User talk:Kaisershatner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Don't forget to put block reasons

You blocked User:Frater SD (quite rightly, it was a vandalism-only account), but neglected to put anything in the block reason space. Please don't do that. Even something as short as "vandalism-only account" helps others keep track of what's going on. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the invitation to register; "first-post mind-dump".

My bad -- laziness! I registered a while ago (Username: Nikevich), and based on long struggles with the inconvenience of finding the password for a given site, had considered it to be too much trouble to log in. Well, I figured that I wouldn't be able to post a message to you, so I dug through my quite-impractical password file (more, below) and found that I'd simplified life for myself; perhaps better not to say just how, because this is semi-public, afaik. However, the Wand in the Opera browser is nicely encrypted, and very easy to use, so I have little excuse!

An undone task is to set up an encrypted password keeper (try Bruce Schneier), but the process of transcribing from all those little pieces of paper and card stock is a mild horror. No OCR, here, at least yet, most likely.

It's delightful in Wikipedia, when annoyed by either a sub-literacy or simple oversight, to be able to fix it. Whether it's genetic, or superb teaching by my mother, {temporary boast mode} I seem to have a very keen eye for little mistakes, with one exception: the e-mail messages I post. (I got over being a perfectionist, for that. Lost the fear. (^_^) ) However, the major change in style (many particulars) between this entry form and the preview helps a lot in making keying goofs stand out.

As to that eye for little ones, it took a long time to realize that part of it is a blessing -- an eidetic(?) memory, usually called "photographic", for text. Misspelled words have the same subjective character as a very simple sketch of a face with the wrong number, or orientation of, eyes, mouth, ears, or nose. {/temporary boast mode}

On a "temporary" topic, would appreciate advice (update below) on writing a stub article about naval gunnery, or even naval ordnance. I was a fire control technician who actually repaired a mechanical analog computer, and would love to write an article on that topic, but it might as well be supported by a set of stub categories, such as /military/ordnance/naval/fire control/computers/analog/tachymetric. These machines were designed originally in the early 1930s, and are simply too slow for modern combat. However, they are exceptionally interesting to those relatively few who know about them. (Update: I clicked on my username, and was directed to preparing a user page. There are nice links there to very-worthwhile homework! Civil behavior makes them mandatory reading.)

Thanks to you (and two or three others) who encouraged me to register.

As time goes on, I'm occasionally awe-struck by the sheer quality and scholarship of Wikipedia content. (E.g.: Guicciardini, and the siege of Florence; it was a name new to me.) Wikipedia is one of the very best instances of true civilization for the new millennium. May the vandals be kept at bay; they are likely to be with us for a long time.

Fwiw, I'm active on the Howthingswork list at YahooGroups. Nikevich 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, I tried to make an abuse report about this IP here, but it doesn't seem to work. Can you helpe me with this? --Nina 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I want this IP to be blocked permanently without further warning and without any more discussions. It contributed nothing but vandalism, and I cannot believe that its still not blocked. Giving IPs one last warning after the other is really ridiculous. Where can I report an IP so that it gets _blocked unbureaucraticly_? --Nina 08:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraordinary rendition

Nice work on the copy edit and expansion...keep that up and I think the neutrality tag can come off. Akradecki 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense. Just be sure to explain your edits, as I said over there, I happen to be in front of my screen. However, please note my message concerning ER & extradition . Cheers! Tazmaniacs 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to work out the intro together, the current state poses major problems. Why don't you propose a draft on talk page and we'll discuss it? Apart of the points I've lifted over there, I would also like you to note that although it is perfectly legitimate to recall that "many countries" (which one?) have signed the UN Convention on Torture (to counter the argument that ER detainees may be tortured in the destination countries), it is also perfectly legitimate, and much more realistic and pragmatic to recall the many human rights abuses of countrie such as Syria, Egypt, Kirghizstan, Ouzbekistan, Morocco, etc., in particular concerning detention conditions, and in particular concerning detention conditions of Islamists, and in particular concerning the use of torture on ER detainees. Yes, they are many sources to back this up, starting with the specific cases of ER detainees and their testimonies, as well as many Amnesty International and HRW reports, as well as a bunch of newspaper articles, as well as condemnations by international law bodies and by international institutions. Thanks for your response, Tazmaniacs 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for your feedback first, it's nice to be able to discuss such matters without engaging in sterile debate. I hope you'll have some time to insert your thoughts concerning my draft of the introduction. A recent edit & revert renforces me in my opinion that we need to agree on a well-done introduction, which would be as neutral and factual as possible, leaving out opinions and commentaries for a specific subsection. Again, thanks, Tazmaniacs 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! left a message over there. Please don't pay too much attention to provocative comments from other users, indifference is most effective... Tazmaniacs 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user

I know that user is banned because in his edit which I reverted, he gave his banned user name. Jeffpw 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism To Your User Page.

