Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kenneth Alan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also alias User:Kenneð (contribs, this is particularly enlightening)

[edit] General discussion

User has a pattern in many pages of many edits of questionable validity. When confronted, he typically asserts authority based on his own knowledge and research, then quickly engages in ad hominem attacks on the talk pages. Has earned a similiar reputation on the Swedish Wikipedia. User page (former version) displays his theory of history and provides a road map to the pages he is planning to edit in the future. Typically the questionable material consists of his own etymological theories of the origins of place names. Pages in which he has engaged in such behavior include Viking, Angles, New England, and Pine. Each day seems to brings a new controversy and new attacks. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's a little taste of his style from Talk:Viking, addressed to User:Fedor:

Unfair and outrageous behaviour? Bah, just listen to yourself 'Mr. Big Boss Man, gotta take control of what thoughts people are limited to'. Nice job, tattle-tale. I'm sure you loooove sucking up to sysops for favors. Not everybody loves a hardass like you. Oh, and the shifting letters don't always happen, as not all words share the same opposing backgrounds, of course, slang and pidgin forms have also risen to prominent use. You are obviously too limited minded to contribute anything of meaning here at Wikipedia. If John Geoghan was still alive, I bet you'd be his choir boy, and go pour over his dogmatic entrapment so you could impress him with all that you know about the Bible, and you'd end up like Matthew Shepard. User:Kenneth Alan

The above is a blatant breach of wikiquette. What a jerk. Isomorphic 16:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And to User:Zw on Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress:

Thank you again, Dr. FASCIST! I haven't continued arguing and here you are spouting off like a lunatic, reverting somebody else's contribution to divert our attention to my User Talk:Kenneth Alan, because I am not a vandal. Scream, scream, scream your fucking head off you little bitch. I'm sure I happen to be the one paying the most attention while you pitifully squirm. Perhaps I better not, you're starting to make me sick. User:Kenneth Alan

Here's a clue to the mindset of his world-view of history from Talk:Angles:

I am sick and fucking tired of the propaganda presented as widespread knowledge like gossip almost everywhere in Euramerican history texts bragging about how the Mediterranean is elite and the surrounding peoples are barbarian garbage. They have all the license to gossip gossip gossip their propaganda without any credibility other than their intense praise of those topics they support and the soft moneys to fund their blasphemous words in every work they do. I don't ask for money and I use my own brain, my own heart, and give it the best intellectualy sensitive treatment I can figure with the current knowledge I have. My treatments do not, however, lend credibility to attempts by other contributors to muddy the clear waters of illumination intentionally or mistakenly. If there is knowledge, then we should acknowledge it, not confuse ourselves and dumb down a little bit before 'MR SOFTMONEYBAGS' comes by and decides to endorse the belief, compromise-corrupting the truth for some money. How many more centuries are people going to complacently popularise themselves in the style the Romans would have them? Similar to 'Barbaric Trailor Trash'! How many centuries do people have to put up with playing the puppet at the end of the strings of religious puppetmasters calling them worthless savages unless they have Jesus etc.?

User:Kenneth Alan seems to be intentionally adding junk and inaccurate information to Wikipedia. For instance, he changed "Germanic language" to "Semitic language" in the articles dealing with Yiddish in at least the following Wikipedias: English, German, Dutch, French, Swedish, Norwegian, Esperanto, Romanian, Polish, Catalan. He also removed Yiddish from the articles dealing with Germanic languages in all these wikis. It caused me and other people quite some time to clean up after him. He also wrote: "Scream, scream, scream your fucking head off you little bitch", and called me "Dr. FASCIST!". [[1]. Zw 17:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage

OOHH!!!!!! YOU'RE STUUUUUUUPID!!!!!! STUUUUUUUPID!!!!!! STUUUUUUUPID!!!!!! REVERT VANDAL!!!! REVERT VANDAL!!!! Kenneth Alansson 11:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This was after I twice reverted his edits to the Nobility article that he had changed so that it described Peers as middle class, "Emperors as comparable to a President of the USA" etc.. The paragrapgh on Grand Duke was changed to read:

Grand Duke, ruling². a grand duchy, akin to U.S. military commanders ruling military installations and vehicles overseas and in foreign, friendly or hostile territory, especially in times of war when martial law is proclaimed and/or invasion of another state results in toppling the native regime. It can also result from Nuclear-Biological-Chemical violence in war.

