User talk:Kuzaar/02

VoLiTioN

Hey,

I noticed you took down the entry for Red Shift (podcast). You then told me that info like that would be more suited for my User page. You mean to tell me I can't make a page on a podcast when others exist? (Such as This Week in Tech) Sure, I'm the host of the show, but I don't think I inflated my article or anything. If anything it was pretty bare bones.

If you could shed some light on why you took down the page, I'd appreciate it. VoLiTioN 05:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to you regarding the issue above: Fair enough. I'll keep that in mind. Thank you for the clarification. :) VoLiTioN 03:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Marian Walsh

Hello,

I noticed that you took down my posting for Marian Walsh's biography. It is indeed copy taken from her website; as a member of her staff, I did not think it would be a problem to use a biography that she had already approved on another website.

Is there some way to resolve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by kgmiller (talk • contribs)

Well, the most expedient way to resolve this without raising issues with Wikipedia policy on any material covered by copyright is to do a rewrite of the article, maintaining the information of the article without retaining the phrasing of the article itself. Kuzaar 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this also apply to the legislation information, the other text and image embedded into the entry I made? - user:kgmiller

I'm not an official spokesperson for Wikipedia Policy, but since the legislation information is strictly factual, I would think it can stay, and the images can be used under the fair use policy, even if they are copyrighted. Kuzaar 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Superdon

Hi

No problem whatsoever. Just glad you spotted it in time! Out of interest can you think of anything to add to it to improve it? Many thanks. Pydos 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still if it seems clearly written thats good enough for me. Strange to hear it called a Britishism however, since i am a brit myself. Once again many thanks. Pydos 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? Oh well thanks for your help anyway (an offer i couldn't refuse). Of course 'Don' just means anyone in authority i suppose. And me a student at this Yale too. Leaving you to reclaim your bada bing- Pydos 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I ain't gonna work on Jimbo's farm no more

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.

Monicasdude

Hello again, Monicasdude. After reading the above passage, I'm honestly surprised. This entire time, throughout the whole dispute, it has always been the world of wrong against you. Never has there been any possibility that you yourself have done wrong. Both the sum of your comments and your userpage image have illustrated that. So I was just wondering, how does it feel to not only have done nothing deserving of reproach in the past, and apparently not even be able to do anything wrong at any time? Out of curiosity, how does it feel to be infallible? That the whole world is wrong and against you, instead of there being the possibility that it is not the world, but you who have erred; that Wikipedia is a community that hates the weak, instead of that it is a community that wants to distance itself from the uncooperative? I fully expect this comment to be ignored, but if anything, perhaps in the future you'll cast an eye on your own actions in addition to those of others. Kuzaar 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Donnachadh McCarthy

Hey - I noticed Donnachadh McCarthy and contacted the author to give a friendly warning about what is and is not expected of a Wiki article. I had hoped to cull a lot of the material but you got to the article first! Good work on the copyright notice, I'd stripped it down to the bare bones and put some stub notices on it.... doktorb | words 13:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

talk pages

Ah ha. Thanks muchly. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Shuffling

The "unsourced" sentence you removed from Shuffle is mine. It is based on my 15+ years of personal experience as a professional poker player and dealer. --LDC

I appreciate that, and I respect your personal experience in the area, but remember Wikipedia's policy of No Original Research. I would feel far more confident about including the information in the article if there were a reliable third party source which could be cited as an origin for the claim. It is by no means common knowledge that people are good enough with cards to do that many shuffles in so brief a time, so it might be best if we were able to find a source for it. Thank you, however, for your attention to the article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 08:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; and I certainly don't object to the "citation needed" tag, but I think you're being a bit overly pedantic here. "No original research" is primarily a club against crackpots and fanatics who would fill pages with their pet theories that fly in the face of established fields of study. Coverage of simple subjects that don't really have an extensive academic literature is expected to be less rigorous, and can (and should) contain interesting personal observations. Certainly the section on shuffling algorithms should quote Knuth and the other standard sources; but hand-shuffling a deck of cards is not so much a field of study as a craft, and descriptions from lay craftsmen are expected. I hope I'll be able soon get the hardware needed to create short video clips; when that happens, I'll make this one of my first (which will probably be 6-7 seconds long, because I'm not the fastest shuffler I know :-). --LDC