SupDawgs vandalized your user page, so I reverted the vandalism and gave SupDawgs a final warning alert. Acalamari 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolblock

When you block IPs using this reason, could you possibly use the {{Schoolblock}} template? It transcludes on the mediawiki blocked page for a quite pleasant effect. Thanks for your hard work! alphachimp 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it can be used for that, I think the template is intended for use as a block reason. After all, users are guaranteed to read the messages on their block page if they intend to edit. alphachimp 16:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, just put it in in normal template mode like {{schoolblock}}. Coincidentally, the same applies to the anonblock template, and could apply to the usernameblock template. alphachimp 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I would like to know what no action was taken against 68.162.247.229. This user has vandalized the same pages and other media pages on numerous occasions on other IP addreses (User:141.154.10.193, User:68.160.165.46, and User:68.162.243.40). All four of these IP addresses are licensed to Verizon of Boston. This user has not been blocked once. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:WPAIV

The vandal had already received at least one uw-test4 from other users in recent days. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine of Valois

Thank you! The page really needs to be cleaned up. Virgosky 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Gray (sea-captain)

Thanks for taking a look and editing it. I have avoided it because there is someone who acts as if they own the article, as I think is demonstrated by them already changing some of your edits. Don't be surprised if they re-combine the two voyages into one "voyages" as they did when I added that content. If you have a chance, could you also see about resolving the "merge proposal" that although it says January, it started in December and has had little action in months. Thanks again for cleaning up Gray. Aboutmovies 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hasmonean

Thanks for the invite. I have been pretty busy lately but will see what I can do. It may be easier for me to make suggestions than real contributions, at least right now, but I will try. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made suggestions on the talk page. I do not know when I will have time to work on the article myself but I hope they are constructive suggetions. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthy

That is a tough call...I can't say much about the matter since I have almost no background knowledge on it. Did McCarthy actually find any communists? I haven't a clue, but the common knowledge is that he was generally a menace...that is kind of what we have been stuck with. Surely, he wasn't the monster everyone now might believe and much of his efforts were surely fueled by the times...they may have fed off each other...the paranoia I do refer to. Looking back on him now, it's hard not to see that his efforts did do more harm than good, but that is simply revisionist history...so the issue needs to be examined from the mindset of the period. Therefore, anything that would enhance that would be a great place to start. He may have been acting primarily in good faith. They say when the facts become the legend, print the legend (or something silly like that)...I fear that this is what has been done. Basically, since we can't do original research, we must use reliable sources (you already know that of course). If you have a few links for me to look at, I can read them over and see what I can add.--MONGO 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look the articles over again tonight. Maybe we need to try and put his actions into the period in which they were performed so it is better understood that, though he was on (what for all practical purposes) appears to be a witch hunt...that that period was a very different time, especially in the U.S.--MONGO 19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KarlBunker

I do not have the time nor the energy to tangle with him again. Is he uncivil? Yes. I don't dispute that. If you wish to take this to an RfC, feel free to cite his behavior in the case where he and I tangled. But I simply don't have the energy to get into a long dispute with him again. If anyone wants to ask any questions pertaining to our dispute, they can post them to my page. Other than that, I'm not sure I can be much help. I do wish you good luck though. KB is a very aggressive editor, and it will be a challenge for you to get him to admit any error on his part, or to concede any points to you in the discussion. Perhaps an RfC or mediation WOULD be your best route, but I just can't guarantee that I'll be much help. My apologies, and good luck to you!K. Scott Bailey 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthy

Let me start by saying this is much more complex than my colloquy with KScottBailey, where I simply tried (and failed) to explain to him that the problem wasn't with his (ultimately unprovable) intentions but with his evident unawareness of the virtue of erring on the side of civil language (and our social compact to that effect) and his lack of empathy for the other party in that discourse from the get-go. (I wrote that, as I write this, not as a self-imagined saint, but as someone who's sinned often enough to, I hope, have learned something.) In this case, I appreciate the perspectives of both parties.

I'll start by clarifying where I stand on the issue of content. As I expressed in my message on the article's Talk page, I thought the coverage of Catholic support and Kennedy involvement had reached an appropriate level. Thus I disagree both generally and specifically with your edit of 9:03 today that reinserted the Buckley-related material (it seems entirely redundant to me conceptually), and with Karl's revert of 10:02, which eliminated not only that but the entire discussion of McCarthy's exceptional lack of support for Lodge and the possible Kennedy deal concerning that race. On this specific question, I would favor returning to the version preceding your 9:03 edit and adding an additional note with a cite or two of published works supporting the statement "Some historians have argued that in the Senate race of 1952..."