Essentially the article was turned into ludicrous nonsense. It was even moved to Aristocratic hierarchy, so that Kenneth Alan could add his pet theories. Mintguy (T)

To UninvitedCompany: "Look, another small-minded fool" [2] -- Zw 17:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More notable quotes:

"BUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALES BUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALESBUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALESBUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALESBUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALESBUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALESBUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALESBUTTFUCKER JIMBO WALESBUTTFUCKER JIMB" at User:Jimbo Wales and User:Tim Starling [3]

"JIMBO WALES IS SHIT" [4]

[edit] Moved comments from Vandalism in Progress

He is still active, and just vandalized Yiddish language again, although I've asked him to stop. He also vandalized West Germanic language. Someone please block him. Zw 22:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Generally I will say he seems to be intentionally adding junk and inaccurate information to Wikipedia. At least he has zero knowledge of the issues he is writing about. His vandalism is very annoying, because he is doing it on all wikipedias which have articles dealing with Yiddish and Germanic languages. A wikipedia-wide block should be in order. Zw 16:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you again, Dr. FASCIST! I haven't continued arguing and here you are spouting off like a lunatic, reverting User:Moink's contribution to divert our attention to my User Talk:Kenneth Alan, because I am not a vandal. Scream, scream, scream your fucking head off you little bitch. I'm sure I happen to be the one paying the most attention while you pitifully squirm. Perhaps I better not, you're starting to make me sick. User:Kenneth Alan

Which is just one of other personal attacks I have seen this user write this evening. Suggest blocking. -- Graham :) | Talk 20:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Next time I'm being talked about in the third person somewhere or other, could someone let me know on my user talk page? I just stumbled across mentions of myself cuz I happen to be watching the right pages. Anyway, I moved the discussion because I feel that this page is for simple vandalism, not POV disputes etc., though I know others feel differently. This should more be discussed on the relevant talk pages, followed by the user talk page, followed by a request for comment (which I understand exists). But it's not up to Kenneth to revert edits about himself; at the very least it makes him look bad. And while I'm here, may I please point your attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Thank you. moink 05:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I apologise, moink. Kenneth Alansson 04:14, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It felt automatically ad hominem because the chiding upon me wasn't a dispute with the content per se, which I am better able to handle by explaining. I have felt myself clam up upon the scolding and not wishing to provide my reasons or sources. I am not good at handling conflict. I have become more happy with people when they stop: spitting rhetoric about how I am a "vandal" and immediately discounting every view or contribution I present, reverting just about everything they see from me. OOH, blockityblockblockblocky, baaaan meeeeee! Kenneth Alansson 04:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This user is still active and is now adding less than accurate information to Nobility (see Talk:Nobility). I suggest blocking Mintguy (T) 16:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now User:Kenneth Alan vandalized this page again and deleted himself. Zw 01:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Zw has no fucking clue what he's ranting and raving about! All the info you need can be accessed from this page into other areas of the website by the links provided. Moink had redirected this issue and stated that I wasn't a vandal, to which our favorite Zw vandal had reverted and added a lot of hate in my direction, just to get it back and whine further about all the energy (s)he's putting into my affairs, rather than working on other Wikipedia projects and trying to benefit the website. It has become a singular crusade/witchhunt by this user against me. For instance, I didn't attack the languages, just tried to clarify what I saw as an error. You can clearly see the irrational vehement and debasive elements sought by this character towards my fate as a contributor. Kenneth Alansson 03:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This Mintguy obviously has some problems seeing the world from more open perspectives, seeming quite monomanic about everything he is referring to. I suggest blocking. Kenneth Alansson 16:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pine and Scots pine

Not vandalism, but dispute over data's verifiability in the pages, between User:MPF and User:Kenneth Alan. Discussions moved to Talk:Pine and Talk:Scots pine Kenneth Alansson 21:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Restored here, so that others can judge for themselves:

Not anymore. Your persistant out-of-context and ad hominen labeling me a vandal, based upon my former disputes with others over article data's appropriateness is irrelevant to this talk page. However, your persistant POV behaviour of practically claiming the Pine and Scots pine articles and blocking valid contributions by other users by repeatedly reverting them is considered vandalism. Kenneth Alansson 21:52, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Get him up up against the wall!

