis for discussion. arimareiji (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)" Nota bene - my words (copied from elsewhere), but not my insertion arimareiji (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked it; I wrote it in the hope that someone might get a snicker out of it. Thank you for the positive feedback. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're as easily amused as I am, Idag is now arguing that "philosopher" is an adjective. arimareiji (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very easily amused. http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/10/zombie-baby.jpg Kjaer (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ow. That's going to leave a mark. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*dies laughing* I do wonder if the latest double-entendre was deliberate, though. arimareiji (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, up to you - I'd hoped to let people create their own separate proposals. If you're so inclined, it might be good to move your proposal to the third section, with a wikilink from your oppose. Not sure whether to change my vote yet; I need to sleep soon and I think it's affecting my brain. Cheers, arimareiji (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last thought before sleep - if there's a source to your alternative, I'd (almost definitely) vote for it. arimareiji (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand arbitration

This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Mass-Reverting

Stop mass-reverting the article! Most of the stuff you deleted was mine and Steve's NOT Peter's. If you have an issue with the content, bring it up on the talk page, don't just delete it because its new. Idag (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierogi

Dear Kjaer, I would like to explain the rationale for my changes in Pierogi.

1) Pierogi are defined as dumplings in the lead. When the article says that the origin is unknown, it refers specifically to the origin of pierogi as such. Yes, they are Slavic, but it is not known if they are Polish, Belarusian, Lithuanian, etc. So, in my opinion, we can simply stay with "Pierogi are of unknown origin" without bringing in the dumplings. Furthermore, the adverb "ultimately" does not seem to belong here, with our without dumplings.

2) I agree that it is unnecessary to say that the word pierogi is Slavic.

3) I took out Ruthenes because, if you look in the corresponding article Ruthenians, you will see that they are defined as Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Belarusians, etc. -- peoples who are already mentioned specifically. Second, the peoples listed have articles with their own national cuisines; there is no article with "Ruthene cuisine" on Wikipedia. Finally, the article Ruthenians says in the first sentence that this "is a culturally loaded term and has different meanings according to the context in which it is used". It seems to me that it is better not to include such an ambiguous term in the context of pierogi. I notice that you have now changed the link to Rusyns, which exists alongside Ruthenians, but this I think will only compound the average reader's confusion, without affecting the core of my argument.

4) In line with the spirit of your editing, I tried to put all the semi-circular Slavic dumplings together. That's why I moved vareniki to follow pelmeni and kalduny. Then come the non-Slavic European dumplings of the same shape (ravioli, tortellini, kreplach). And finally the rest of the world, where the dumplings have a different shape (mainly round pockets of dough).

I had thought a lot about the proper wording of this section before making the changes, and I honestly think that the proposed version has a more logical flow. Please consider my comments. If you agree, then all's well. If you agree partially, let's discuss it -- here or on the talk page. I would like to work out a version acceptable to both of us. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered response. I'll respond on the article since the points are not personal. Kjaer (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia process

Firstly please respect the convention that user names are used not proper names. Secondly I suggest you don;t place a 3RR warning on someone's page when they have only edited once in a couple of days. It could be read as intimidation (although I very much doubt the editor would be intimidates by anyone let alone you). --Snowded TALK 07:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Peter Damien of 3RR because he reverted the same article four times in 24 hours, check the article history. Simple as that. As for name? Perhaps he should have chosen a shorter one. Or maybe we need to make it an issue at arbcom, kjaers use of abbreviation? :) Kjaer (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter made four successive edits on the 11th that is not 3RR, no one edited the article between his edits. On the name, if you check you used my real name rather than my ID - I changed it back for you. --Snowded TALK 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I thought you were referring to my use of "Damien" rather than Peter Damien. Kjaer (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter probably shouldn't have reverted but he wasn't breaking 3RR or in any real danger of doing so. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even 2RR, both warnings on Peter's page are simply wrong and you (kjaer) should really delete them and apologise. --Snowded TALK 21:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

This is your 3RR warning for edit warring on the Ayn Rand article. Please discuss changes on talk page before reverting. Idag (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Edit warring is your accusation, not the proof of it - show the diffs, please.Kjaer (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Wikilawyering. You've mass-reverted the article a number of times yesterday, you just got into an edit war with Snowded and now you've summarily reverted my paraphrase without any discussion. While you have not violated 3RR (yet), you are toeing the line, and you are certainly violating the spirit of that policy. Discuss on Talk page BEFORE reverting. Idag (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop leaving crap on my talk page.

Or I leave crap on yours. OK? Peter Damian (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RRN blanking of comment

If you blank my comment [3] you must have and state a very good reason for it, otherwise it is considered plain vandalism. If you think there is a "hidden problem" in my edit please post it on my talk page and I'll clarify. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I didn't ruled out that it was just a simple (and minor) human mistake. No harm done. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]