Deletion Page

Why did you put the Mouhammad_Faye page for deletion? Everything there is legit and true, not to mention the fact that he is a college basketball player, and other players, like Tyler_Hansbrough, a player for UNC. Delete him. His page is as legit as Faye's. Faye is a fan favorite, and will play a lot this season. I guess you are trying to delete some pages to get your Wikipedia status built? Ha..nice try. There are thousands in front of you. --Techfan 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks?

It might help if you referred me to which editor I personally attacked. Until you do so I'm sorry but I can't change my contributions as I honestly have no idea what possible "personal attack" you're referring to. Loomis51 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why your userpage should be deleted

But it IS biographical info that should be on wikipedia. That's where you are wrong. He plays basketball at Georgia Tech; already accomplished a lot more than you could dream of. I think we should delete your user page. "Not notable". --Techfan 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Faye

There is no need to keep info on him. Every Tech fan knows about him. --Techfan 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

First, I'm just curious, are you an some sort of Wikipedia official or just another amateur editor like me? In any case it doesn't really matter, as you made a good point regardless.

I do in fact try my best to simply provide good-natured answers to good-natured questions. I agree with you regarding personal attacks, as they should be avoided at all costs. However, being human, it's hard to control one's temper when faced with utterly offensive remarks or questions.

For example, as you're probably aware, a questioner recently asked for information to locate his or her local chapter of the KKK, with the apparent intention of joining up in some way or another.

How is a decent editor supposed to react to such a question? If your answer is to simply assume good faith and provide the requested-for information then I'm afraid I can't abide by those rules. Anyone who is looking to join the KKK, is, to my mind, by definition not exhibiting good faith. Luckily, I suppose, I just chose to ignore that question and move on.

The reality, though, is that the whole "NPOV" mantra of Wikipedia is to myself at least, for all practical purposes, totally unrealistic. Any encyclopedia has to have a POV. I haven't checked out the articles on such subjects as the KKK, Nazism, misogeny, racism, homophobia or any similar evil phenomena, but I sincerely doubt that Wikipedia takes a pure "NPOV" view on these subjects and simply provides "both sides of the story".

In any case, I welcome your comments, and in the future I'll try my best to assume good faith and avoid making personal attacks, as much as is humanly possibly. However I would appreciate it if you would provide your comments on my questions, and if possible your suggestions with how to deal with the difficult situations I brought up.

Thanks and all the best - Loomis51 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Me again...I actually just came across a far sicker question than the KKK example I just brought up. A questioner asked what it would feel like to have sex with his ten year old sister. (Like the KKK example, it's in the "Miscellanious" section of the RD). I can't possibly, with good conscience, follow Wikipedia rules in this case, as it may actually lead to harm to a child. With regards to assuming good faith, I can't possibly see how that applies. With regards to no personal attacks, I believe it was my responsibility as a HUMAN BEING to point out that the questioner was a sick individual. With regards to NPOV, to simply answer the question in a totally objective fashion, and perhaps tell him what it would feel like to molest his sister (as if I would know!) would, if anything, encourage a horrific crime to be committed. How can a decent human being respond to such a question if not by doing whatever is necessary to prevent such a horrific crime from happening, DESPITE any silly policies Wikipedia may insist on? I have great respect for Wikipedia, but I simply cannot stand by and follow "regulations" when much more serious issues are at stake.

I'm sure you agree with most of what I've said, but again, I'm wondering about your comments on the issue.