I just wanted to drop a note here to confirm that these patterns also occured on the Swedish Wikipedia. Trolls aren't really common over there (may the Wiki-power be on our side!) so we (mostly me) have been reverting most of his edits but have not taken any initiatives beyond that. He has also been calling several regular contributors "trolls" and such, according to the pattern above, at several occasions. "Alan" claims to speak Swedish, but his comments on talk pages, typically limited to three or four words on a single line, clearly indicates that he doesn't!
If anyone wants my opinion "Kände Aulan" etc. is a troll! His only excuse for participating on Wikipedia clearly is to offend others and the project is likely to be better off without him.
Again, I hope you'll exuse my shortcomings in English, and I'll hope that you manage to "neutralize" this individual!
/ Mats 17:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Please contact me on my Swedish talk page!)

Comment: This user just removed all (?) his questionable entries on different talk pages on the Swedish WP! / Mats 11:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Martijn's impression

I was asked for my opinion.

The pattern I've seen is not necessarily trollish. He is definitely rude and hot-tempered though; there are quite a number of very rude and hot tempered reactions to my statements on various talk pages on the wiki. When you stay patient with him, he does sometimes react positively. Given enough patience (admittedly difficult when he aggressively attacks you), he sometimes compromises, and I've seen him apologize a number of times when called upon misbehavior.

This gives me some hope, but not a lot. because all my patient pleading doesn't seem to alter the way he adds his contributions. And he definitely goes back again to aggressive and rude again very easily.

My main worry is this. His additions to articles are always presented as fact, not theory, while these statements are definitely not uncontested. In the case of articles on prehistory there are almost no uncontested broader theories, due to meagre information, but he insists of adding his ideas as fact. I've called upon him several times to carefully qualify what he's adding and not to remove things that conflict with his theory, but he doesn't seem to change his behavior. I even went as far as moving some of his stuff scattered throughout wikipedia to its own page (Vanir/Aesir theory), so he could present his thoughts there with a proper introduction and references, but he hasn't done a lot with it.

My secondary worry is the following. What he's adding seems to be based on a mostly a private theory/ideology. He seems to have the idea that Germanic tribes were maligned throughout history, and personally wants to correct this. This appears to motivate many of the edits I've seen. I've asked him for concrete references that support these theories, but so far I've only seen a general list of books that he based his ideas on. Wikipedia is not the place for private theories (especially when these are presented as fact!). Of course distinguishing between a private theory and an illuminating interpretation by an individual can sometimes be difficult, but he seems to cross the borderline pretty easily.

I don't think he's a troll. To me, he has a lot of attributes of a crackpot. He sees the world through a privately developed grand idea. He's convinced of its truth. He feels he needs to spread what he perceives to be the truth. He is not willing to compromise. The establishment is wrong. Everybody who disagrees is stupid and/or part of the enemy who want to suppress the truth.

Of course crackpots and trolls share an attention seeking behavior so in that way they're similar.

Some pages where I've seen him in action are:

Aesir Angeln Angles Dark Ages, Germanic languages, Norsemythology, Runic alphabet, Vanir, Vänern, Yngvi

Some of his edits are fine. Many blithly insert statements as fact where no consensus about this exists.

Martijn faassen 20:51, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Added from Vandalism In Progress

The articles dealing with Yiddish language and Germanic languages are vandalized not only at the English Wikipedia, but in numerous languages (German, Dutch, French, Swedish, Norwegian, Esperanto, Romanian, Polish, Catalan etc.) in a massive attack by User:Kenneth Alan, sv:Anv�ndare:K�nde_Aulan aka 68.0.146.17 (also known as 68.0.149.88, 68.0.146.230, 68.0.144.17, 68.0.144.217, 68.0.150.158, 68.0.151.124, 68.0.152.92, 68.0.152.146 68.0.152.245 68.0.179.82 68.225.148.238 68.225.150.66 68.225.150.160). It caused a lot of work to clean up after him, he should certainly be blocked before he make more damage. // Zw 21:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He is still active, and just vandalized Yiddish language again, although I've asked him to stop. He also vandalized West Germanic language. Someone please block him. Zw 22:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which is just one of other personal attacks I have seen this user write this evening. Suggest blocking. -- Graham :) | Talk 20:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This user is still active and is now adding less than accurate information to Nobility (see Talk:Nobility). I suggest blocking Mintguy (T) 16:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This user was banned for threatening other users in August, 2003. What caused that to be expired (if anything)? - Hephaestos|§ 23:12, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Kenneth Alan is now deleting himself from Vandalism in progress, a blockable offensense, and is calling those who disagrees with him "monomanic stalker troll" -- Zw 01:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