On to your questions and observations about process. I'll try to address them point by point:

  • [Karl] ignoring my valid arguments (such as "provide RS as a counterweight to the story you assert is disputed")
  • As I noted above, neither of you has really provided a cite on the matter of a deal--either in support of the case for it or against it. The Johnson quote is valuable for efficiently explaining the rationale for such a supposed deal on the Kennedy side, but doesn't go the heart of the matter. I'd like to see cites, pro and con, from published histories accompanying the previous sentence. According to each of your arguments, they should be relatively easy to find on both sides. At the moment, I'll say neither of you has really carried the ball for much yardage here.
  • KarlBunker's dismissive replies ("I don't have to respond to you") / personal attacks (accusing me of making deliberately false arguments?)
  • Both these points seem to refer to the same post of Karl's:
Kaisershatner, if you're going to use arguments which you know are false and nonsensical, I wish you would at least do so more briefly. On the plus side, since you're doing that, you make in unnecessary for me to respond to anything you say, so thanks for that.
While I don't agree with many of your arguments, there is certainly no basis to claim you "know [them to be] false and nonsensical." I believe Karl's comment was clearly inappropriate.
As a follow-up, I have to tell you I have ruefully learned from direct experience that the statement "Wikipedia is not Print (WP:NOT) and there is no limit to how much material we can include here" is true neither in practice nor by well-recognized guideline. There are limits to how much prose is generally regarded as acceptable. See Wikipedia:Article size. In this regard, Karl's sensitivity to overall length (and thus internal relative length) is appropriate.
  • Have you noticed a pattern in his editing style? Think it is helping WP or this article? I'm really frustrated here.
  • This is no simple matter. Karl's attention to the article has made it much, much superior to what it almost surely would have been without his devotion. His editing style has surely been affected by having to respond to a continuous stream of vandalistic assaults on the article and input from extremists and insensible ideologues. I haven't examined the recent edit history in detail, but it's certainly possible that Karl is now editing too aggressively in reaction to a responsible, productive editor such as yourself. For the one specific instance I'm familiar with, it might have been preferable if Karl had not immediately and totally reverted your original section and had instead either (a) initiated a debate about it on Talk or (b) edited it down to whatever he felt was an appropriate size (which might have prompted you to initiate the debate). On the other hand, given the article's history, I have some understanding of why he edited the way he did, then asked you to cut it down. I do believe Karl is more interested in maintaining the quality of the article--a valuable service to Wikipedia--than in "owning" it. I also understand--from my own experiences with film noir--how, at different times and from different perspectives, that line can blur.
  • I also don't think the Kennedy material is truly making the article NPOV due to undue weight.
  • We're largely back to content here. I agreed with Karl that your original version of the section (introduced on March 15) did give the Kennedy-McCarthy relationship undue weight. With its reduction in size, and shift in relative focus to the question of Catholic support and JFK's election to the Senate, I think it's fine now in terms of weight (or was at 9:02 today).
  • I also don't think our article has to reflect some baseline percentage of other biographer's work.
  • I agree. While such an analysis is a worthwhile benchmark for indicating if we're way out of line on something, we must not be beholden to it. For instance, I believe our one-paragraph coverage of McCarthy's "early life and career" is entirely sufficient and appropriate for this article; I would also not be surprised if as a percentage of the total it was less than the analogous percentage in certain of his biographies.
  • KB has also ignored my point about the amount of "trivia" in other biographical works on WP - not that I think any of this even qualifies as "trivia."
  • I did a word search for "trivia" on the Talk page, but was unable to identify the exchange that you're talking about.
As an additional point, I have to say that I wish early in the article's Talk thread on this matter that you had not written, "Several others have at earlier times suggested you are violating WP:OWN. I'm not there yet but you do seem to have established ultimate authority over what is acceptable in this article.... I ask that you invite commentary from other editors. If you will not, then I will see you at dispute resolution. This is just beyond the pale." I understand how Karl's tone on the Talk page and the totality of his edit may have provoked that, but you were the first to call the other's motivations into question and to threaten a significant escalation. And again, I wish Karl had not written the comment quoted above.
Best, Dan.—DCGeist 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraordinary Rendition...again

Don't know if you saw it, but there's a proposal and a poll being taken on the ER talk page about a change to the lead paragraph...since you were so heavily involved in crafting the current version, you might want to put your two cents in. Akradecki 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malmedy massacre

Hello,

I was rather astonished to find that edit of yours in the Malmedy massacre article as I immediately recognized a number of formulations I'd read before. At first I thought you were copy pasting from another article I'd read or contributed to, or alternatively text from an old version of the Malmedy massacre article. I was rather shocked when I found it was largely copy paste from the same article, essentially duplicating material. I'm not sure whether I checked the time between your edit and my finding of it, but I assumed this was a one time edit and that you did not plan a rewrite or reorganisation (deleting the duplicate material from the body). Accordingly I reverted as I didn't see how I could copy edit it (or at least not easily). If you intend to do such a revision I will do my best to support it, though it might have been better to let us know on the talk page, also explaining why you'd move material from the body into the intro...