Thanks again, Loomis51 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you brought the subject up, I have another question. With regards to my response to the comment that "pot is harmless", was it the entire post that you would say was a personal attack? Or merely the last sentence? I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

There is, in fact, am extremely thin line between attacking an argument or position that another editor holds dear, and attacking the editor him/herself. If I were to make the statement slightly less personal and in slightly more vague terms and say, for example, (note the italicized portion) "My brother is a pot addict stuck on benefits, and my other brother died while driving stoned, so it pretty much ruined my family life. In my view, anyone who insists that pot is absolutely harmless and simply doesn't bother or doesn't care to look at the misery that pot can inflict on loved ones, is, to me, a selfish ass". Would that be acceptable?

Also, in the child molestation post, someone responded by saying something to the effect of: "Well this is a clear case of "use common sense", "ignore the rules" and/or "do the right thing"". I can't remember the exact phrases, but they all seemed to be highlighted in blue, as if they were actual Wikipedia policies. Is this true? Perhaps you should check out the post first before giving me your opinion, as I may have some of the phrases wrong.

As for me not posting recently, I've just been a bit tired, don't worry, Wikipedia is too much fun to quit just because of a little nonsense like this!

Also, I clicked on that "Monicasdude" link you provided, but still wasn't quite able to make out what was going on. The one post that I managed to read of hers/his seems to actually make sense, or, at the very least, was a well intentioned demonstration of her/his dismay concerning certain negative comments made about the mentally disabled. Yet from what I know of you, you're a reasonable, decent, conscientious person, so there must be more to the story than what appears from that brief exchange. If you get the chance, I'm curious to know what that was all about.

In any case your userpage says little about who you are, i.e. where you're from etc... Of course this is all ultimately private information and it's up to you to disclose what you wish. All the same I'm curious, but please don't feel that I'll be insulted if you don't disclose anything. It's your right. In any case, keep up the good work! Loomis51 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding Ehab Tawfik

Hello again, Stifle. I've come to you because of how helpful and prompt you were in questions and issues I've had in the past. I've found a user who insists on inserting and keeping POV material in the above article, and according to the talk page, it's apparently at the request of the article's subject. Normally, I would have no problem at all just reverting to the more-NPOV version, but the sticky part is this: Apparently, the older version I've tried to make NPOV was originally a copyvio of something from the artist's personal site. Now, I've googled around and couldn't find any evidence of it, which leads me to think that it's not in English. I'm not sure of the best way to handle this. If I could find the original source, I'd tag it as a copyvio, but I can't, so for the time being I've reverted to the old version, which may or not be a copyvio, but is more NPOV than the one User:MiriamNader is pushing. (It incidentally contains gems such as "Ehab Tawfik is an outstanding Egyptian singer, who is endowed with a wonderful and unique voice, as well as refined artistic taste.") Anyway, if you could give me any advice as to how to handle a conflict like this, that'd be tops. Thank you, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. I've done a bit more work on the article, cutting away POV and adding templates where needed. I appreciate your effort. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The new additions might be copyvio too, except that they were probably added by the copyright holder. I've left User:MiriamNader (who appears to be Ehab's publicist) a message explaining why we don't publish official biographies.

If she continues to revert, possible solutions include:

• WP:AN3, if she does it more than 3 times in 24 hours.
• Listing the page as a copyvio on WP:CP
• Reporting the issue on WP:AN, for consideration of a block for disruption

However, I will be away on a business trip from tomorrow until the 19th so for now, coming back to me will be unuseful. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

nothanks template

While you were forgetting to fill in the parameter, I was leaving a note on the person's user page (not user talk)! Maybe there's some kind of mistake-generating field around that user. :-D Cheers, FreplySpang 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Me again

Sorry if I'm being a pest, but I'm a newbie here at Wikipedia, so I'm still "learning the ropes" to a certain extent.

I'm writing because I just made an edit on the RD and I'd like your opinion. I make it a habit of (almost) NEVER, EVER editing the remarks of others. However today I did, because I felt it was for the greater good. Tell me what you think:

A questioner asked if it was ok for his 15 year old "friend", who happens to be gay, to have sex with a certain 10 year old boy, who "apparently" seems to be interested. Of course this activity should be discouraged at all costs, and thankfully, most editors responded appropriately, saying that this would be a case of paedophilia, and recomending that this "friend" see some sort of counselor. All of that was a very good way of answering the question.