LOL. Zw 02:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I deleted Kenneth Alansson's listing of Zw on the Vandalism page, as what Zw is doing is hardly vandalism, and disputes between users do not belong on that page. However, Kenneth has been deleting himself and comments about him on that page, and that is a bannable offense. RickK 02:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note that while I have had a whole bunch of objections to what Kenneth has been doing, I don't think 'vandalism' quite describes it. He generally produces on-topic edits from what I've seen. Not well qualified ones, sometimes intensely POV, sometimes seemingly coming from a private theory, and he engages in aggressive discussions and edit wars, but I wouldn't call it vandalism, myself. The word 'vandalism' is used a bit too quickly in my mind. I think he started to misapply the word inappropriately himself as a result of this. Martijn faassen 02:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Kenneth Alan is tryign to remove his comments from various talk pages, so I have decided to block him for 24 hours. Mintguy (T) 13:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And rightly so, Mintguy. 24 hours is not nearly long enough for this troll, unfortunately. We need to do something about the problem in the longer term. Tannin 13:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I unblocked - that's rationale for a quickpoll, not an instant blocking, IMO. I'd nominate myself, but I think I nominated JRR Trollkien too recently. Martin 14:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I only had a single incident with User:Kenneth Alan on Talk:Viking, but I can agree with Martijn's characterization. The guy is a total crackpot utterly convinced of his own right and the other's wrong. He is intent on spreading his personal ideology for which Wikipedia seems like the perfect tool. Now, I don't mind him believing whatever he wants to believe, but he has to realize that his contributions are not appreciated by the Wikipedia community, so he has to make the rational decision to find another outlet for his ideas, like a personal website. His seeming unwillingness to accept this is one thing. Another thing is his intense agression, but even that could be tolerated if it wasn't for the fact that he becomes so extremely abusive as has been shown on repeated occassions, using coarse and obscene language. How many times he may be apologizing for this (which is rare in itself) is simply not good enough, as he thereafter repeats the same behavioral pattern again. His violent outburst of enraged, abusive reactions are is especially triggered whenever his authority is questioned, which is unavoidable if he uses his own authority as an argument. In other words: This guy cannot be cured even if we applied all the good-will of the entire wikipedia to him. So therefore I strongly support blocking this user for the sake of Wikipedia and its users, and especially not to scare off any serious and valuable users. Fedor 10:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had already strolled through your 'manifesto' earlier and, frankly, I am amazed at your self-victimization. How can you regard yourself as being the victim, instead of the all the people you have offended? All we ever done wrong is not accept your very peculiar and highly speculative views and question your authority. Instead of rationally arguing your case you have to go and explode in everybody's face, bad-mouthing people, and using obscene language. Is it then surprising that you anger these people and that they then want you out? Can't you see that you and you alone are responsible for this 'witchhunt' as you call it? I think you do, otherwise you would not be doing so much for covering up your mistakes by removing your previous comments from talk-pages. I see this as an admission of guilt. Pity that you haven't got the guts to admit this openly... Fedor 10:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Alansson seems to have decided to leave Wikipedia. In preparation for this, he is methodically deleting every comment he's ever made on an article talk page. This seems inappropriate to me. What do others think? john 22:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In that case, why bother spending so much time removing all your comments? john 22:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, it'll make the discussions that took place less useful, as they now look rather one-sided. I'm mostly on the one side left. Is it proper to wipe out one side of a dialog? I'm not sure. I do not know what the proper action for me is to take. I'd prefer if they'd gone into a talk archive or something like that instead. I imagine most of my part of the dialog is not very useful to others beyond Kenneth, though, so the loss is not that severe in my case.

Anyway, Kenneth likes having an impact on people. This is one technique. I won't be surprised if he won't make some reappearance at some stage in the future. I hope he'll take a different approach than this time around then. Martijn faassen 22:44, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand you feel bad, but I'm sorry, I don't really think you sound very convincing when you complain about the impoliteness of others. I've worried about the content of your contributions. I've been more worried about the way you've been contributing. My dialogs with you have had two aims; to try to qualify your existing contributions so that the NPOV nature of articles is preserved, and to try to help find a way for you to contribute in a constructive manner. My aim hasn't been to stone you. Unfortunately my efforts failed.

