User talk:SeraphimXI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Note

If you post me a message, please note if you want me to reply to you here, or on your talk page, thanks!

[edit] Holocaust section

I have to disagree. Murder is the correct definition. Ardenn 05:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is way too long. Ardenn 06:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, Do you really think the word "murder" is biased when you're talking about something that is clearly murder? OzLawyer 17:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't tell me what to and not to do. As for removal of tags as vandalism, if the tag is itself unfounded, then removing it is not vandalism. Just because one or two editors do not like the use of a word does not mean there is a POV dispute going on. NO article on Wikipedia will EVER have 100% consensus--but we can't put POV tags all over them. As for your statements that what Hitler did was fully within the law of Germany at the time, there is also very much debate on whether that is, in fact, true. In addition, there is higher law--not just international law, but unwritten constitutional and other law that any modern nation must adhere to in some manner. In at least these three ways, Nazi killings were unlawful. Finally, one who orders a killing but who does not carry out that killing himself is, in very many jurisdictions, charged with murder. It doesn't matter if the one who actually carries out the killing is not charged with murder--a murder has still occurred. Someone murdered those Freemasons--be it the soldiers who carried out their orders (and I will say I believe many of them, knowing that they were doing wrong and still did it, were in fact committing murder), or those ordering the deaths.
And, BTW, I do, in fact, believe that the death penalty is murder, and so do many other people. OzLawyer 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

You: The debate on the legality of the nazi regime is irrelevant, they abused the system to get into power, everyone knows that, however they did manage to attain power, and hitler was the legal dictator.

Unless I'm completely mistaken, even Hitler's powers were in theory curtailed by some legal machinery. This machinery was very often, but not always, complied with by Hitler. Any orders which did not comply with this machinery (even though it was completely controlled by Hitler anyway), would not have been legal in Germany. Add the issue that international law doesn't care if your actions are legal in your country, so long as they are illegal internationally, and you have the internationally illegal killing of innocent civilians. Murders, one might call them.

You: I love how you are basing your argument on the statement "In addition, there is higher law--not just international law, but unwritten constitutional and other law that any modern nation must adhere to in some manner." if a so called "law" is unwritten, guess what, it's not a law.

Really? That's an interesting interpretation. One that I could have a hundred lawyers at your door disputing. For instance, nowhere in the Constitution Act, 1867, the document which defines the governance of Canada, is there a single mention of a Prime Minister. I assure you, however, that a Prime Minister is, and has always been, legally, the leader of my country. That's just one example. Both municipal and international law systems are filled with unwritten law.

You: Also you say "Finally, one who orders a killing but who does not carry out that killing himself is, in very many jurisdictions, charged with murder.", that is very true, however that's talking about a person acting on his own, not a goverment.