However there was one editor who felt the need to show off his or her legal knowledge, whether or not he or she was actually a lawyer I have no idea (believe me, I'm a lawyer, I know all this stuff but I refrain when it's innapropriate). Anyway, he or she couldn't help but mention that, in most jurisdictions at least, while certain professionals, (such as priests, ministers, rabbis, psychiatrists, psychologists and perhaps several other sort of counsellors,) under most circumstances, are forbidden to disclose any information that they obtain from their clients, under extraordinary circumstances, where there is a serious risk of harm to the public or to the individual him or herself, the particular professional would actually be required to disclose this information to the authorities should he or she hear of such plans.

I felt this little piece of information, while true, would not be in the best interests of society for a potential paedophile to be aware of, and so, I used my best judgement, and simply removed it. This person should not be "tipped off" that should he talk about his dangerous criminal proclivities to a professional, the professional would be required to disclose such information to the authorities. This would only seem to encourage the individual to not seek professional help, which he is apparently in desperate need of, as to do so might foil his plans to abuse a child.

Yet I feel somewhat guilty this time for removing a piece of information (that people like shrinks are required to contact the authorities under such circumstances) which actually happens to be TRUE. I also feel somewhat guilty for removing another editor's contribution. However whatever slight feelings of guilt I may have over what I've done, I overwhelmingly believe I did the right thing, and would not hesitate to do it again. (BTW, this didn't seem as a proper situation to "advise the Wikipedia authorities" as time here was of the essence, and I wanted to do my best to remove this piece of information before the questioner got a chance to read it. I hope I acted in time.) In any case, I'm curious as to what you might have to say about this.

I'm also curious about the whole "Monicasdude" scandal too! But, like I said, I don't want to be a pest, so feel free to answer these questions whenever and if ever you have the spare time. Thanks for all your advice so far, it's been invaluable. Loomis51 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand cult

If you'd like to wade into this mess, you're free to. My feeling, however, is that the Randists will never sit still for the cult category, regardless of citations. This is based on past experience, including the last time the category was added and eventually removed against consensus.

Removing material with a plausible explanation is not automatically vandalism. However, removal without comment is. Al 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a reasonable suggestion, but I'm a bit concerned about whether it might only make things worse. As it stands, it's been very hard to move forward because of the number of people involved. Progress has come generally from a combination of solid research and extreme persistence, not from dilution of factions due to outsiders joining. If anything, libertarianism in general and Objectivism in specific are over-represented in the demographics of computer professionals, who are themselves over-represented on Wikipedia, so it might even bring in more Randroids than regular people. In short, I'm not against an RFC but I'm hesitant to move in that direction right now. If, after reading thing, you still think it's a good idea, then you are free to file one yourself, of course. However, I'm going to hold off for the moment. Al 16:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My warning of NBGPWS

My warning of him was due to him putting the famous Nazi slogan "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" as an "Example of Protest Warrior Signs" on the article Protest Warrior. This is obviously not a PW sign, and it was vandalism. The edit is located here [1]. I have not warned him for any of the content he has added that I disagreed with but was debatable after that. He also marks all of his edits as 'minor' edits when they are clearly not. I would appreciate you undoing your revert, since the link above shows vandalism.

I meant your reverting of my warning of NBGPWS. I think that warning should stay, as that was blatant vandalism. Neverborn 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Luigi G. Napolitano Award

Hi,

I am the webmaster of the IAF website at iafastro.org.

I noticed that the text for the Luigi G. Napolitano Award got deleted anyway, despite my express copyright permission. Please restore. The text is not copyright.

--Scotthatton 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The page about the award lives here: http://www.iafastro.org/index.php?id=199. Please note that the text used on the Wikipedia is not copyright in the first place.