By deleting your side of the discussion you're making my efforts incomprehensible. I don't really know how to handle someone else who makes my conversation incomprehensible; I don't recall this happening to me before. Martijn faassen 23:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the relative newbies, this is actually about the third time the same person has appeared, added some stuff, then added some weird stuff, then got into arguments on talk pages, then decided to "leave Wikipedia", then methodically deleted content and talk page discussion, sometimes just his part, sometimes everybody's content. The guy is a total nutjob, and he should be permanently banned before he wastes more people's time poring over page histories trying to figure out what happened. The first time he left, it was a relief, now these reappearances are starting to scramble the encyclopedia. Stan 04:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What Stan said. Tannin 05:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He's clearly still active removing stuff, including his responses from this page. He also set up a redirect from User:Kenneth_Alan to an older account, so it becomes harder to access information about him. I agree with the assessment that he'll probably return. In fact he's has barely been gone. Martijn faassen 17:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You could add a link to his contribs as Kenneth Alan to his older account.

Regards his removal of his side of discussion, you could try to rework the offending thread mode to summarise your points in an essay-like form. This is of course all work - it may be less work to simply restore his deleted comments, though of course this might risk dissuading him from leaving. Up to you, I guess. Martin 23:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fixed Talk:New England to make a little more sense after his deletions there. Was it worth it? Probably not. *shrug*. Martin 23:58, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] He is still here

He never really left, is still unpleasant in his history entries, and is currently adding a few redirects between user pages to make it harder to track what he's up to. Use the 'contribs' links on top of this page.

He doesn't seem to be involved in doing unilateral things to articles at the moment, though of course he's doing unilateral things by removing his comments from talk pages. But don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back the whole way soon enough... Martijn faassen 05:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He's obviously not left. He's been editing Germanic languages. He's also been busy at Vinland, where he inserted his etymological views (some of which at least I could find verified as legitimate theories, but he shouldn't remove the other theories), and added a rather large POV discussion about to the article. I've repaired the damage at Vinland, but I'd rather have it he didn't cause the damage in the first place. Martijn faassen 22:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The way the article was at the time was misleading and inappropiate for an encylopediac article. It needed to be written differently, at least. More definites were need to make sense of the subject. You have paranoidly attacked most that I have edited, save for Nova Scotia. Maybe User:Diderot is your "Sock Puppet"? As it appears, he attacked my edit onto the Celtic languages page so you didn't feel like you had to, unless you are one and the same. Lord Kenneð 08:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that almost EVERY subject I am interested in purely for the research(which I have done a lot of), I am attacked on when I edit it(regardless of what was written, you pick and choose of what I wrote, is relevant for your own limited minded sake). Go away, please! I do not appreciate your stalking me. Lord Kenneð 08:05, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

It is not so surprising, as I'm watching what you edit. This because you have a disconcerting way of adding your own theories and opinions to articles. You added some useful information to the Vinland article and fixed some language problems, but of course you as usual wipe out what is already there that you don't agree with, and your edits tend to be seriously POV, which is against wikipedia policy. I just fixed it. Martijn faassen 10:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I know I am a lazy editor, and I try to get better, but perhaps instead of just automatically/bot-style edit POV discounting what was written, consult me on the talk page and we can work out the incongruencies. Maybe you should stop holding my hand so much and really contribute as much boldly as I have. I feel your jealousy and envy rife in these discussions we have time and time again. Lord Kenneð 14:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Consult you on the talk page? That's rich. I've never seen you consult the previous editors on the talk page before you radically edited away their contributions in favor of your own. I've tried the talk page with you, it doesn't particularly work. Martijn faassen 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth, get a life. I am no one's sock puppet. Show me some documentation for the claim of a "Kelto-Germanic" branch of the Indo-European family. Heck, show me a sign that you even understand the comparative method in language reconstruction. I know you will find no mainstream philologist putting forward such a radical, and so narrowly ethnically motivated, reconstruction of Indo-European. Even if there was some significant minority making such a case - and as far as I can tell, that minority is you, possibly some elements of Asatru and neopaganism, and Stormfront - to drop in such a widely unaccepted idea without marking it as such is irresponsible. I did the best I could to be sympathetic with that nonsense about Non-Indo-European roots of Germanic languages. There are some questions about the effects of contact on traditional methods in language reconstruction, and I tried to make your claims sound less nuts than they are. But that's the limit. Document your claims. Put up or shut up. Diderot 10:43, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, you are not a sock puppet. RE: the Celtic languages talk page again. So highly is the POV favouritism in alignment of Mediterranean viewpoints because of the long time monopoly of education by Mediterranean clerics in the Catholic/Orthodox Church; when most people were uneducated because scholarship was too expensive, making little money outside the Church. Apparently, they left many inconsistent conversions of pagan Europe which leave traces and when the heathens find them, they get upset and point it out. I will not have you attack people's inner longing for ethnic respect in scholastics, respecting actual objective analyses. It is not the benefit to the world that the supposed "World Church of the Creator"(analogous to Catholic/Orthodox principles, but with Protestant British/Nordic puppets) wants to assimilate the people of this earth while shunning all other religous culture. You have a misunderstood viewpoint on what goes on at Stormfront and other sites. It is POV in FAVOUR of Mediterranean supremacy of those people calling themselves "white" and even saying they are more white than the Northern Europeans. In this way, the old W.A.S.P. is merely another branch of the Roman power structure advancing their Indo-European hegemonious elitism. I caustically disapprove of their behaviour because it makes simple folk from backwater and backwoods who cling to heathenist ways of any persuasion, suffer as stereotyped scapegoats, posterchildren symbols that are sacrificed for those deviant agendas. I did not add the Celtic part to the Non IE Roots of Germanic article but I did agree with the statement, and was protesting the exclusion by you in a "revolutionary" edit for your obscure interpretation and misleading agenda. Lord Kenneð 14:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it appears that Martijn Faassen is perhaps another incarnation of User:Zw