Governments, like corporations, can be considered "people" in the legal sense. This is a collateral issue, though, since by the "Nazis" we're speaking of the individuals who ran the regime, and when we say "murdered" we mean "by those who gave the orders." OzLawyer 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If I'm getting you, you're dismissing my argument that Hitler may have done things against the law of Germany at the time by saying that, as an action of the government, legally or not, that makes it an execution? Let's say I was to agree with you that it was an execution--which it obviously was in one sense--that does not mean it was not also a murder.
No, it's not written down. Well, it is, but not in a legal document, and therefore, it's unwritten (what makes one non-legal document different from another? Nothing). That's why it's called the unwritten constitution. There are plenty of other examples. Customary international law, for one.
Now, how about addressing the fact that we are obviously speaking of those people who gave the orders for the killings when we're referring to "murder"? OzLawyer 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Something cannot be at the same time an execution and a murder. An execution is a killing done through legal means, and a murder is a killing done through illegal means. They are mutually exclucive.
It was an execution in the sense that it had many of the trappings of executions. It was not legal, in that it went against international law, and likely many of the killings also went against the laws of Germany which were in place at the time. Having de facto power to order "on behalf of the government" does not necessarily mean you have de jure power to do so.
if it's written down, it's written down. Nazi Germany was a soverign nation, they made their own laws, and executed people under those laws. It was done lawfully. The fact that this can even be contested proves that murdered is the wrong word.
"If it's written down, it's written down." What's that supposed to mean? If I take an unwritten principle, such as one of customary international law, and write it down on the back of my hand it becomes a written law? No, it's just a customary international law that I wrote on the back of my hand.
They did it through legal channels, it was not murder. There is really no wiggle room here, murder is illegal, executions are legal. The post-war trials did not convict any of the executioners of wrongdoing. That shows that they were executions, not murders.
It does not show that at all. It shows that they were following orders and did what they thought was legally their responsibility (or acted under duress, for many of them), and that was taken into account. There were also political issues at stake in deciding who to prosecute. You might also want to check out some of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, including the Doctors' Trial, the Einsatzgruppen Trial, the Pohl Trial, the Krupp Trial, and the IG Farben Trial. It wasn't just Hitler's right hand men. The doctors ordered to experiment. The manufacturers of Zyklon B. The makers of weapons. Heck, membership in a crminal organization, the SS is one of the common charges--how can membership in an organization of the German government be a crime?! OzLawyer 20:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"...This [Holocaust section] is a very important contribution to the balance of the main Freemasonry article - and is a much overlooked part of our cultural history. Imacomp 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)" "As per Blueboar's Idea, posted at my talk, I've reduced the [Holocaust] section to a summary. The details, in chronological order, are now at the "Totalitarian Regimes" sub-article… Imacomp 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)" "Reposted Imacomp 11:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" Reposted for the hard of reading Imacomp 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the update

I'll be waiting for the link. Thank you. I've also made my complaints known at User:William M. Connolley Chtirrell 15:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. A Class A Aardvark :) Imacomp 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Imacomp

Are you going to finish the Imacomp RFC? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Imacomp 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Imacomp has been blocked for 3RR and for blanking the RFC. You should be able to proceed now unvandalized; it's obviously not going to be hard to find material for the RFC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Seraphim, please add immediate removal of talk page comments as one of the complaints. I asked nicely that Imacomp keep comments on his talk page up for a day or two so that people other than himself or the poster could read them, and he immediately deleted my comment without responding. While I understand that people have a right to deal with their talk page as they see fit, I find the way he's dealing with this incredibly rude. And I was on his friggin' side on most of the issues! OzLawyer 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SL Bias

Seems that person must just have an axe to grind. According to the links provided he's been banned from other SL related wikis and either SL or just the forums for his behaviour several times. He's also made no effort to add the comparison to the active world page, nor sourced anything outside his own opinion that indicate there is any credible criticism between AW and SL land hosting fees. --Crossmr 23:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry

Come on, Seraphim, even you realize that the stuff Thunderbird15 is adding is garbage. There are already critical links included, and if there were more intelligent critical websites about Freemasonry, they'd also be on there. Unfortunately most critics are nutjobs (present company excluded, of course). OzLawyer 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speeling

Weasel not WeasleALR 08:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal Warning Re: ArbCom

If you continue to violate wikipedia policy in this way, through your unwarranted reverts, threats of revert war and unwillingness to discuss reverts, and general uncivil behavior in bad faith, I may request that ArbCom ban you from Freemasonry related articles. Removing this may be taken into account, as well. Imacomp 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at how the dispute process works before embarassing yourself. Seraphim 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you to show me? Imacomp 22:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Just go look at any of the dispute resolution related pages like WP:ARBCOM. Basically Arbcom won't hear a case unless there is plenty of evidence that the complaint is valid and that the situation needs a binding decision. Usually without attempted mediation, an RFC, and substancial evidence they will not accept the case. Seraphim 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
But no RFC on me, either, over any issue you have articulated. Imacomp 23:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC) PS, I gave formal warnig that I may do what I said. I will do what is needed by the protocols, as required - including the steps you state, if you are indeed correct. Imacomp 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There is an rfc on you... that's the page that you kept deleting the other day, and has a formal notice on your talk page. Seraphim 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to bring up an ArbCom case against me please feel free to do so. I will gladly defend any of my actions through coherent discussion. Seraphim 23:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notices

Please raise as appropriate on the admin pages.ALR 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I told him I wouldn't post it to arbcom untill tomorrow, if he doesn't feel like changing by tomorrow even though he knows his behavior must stop it simply makes the arbcom case stronger. Seraphim 23:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops didn't even see the 3rr yet, will do. Seraphim 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 :)ALR 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3RR Report.