--Scotthatton 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD Question

Well, as a participant in an AfD you can point out people who've only had a few or no prior edits to the AfD, or who've only editted the article in question, etc. I personally find those notes very helpful as a closer. If it really gets to be a bother and you think they're sockpuppets, you can go to WP:RCU (Essjay is usually pretty prompt) and once proven to be sockpuppets, their "votes" at AfD won't matter much. Ultimately though, there's no real cure-all for people who have the time to barrage an AfD with socks, meatpuppets or just endless longwinded rants. Generally closers will see what's up and get it right, if not, it can be taken to WP:DRV.

By the way, this AfD in question still has a consensus to delete, at least at a very quick glance. It's a bit late and I don't have the time to really delve into it enough to close it right now, since it's a complicated one I like to be sure before I do anything. --W.marsh 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Regarding Bapudi

I'd like to applaud you for your perseverance in the face of this whole... quagmire, to use a mild word. Kudos to you.

It really is a sight to see though. This group has been at it for at least 5 days. They themselves must be starting to believe their own story/stories.

But, you know... I wonder what's going to happen when this closes. The admin that closes this is probably going to get a mouthful from this clan. And, I bet the article is just going to be back up again.

And, did you know that the article is on the French Wikipedia now too at fr:Bapudi? So, this is quite far from over, at least for them anyways. JJJJust 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not over for Bapudi because Bapudi will keep making movies, produce music, and contribute positively to society at large while you'll persist in your negativity. And eventually it will appear on Wikipedia because we are diligent, we are strong, we are BAPUDI.--Godelfin 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Newman High School

Comments on my debating style on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinal Newman High School are all well taken. Some of what I say is waspish but I always play the ball not the man. It is a pity if anyone is offended but as I remarked to Netscott elsewhere I don't want anyone thinking unanswered arguments are unanswerable. (Apart from anything else I regard it as a courtesy to my opponents.) I had understood the process of consensus meant the admin closing an AfD had to weigh the arguments used. In my view the easiest way of doing that is if some indication of the weakness of each argument is given as it comes up. Hence I have restrained myself (I hope) from from having a pop at those who say "Keep per X". And as that becomes more frequent I am less likely to comment. I have been rather surprised that apart from Netscott nobody has started picking holes in the arguments any of the "Delete" editors are making. There is at least one embarassing hole in my own position (and no I won't tell you where). My most recent edit was only 24 hours (exactly) after the thing started, so it hadn't dawned on me that I might have been mistaken about the way consensus is determined. It's been a while since I contributed to one of these things but I remember an approach like this being taken on the Bobblebot debate (computer assisted human editor rapidly delinking dates, he got hammered and gets blocked periodically). This has been sent to Capitalistroadster, Alkivar, Kuzaar & Netscott. Love, peace and hair-grease --Stroika 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan Death

Regarding needing sources, this is in the article already:

• Dr. Yeon Dong-su, dean of Kwandong University's medical school in South Korea.

Many people say that these victims die from lack of oxygen, but that is not true. Hypothermia does not only occur in the winter when it is cold. The symptoms can also take place if a person has been drinking and turns on a fan in a closed room. Most people wake up when they feel cold, but if you are drunk you will not wake up, even if your body temperature drops below 35 degrees Celsius, at which point you can die from hypothermia. It doesn't matter so much about the temperature of the room. If it is completely sealed, then in the current of an electric fan, the temperature can drop low enough to cause a person to die of hypothermia.

So what are you talking about? --Andrewrutherford 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Two of the medical opinions are by the same person: Dr. Lee Yoon-song, who said:

Korean reporters are constantly writing inaccurate articles about death by fan, describing these deaths as being caused by the fan. That's why it seems that fan deaths only happen in Korea, when in reality these types of deaths are quite rare.