I'm no one's sock puppet, and I don't have sock puppets, so I'm not User:Zw nor User:Diderot. I'm glad you think my skills and knowledge are so broad to pull off 2 different identities, though. Do you have sock puppets? So it appears you're dealing with me, and with various other individuals. There are no enemies anywhere. Martijn faassen 10:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Alright Martijn, but you and Zw both seem obsessed with MY particular contributions in lieu of other people who could be considered out of line.

I can't watch everybody. I ran into you while reading articles that interest me. Now you're stuck with me. Martijn faassen 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

You both don't contribute deep insight to issues,

I edit and try to make sure that what is in the issues I edit is balanced. Where did you think wikipedia would be today without people who did this? Do you think this is easy? It's far easier to just walk in and put in my ideas than what I'm actually doing. Getting ideas is easy, but presenting the ideas, good and bad, in a fair manner, is difficult. Martijn faassen 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

but if neither of you has such a bond to the knowledge of the topics you write about, then do not try to block other people from your sight who do, in order to hide your own insecurities. Boldness in scholastics is the only way to pave the way forward past the stumbling blocks of "well, nobody REALLY knows anything, actually, we REALLY don't know what we are talking about in this article, but MAYBE this and MAYBE that". I HAVE PROBLEMS composing my knowledge and remembering exactly where I read what I now have in my thoughts, because I read far past the subject as presented and need to go over it in my head and rewriting a few times in my edits to avoid the computer jamming my Preview edits, which is why I often leave the Minor Edit feature on, and forget sometimes at my final presentation of my knowledge to leave it off. I see that you are more inclined to hold me to caution while Zw goes on a bit more maniacally than you, but I figured to let you know how it feels when people jump to conclusions like the way you've been interpreting my contributions.

I think it is pretty unfair to say I leap to conclusions. I think it'd be more fair to say you do. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to filter your edits for things that are NPOV and present them in such a way. Martijn faassen 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Diderot is right, I need to get a life. When I'm into my studies, the knowledge is all I think about and forget to do stuff in my personal affairs because I'm always breaking barriers onto something else. Lord Kenneð 14:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I would appreciate some assistance with Celtic languages. As small a point as it may be, it is indicative of the thrust of User:Kenneth Alan's edit patterns. Where there is a widely held, respected, mainstream view, Kenneth replaces it with a view that is not only not mainstream but does not even seem to be held outside of the most marginal fringe. Rather than add it as an alternative view to the mainstream - a dubious but at least minimally acceptable strategy - the mainstram view is erased. I have requested a citation twice. None has been forthcoming.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am not sure how to escalate this conflict to the relevant authority. It undermines the entire point of this compendium to allow willfully inaccurate information to persist simply because a user has an annoying pattern of reverting edits.