I also wish to appologise if my revert seemed confrontational, that was not my intention. I simply didn't understand the purpouse of your edit.--Caranorn 12:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan Article

Hey. Don't worry about it. Everything's alright. Happyme22 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

Not a big deal, but excellent ce's on Joe Mac. While I am, in terms of native ideology, an anarcho-syndicalist who accepts that being an unreconstructed McGovernite is about as close as I can come to finding a place in the modern U.S. political spectrum (deep breath...how long can I stretch this sentence?), my first fidelity is to fact and my only faith is in the possibility of approaching truth, leanings apparently in concert with your own. I imagine you as an old-school Goldwater conservative (and I do mean that as a compliment—not only is "“I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass" one of the finer practical notions a major American politician has ever mooted, but there's nothing in the world wrong with ""Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"). In any case, pleasure working with you. Dan.—DCGeist 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added wikilinks to Daylight saving time

Thanks for your note about Daylight saving time lacking wikilinks in its intro. I have fixed that (I hope I haven't gone too far the other way…). Eubulides 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Executive privilege

I see that someone has already added the article on Executive privilege to the U.S. Constitution template. Sorry for taking so long to respond, I have been very busy lately. Personally, I have no real opinion on this, but I will leave the template as is. I don't think the article should be removed from it. --Eastlaw 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edits to Ronald Reagan's Article

Hey there. I would consider myself to be another major editor of Ronald Reagan's article, and I would just like to thank you for your great additons and your help on this some say controversial president. You are not negative, but you present good points, and cite your work. Thanks! Happyme22 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. Sorry about that. The reason I removed the ACU thing was you don't need a sentence as your <ref name= " " . Instead, I think it just says ACU. If you click on the link to the article, that's where you should find the statement. Sorry about my <ref spaces. I didn't notice. -- Happyme22 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)\
Well, sorry for screwing you up. I just wanted to thank you for fixing the Governor Reagan section. It looks a lot better. Happyme22 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My applogies. I was wrong. Lets keep up the good work on Reagan's article, though! Happyme22 23:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your conspiracy

Thought you would enjoy this. Apparently I'm now a member of your vast right wing conspiracy, at least according the the HuffingtonPost.[1] Context: I named 5 of 6 articles listed there, and recently moved Plame Affair back to that name (the primary complaint). Derex 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mishnah

Hi. It's hard to say what's in the Mishnah, mainly because there are no complete copies of the text online in English. A couple people from WikiProject Judaism (including myself) have gone over to Wikisource and started work on the Open Mishnah Project to try to provide a complete copy of the text, freshly translated out of Hebrew, complete with commentary and explanation. While we're not even close to finished, you can get the general gist of what kind of stuff is in the Mishnah by simply reading a few mishnayot. You can take a peek at it at s:Mishnah if you'd like. Hope this helps some. :) Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davesmith33

Thanks for your intervention on the user talk page of the above user. What is policy for this situation (ie user persistantly removing warnings)- seek page protection, user blocks? GDonato (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

On the AIV thing:
  • 1453 vandalizes Bank article
  • 1454 vandalizes CN Tower
  • 1456 I notice Bank vandalism and give final
  • 1458 I notice Tower vandalism and report

What happened was I gave the warning for the Bank vandal AFTER the user had already vandlised CN Tower, then I noticed the tower vandlism so it seemed to me that that happened after the bank warning. The problem was it took me a few minutes to find the first and by the time I had warned for that the user had already vandalised the Tower. hope that made sense. Cheers, GDonato (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, I just unprotected User talk:Davesmith33. He was having a good moan on WP:RFPP and your comment here suggests that you were going to unprotect it shortly anyway. Davesmith is heading for a block if he continues as he is now, but I hope this unprotection is OK with you. – Steel 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been included as a 'related party' in a request for arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bullying_and_Victimisation_against_Davesmith33 Davesmith33 17:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

Since when has an article lacking sources been a CSD? Warning a new user about it strikes me as a bit bity. I have removed the tag and moved the article to a better place. --Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki instructions here - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Transwiki --Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/i/User_talk%7EKaisershatner_bcba.html"