Whether he thinks that fan death is a myth depends on what he means by "these types of deaths are quite rare" If he means that Fan deaths do happen, but are over reported that would change the balance quite significantly, whereas if he means that deaths reported as fan deaths are quite rare, then it wouldn't. --Andrewrutherford 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop Politicizing Chabot's Bio

First, Chabot never signed a term limits pledge - the article you cite is incorrect. Second, John Cranley has nothing to do with Chabot's official position in Congress. He is Chabot's opponent this year. Your attempt to make Cranley something more than he is should be done on Cranley's name --- no free rides on name recognition. This amounts to political attacks and should stop. Make Cranley his own biography. Stop assaulting Chabot's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk • contribs)

I have no interest in either side of this dispute, only an issue with Verifiability policies and vandalism. I will not tolerate a partisan coming into Wikipedia and trying to make anyone look better or worse than the sources available to describe them do, especially when it comes to allegations which are reported on by a reliable source. Chabot is cited in the source on the page to have been part of the "Contract to America", which included a term limit pledge. I am willing to compromise with you in that we can say that such charges are disputed, but I am unwilling to have a verifiable, cited source removed from the page, especially when a politician is notable for the controversy surrounding them. If you have any further comment, please leave them on my talk page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Moldedpulp spam

You wrote: "Have you filed a report at WP:AIV?"

No, the last time I tried that, they ignored the report on the grounds that the spammer hadn't been warned lately. So I just added a new Spam4 msg to Mr. Pulp. Personally, I think repeat spammers should be held to different standards than run of the mill vandalisers, but apparently, the admin rules treat them the same. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 12:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, report him if you think it will do any good. It's worth noting, though, that this guy has made a handful of good edits, so he's not quite in the class of the lowest of the low. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Maybe I err too much on the side of "keeping it brief". Of course, the fact that he (or maybe the company?) was hitting from an ip and as a logged-in user at the same time probably helped. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Frosties Kid

Why did you nominate the Frosties kid for speedy deletion. it is perfectly true and is unbias. You seem to be a bit harsh when it comes to deleting.

Ok i understand your view. BTW my name is Darren Johnson not Dean Randall. Can an administrator change my user name to the correct name?

User:Free-encyclopedia

You entered this user on WP:AIV due to his username. I removed it as I didn't think it was clear-cut enough for an immediate block, and left a note on his talk page. I thought that you should know that he's refused to change his name, so if you're still concerned, you should ask for more opinions at WP:RFC/NAME. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: That crazy vandal

Not a problem :) -- Where 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

your vandalism to my user page

please don't touch my wiki property again

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --FurnaceOfMonkl 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the guidelines for blatant vandalism at Our policies on vandalism, and additionally ownership policy at WP:OWN. Thank you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and new users

Hello once again, Stifle. Since you've been so helpful to me in the past, I was wondering if you could give me any advice regarding an issue that seems to have come up today. While patrolling RC today, I happened upon a user who registered and then immediately started making POV-pushing edits to the article September 11, 2001 attacks. The user, UserFurnaceOfMonkl, has subsequently make numerous POV edits, mostly insulting conspiracy theories regarding 9.11, in addition to the American Left. So far I've just kept an eye on his edits and reverted most of the blatantly POV stuff, and given him the appropriate warnings and reminders on his talk page. I don't know if this is serious enough to merit a RFC, or indeed if he might not be an account (as I suspect) registered just to troll and make inflammatory comments. If you could let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, Stifle, you've been tremendously helpful. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I left him a {{comment2}}. As he's such a new user I think an RFC would be unhelpful. If he comes back tomorrow and does the same thing again, I would recommend posting on WP:ANI and suggesting an indef block as a vandalism/trolling-only account. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My user ID