Diderot 13:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Who are you to judge whether something is widespread? Just because something is widespreadly published based upon owners' of publishing companies review what they want people to think to make money, doesn't make it exactly accurate. Profit means selling, and the cautious tradition is to place a Mediterranean slant on everything cultured and civilised in the Western Hemisphere, when conservative fascist education is the rule. I think it's time to stop giving them POV credit . I feel a lot of misguided hostility in my direction from you. I believe that you are unclear about why you act the way you do, that you are the vassal of another's tutelage and looking for more conversion from another person to help you stronger in your fath and conviction to control an insurgent opposition to the establishment. Be prepared to witness that I do not intend to silence the minority for the majority's bully tactics.

I remember my formerly Catholic priest teaching Latin class and he gave sermons of Christ, to which I openly objected in the middle of class because it had little to do with learning the declensions and linguistic issues. He went on raving and ranting about pagans on how they are so evil for not being Christians making lies about people in the neighbouring town, he said there are no atheists on deathbed. He told a kid that he should throw away his music CD based upon its artwork. He was so upset and confused that I was disputing his POV education techniques into public education that I was learning from. When I complained about this to other faculty, they shrugged it off and said it was a dispute between me and him, and suggested I leave the class if I didn't like it. I felt like he was trying to crusade in the classroom. I was the only one who dared speak against it, and I felt like Patrick Henry in his "...Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech, and it was a buzz that I was the one who knew the fundemental principles of freedom in a secular American classroom and was reliving the mighty Flower Children of the Cold War Era. State and Church are supposed to be separate, but deviants in both parties find moles and lemmings to fulfill their grand plans of POV domination and S&M bitchery.

Case in point, I didn't enroll in the course for a brainwashing session with little academic accumulation, neither do I "put up or shut up" as a little weakling bitch that you want me to be for the sado-masochistic games you seem to hate and enjoy, this passive-aggressive paralysis that binds your outlook on life, boxed in. Don't like psycho-analysis? Too bad! Wikipedia is not a forum for S&M debauchery! Lord Kenneð 14:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, you're the one source of light and logic among the thousands of Wikipedia editors. Tell you what, since it's clearly not going to work to educate all of us ignorant people, and you know you're going to get frustrated at our denseness and want to delete everything you've added (just like the last time), why not go and set up your own website and make it the definitive source of true information? You can be in charge of it and disallow edits by us stupid people, you can even seed it with Wikipedia content to get started, then fix it all up. Since you do have superior insight, it should be obvious that you're never going to make any headway with the many dim bulbs at Wikipedia. Stan 17:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not sorry for not providing "proof". When troublemakers tried to get me to fight in school, I most often did not fight them back physically, just talked myself out of it by explaining my opinions about the fight and why it's irrelevant because I think I'll whoop their ass anyways just to get grounded for a week or two and maybe suspended from school, whether I picked the fight or not. This is reflected in my behaviour here, and likewise, just because I didn't "prove" to those idiots I could kick their asses doesn't mean I couldn't. Just because I don't "prove" to you with what you want to see, doesn't mean I haven't proven overall my point, sometimes the rationale is in the spoken/written word based upon analysis(after general discussion), without quoting somebody else for it to be meaningful(this isn't Good News Bible trash, we aren't supposed to be gossiping and rehashing, but actually learning and teaching). Yes, there's a difference between communicating a preheard account or accounts and advancing upon or detracting the subject in order to uncover discrepencies and unanswered questions about it's nature.

Even most of my teachers taught me that it is better to be critical of school textbooks and advance my knowledge than to adhere strictly to what has been published. I expect Wikipedia to be as high in standards as a university. Haha, yes, I went to University of Connecticut and learnt a lot. Simply going over the history of what has been reported to happen and going along with the data wasn't the intent of one Western Civilisation course I took, but learning the trials and tribulations of history and sociologically evaluating what was contained in the texts and comparing it to the present realities was just as relevant to RECITING the data, factual or not.

RECITING the data did not simply provide the brains for the high IQ people I know and respect, but often is the only thing lower IQ people embraced, their lowest common denominator. That is why we do group work to brainstorm and why we have pop quizzes as well as being demanded to come up with reports based upon our research, with which we are supposed to contribute our intelligence so that we formulate and absorb knowledge quicker and widely. My point is seldom the point another is looking for, and I like to keep it that way, especially when thinking is repressed for the sake of marketing appeal, whether that market is money or minds, I tend to represent the balance, the counterweight to the check of imbalance. I seldom give in to demands and taunts to my incredibility or manliness by imposing adversaries who have the most stake in it by flaunting their authority as opposed to intelligence. It is not for others to decide. You have been taught a lesson here. I suggest you take it to heart and quit harrassing me.