I would ask that you withdraw your report claiming that I am in violation of the 3RR. As you can see from [1] reverting to remove vandalism is not a violation of the 3RR. Specifically In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute, the three-revert rule does not apply. Vandalism is defined in part as inserting false or unsourced information into an article, the information being added is both false and unsourced, thus when I, and the other users removed it, we were removing vandalism. Which is not a basis for a block under the 3RR. I have posted the same over on the Noticeboard page. Batman2005 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, 3rr only exempts simple vandalism, of which you were not reverting. Seraphim 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
QED. Imacomp 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, repeatedly inserting dubious information into an article without sources, after being asked to provide sources is vandalism. Sockpuppetry to deceive is vandalism. The reversion of which is not a 3RR offense, as clearly stated on the 3RR page. Batman2005 23:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Batman2005. I see. Please be specific, and on the talk page of the article(s). Thanks for helping. Imacomp 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
^^^^^ that was for Seraphim, not you bud. Sorry, i have no idea what you're talking about. Batman2005 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Batman if you can show me under which defination of simple vandalism located here it falls under i'll gladly take it down. Seraphim 23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Additionally, Seraphim, I understand that you think it is a problem to revert vandalism like this, however your assertion here [2] that i reported In this case the reporter reported with the specific purpose of "winning" the edit war is both offensive, uninformed and bordering on uncivil. Batman2005 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree it was uncivil, i'll strike it. Sorry. Seraphim 23:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos. You'll notice that one editor [3] asserted that Podolski never sings the national anthem before games (a fact which is supported by watching the games on television). The, now blocked, editors continued to add misinformation into the article, which is why I kept removing it as I, and two or three others, saw it as vandalism. Additionally, said users were given and opportunity to provide a source [4] for their claim. Again, they chose to ignore and reinsert the vandalism. Batman2005 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sneaky vandalism is not what you are taking it to mean. Sneaky vandalism is "changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos". It doesn't mean adding unverifiable trivial content. And by the way, the proper thing to do with unverified content is to put a citation needed tag after it and give the other editors a few days to add a proper reference. Seraphim 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

You can't go to ArbCom, without starting an RFC first. See WP:DR. I do tend to agree with you though. Ardenn 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The RFC was started over a week ago. Seraphim 23:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is it? Ardenn 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Here Seraphim 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I went and read it. My bad on that part, I didn't know there was an RFC. Ardenn 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 :) Seraphim 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep its there alright. But hay we must always asume good faith, right? Imacomp 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not always, from WP:AGF "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith." Seraphim 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot to add. The fact that you are the only one on the entire article who refuses to adknowledge that a compromise version of the murdered vs executed debate was reached, and your insistance on re-adding your wording is evidence to the contrary. Also your lack of willingness to give any sort of concrete reason for your constant reverting back to the word murder is evidence to the contrary as well. Seraphim 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, but always asume good faith. Thanks. Imacomp 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you have a new tag line. Hopefully you have taken the time to read WP:AGF and actually understand it. Seraphim 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imacomp

You may wish to comment at Suspected Sockpuppets [[5]]. ALR 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Personally I think the Jahbulon stuff is bonkers, but it's an area that you've been involved in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabulon (2nd nomination)‎ JASpencer 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the AfD talkpage you may be interested in.LessHeard vanU 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately for them, I found mention in a mainstream source - the controversy is used as an example of an organization having to deal with being labelled a cult. :-) Frater Xyzzy 15:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A comment about WP:FRINGE

Disregarding whether it does or does not apply to the Jahbulon article ... We had a minor disagreement about whether WP:FRINGE related purely to Science articles or not. I put that question up for an RFC at the pump, and it seems that consensus is that it relates across the board (ie beyond just science articles). Just wanted to clarify that one issue. Blueboar 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said it only applied to science articles, I said that it was written with science related articles in mind. Also like they said it only applies to theories. Seraphim 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/r/User_talk%7ESeraphimXI_43ac.html"