Hi Kuzaar. I was formerly ER_MD (emergency room) but I got into a dispute about my talk page since I prefer it to be cleaned and not archived ever so often. The policy on talk pages is that it is a recommendation to archive and not a requirement. I had since moved to ED_MD (emergency department) and have been contributing without incident until today when somebody with the user name EH_MD started to revert edits in articles that I had been working on for some time. Please ban EH_MD as he is an impersonator. As for my user ID, I moved from ER_MD to ED_MD and have stopped using ER_MD. If you can, could you delete ER_MD, and remove my sockpuppet status. I would hate to have to create a new porfile, and as you can tell from my work I have been making contributions. ED MD 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about.--Getaway 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) I looked over the edits to Dr. Condi Rice's article and I saw that you commented on the edits that followed my last edits. The edits that I assume you are referring to were placed there by an anon user whose IP address is 67.170.224.120. That is not me. When those edits took place I was staning in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles down here in South Texas. Also, that IP address belongs to someone in Santa Clara, California. So there is no need for your second level warning. It wasn't me. I don't agree with the personal comments of 67.170.224.120. Please don't jump to conclusions that those anon edits are mine. You will not need to make those assumptions because I always sign my edits. Please review my edit record. I sign all of my edits and it is clear that I follow all of the Wikipedian rules. So your warning should be applied to 67.170.224.120. I will go to that anon user's talk page and place a warning there where it is appropriate since it is not appropriate on my talk page. Thanks, --Getaway 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Also, I reverted back one of your reverts of my work. I fixed the spelling of comparatively, which was misspelled in the Criticism section of Dr. Rice's article. I have fixed it before. The word should be spelled as "comparatively", not "comparitively". --Getaway 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Take care. --Getaway 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote in Criticism Section of Dr. Condi Rice's Article by Margaret Kimberly

I don't know why we keep butting heads, but I reviewed your edit of my edit very closedly and I whole-hearted disagree. Please review these comments that I left on the Dr. Condi Rice talk page: I edited the quote in the criticism section by Margaret Kimberly because she was completely misquoted. The comments of someone else were attributed to her incorrectly. It was incorrectly quoted as this: "When Rice invoked the civil rights movement to clarify her position on the invasion of Iraq, Margaret Kimberley, another writer for Black Commentator, felt that her use of the rhetoric was cynical. [2]" I fixed it with the correct word that she used, which was "offensive." User:Kuzaar felt the need to revert back to the incorrect word of "cynical." I have correctly reverted it back again to the absolutley correct word of "offensive." Please review the article from the Austrialian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC.net.au): "Stan Correy: The connection between Birmingham 1963 and Baghdad 2004 is one that Condoleezza Rice makes with passion. But it’s fair to say that many African-Americans who also cherish the Civil Rights tradition and vote mainly for the Democratic Party, think her use of the rhetoric is cynical. New York based African-American journalist, Margaret Kimberley, found her invoking the Birmingham bombing victims in the cause of the Iraq War ‘offensive', and here’s a reading of her comment. Poor Condi Rice and company are left unable to sing about freedom or little else because our Iraq policy was based on lies, and is now such an obvious failure. It is difficult for the Bush Administration to build democracy in Iraq because that was never their true intention." No, it is very, very clear that the correct word from the African American (remember that was what the big debate was about, i.e., putting in the article some criticism from members of the African American community) was "offensive," not "cynical." It really isn't important, but it must be pointed out that Stan Correy is a white Australian, why are we quoting white Australians to get a negative word about Dr. Rice?? Could it be that finding these negative words is actually kind of difficult, regardless of how much anyone jumps up and down about it??? Also, notice that the negative comments are coming from two sources: (1) people associated with TransAfrica Forum, an organization that is on the verge of falling apart, and (2) Black Commentator, an online web magazine. nuff said. --Getaway 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I am merely being wary about editing a political quote in a political article, which is doubly-thin ice in my opinion. The important thing, as always, is to preserve the intent of the quoted, which is why changing the focus of a quoted article is in a rather gray area for me at least. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Brownback

Please do not remove cited material from articles. If you see a citation that appears to be incorrect, but a statement which is itself plausible, please do the right thing and search around a little bit to see if you can find the appropriate citation for an assertion. Additionally, having looked over the edit history, I found evidence that you did indeed make edits [3] [4] that could be construed as attempting to put inappropriate point-of-view material or analysis into an article. Please, while we value your contributions, the standards set out in WP:NPOV are not negotiable or flexible. Neutral point of view is one of the keystones of the project keeping encyclopedic. Thank you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are following me around?? First of all the edits that you cite as examples of non-NPOV are not examples of non-NPOV, just like the Brownback situation. Just because Sam Brownback went to the floor with three little children, that is NOT a scandal. It was listed in the article as a scandal. That is NOT a scandal and to present it as such is a violation of the neutral point of view. Also, you blantantly misquoted the commentator from Black Commentator as I pointed out clearly above. Please stop violating the Wikipedia policies concerning NPOV and misquoting articles and people. --- --Getaway 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The third party described it as a scandal, and as always, Wikipedia is not for original research, but rather accurately portraying disputes, in this case. And as a Reliable source stated it as a scandal (we can correct it to reflect this more accurately), I have no qualms about mentioning that the Sun represented it as such. Finally, you decided for some reason to change the quote in Rice's article from talking about a more broad perceived opinion to what one specific editor has to say about it, which might in turn be questionably NPOV. I am going to reinsert the original commentor's comment, properly sourced. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read your comments about the criticism section of the Condi Rice article. It is a fact that the word was "offensive" not "cynical" No, you need to be very, very careful about putting the words of the interviewer into the mouth of the interviewee. That is the violation of Wikipedia policy, not what I did, which was quote Kimberly directly and correctly. You were putting words in her mouth. Please, I'm sorry that you wandered into a big fight before that was a big mess, but I have not done ONE single thing that can be construed as violating Wikipedia policy. I have been close to the vest. Also, I'm going back to that Brownback article and straightened that one out. Just because he took three children down to the floor of the Senate to make a valid debate IS NOT a scandal. That is misrepresentation of facts and it violates Wikipedia policy. --- --Getaway 04:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sun did not present as a scandal. No one presented as a scandal except someone on Wikipedia. That is violation of Wikipedian policy. --- --Getaway 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither did the re-inserted paragraph detailing the incident, which is the bit that confuses me about your conflict over this issue. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have rephrased that section of the article to accurately represent who said what. Hopefully this balance will accurately represent a consensus in whatever group about the appropriateness of the mentioned rhetoric, in addition to giving the specific name of the commentator who named it offensive. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By any means, I have put up a new version of that section on Dr. Rice that incorporates both comments, specifically characterizing them as comments and not assertions by the encyclopedia's narrative voice. Take a look and let me know if you're okay with the wording as is. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a the name of the company that the interviewer works for because he is NOT an African American. He is not an American. He is not even black. I think that this is important based upon the debate that has been going on the talk page.-- --Getaway 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I read the NY Sun article that you cite in Brownback's article and the NY Sun article does NOT, in any way, treat the use of the three children as a controversy or scandal. That is a creation of a Wikipedian and as such it is NOT a neutral presentation. --Getaway 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I'm tired and I'm going to bed. I'm not in any mood to read your evaluation of me as an editor and how you are wary of my work for a volunteer organization that I am just trying to assist with. I'm not pushing a POV and you have NOT in anyway provided proof that I am. If you have disagreements with my edits then let's discuss them in a honest and open way. But the constant comments about how you are "wary" of me and that you are, well, just not quite sure if I am a POV pusher is not welcome or helpful. I would rather just go to bed because I know that the presentation of Brownback's work on the stem cell bill is NOT a scandal or controversy and the only place in the world that it is being presented that way is in Brownback's Wikipedia article, and as such it violates the standards of an encyclopedia. Look, I'm tired of getting into fights with other editors. I'm starting to think that this is not a good way to spend my time. You seem to reasonable when you aren't accusing me of being a troll. Good night. --Getaway 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above items (the NY sun article and the race of the commentor), it is important to remember that the text as it stands says that he characterizes a group as viewing the rhetoric as cynical, so the distinction is made, as he does not claim to be a part of that community. Also, as far as the NY sun article is concerned, I agree with your moving the cited section to the views. The only reason I readded the paragraph where it was is that at the end of the controversy section is where it was. I have no personal interest in making either of these people look any more or less controversial than the press/media/other reliable sources make them out to be. What I take issue with is erasing cited descriptions of incidents that these people were involved with, and which made it into news articles. Again, as on your talk page, I apologize if I seemed to be making you out as trollish. I am just a very careful person when it comes to making edits to the pages of popular public figures, and believe that all disputes should be fairly and representatively framed. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)