I don't feel like buying a domain space or paying for bandwidth, whatever. I recognise you all are here to contribute for your own agendas just as much as me. That being said, your persistant hypocritical assassin attempts to push me out like this, is a small-town Wild West concept of Wikipedia you have. It doesn't improve Wikipedia for anyone, after all, your grudges only downgrade the quality of the contributions and discussions that go on. Stan, if you don't like me or my style, then just pursue your articular interest. I may not have any interest in those subjects and would likely not alter them, I don't know, but we don't often butt heads. You have picked a few fights with me for sure. You don't own the site. This is supposed to be for everyone who knows how to use the software and can contribute positively. I never seek hostile approaches to your contributions and critically tear them apart in any mad-on sense, nor does it ever occur to me--I'm not interested in controlling your contributions unless you come barging into my edits to exploit the GNU and editing disclaimer for some sick twisted fun. You seem to love the "put up or shut up" and ostracism games of high schoolers. Lord Kenneð 18:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth, this has nothing to do with your career in education. It's rather ironic that you keep analyzing me psychologically (I suffer from insecurity, am paranoid, etc) while you're providing so much fodder for an analysis of yourself... Wikipedia is not the place for arbitrary individuals to present their bold new ideas. Get your own website or write a book. When you edit here, take better care. Martijn faassen 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Then why are you so attracted to my issues like some love-hate phenomena? Explain that, mister smug, beyond the usual rhetoric of how you are trying to simply contain me and the ideas I put forth in quarantine. Well, I just as well call you unpurposeful after all it's a metaphor for arbitrary. People aren't perfect, you must expect as such. Besides a key Wikipedia motto is to be a bold editor. Where have you been basing your ideas from, hmm? Take better care...that I don't attract you to follow me around everywhere and offend your tedious reluctances? That reminds me of times around assorted inconsiderate yobos(inconsiderate jackasses) in school who told me to shut up because they didn't want to hear me, but we were in a public place, and I persisted to talk because they had no right to shut me up and I wasn't talking about or to them anyways. They kept threatening and trying to lay down their desire when they could have left themselves. Too bad they chose to attack me repeatedly for just being normal. They certainly had no clue on how to deal with it, as you all have stated openly. You don't know how to deal with an insurgent like me. But, of course, the first thing you think of is banning me to censor the material and keep it within your own editing grasp while I have to watch and be helpless. You tell me to leave as if it's your property. All your unworthiness is rushing to your head as you try to take it out on somebody with an insight to the articles. You do not tell me what to do, mister vigilante. Smarten up young man! Lord Kenneð Alansson 02:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I invite you to find the place where I've advocated banning you. Or even advocated shutting you up. I've consistently pointed out my objections to a number of your contributions, and the pattern that they've been forming. I think I've seen some improvement, but we're not there yet. In the Vinland article you contributed material that was useful, but you've also delegated the 'wine' implementation to an obviously wrong theory, which is your perspective, not that of many scholars in the field. Instead I've tried to give a balanced overview of the various opinions about this. Thanks to you and me, that article has likely much improved. :) Martijn faassen 10:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to respect "No Original Research" rule

Dear colleagues--As most of us know, the Wikipedia imposes a policy of Wikipedia:No original research--articles must report the work of others, and should avoid original contributions. I think this is a very good policy, since it is the best safeguard against the Wikipedia getting filled with the contributions of crackpots.

In the case of Mr. Alan, it's been hard to tell just how much of a crackpot he is, since he contributes in areas like Germanic where expertise among Wikipedia participants is a bit thin. (I studied historical linguistics in school, but I'm hardly a Germanicist.) Therefore, in order to check on the legitimacy of Mr. Alan's contributions to Germanic languages, I felt it was reasonable to insist that he list his reference sources, to ensure that his contribution was based on established work and not something he just made up. In fact, when I made this request, Mr. Alan refused in very aggressive fashion, as shown below.

I conclude that Mr. Alan is unwilling to abide by the policy of Wikipedia:No original research--at least in this case, he is not reporting established research on Germanic languages, but is pushing his own theories, which I now suspect, given his overall unstable behavior, may be very much in the crackpot category. This alone would justify banning him--just think of the people out there visiting the Wikipedia for information and getting crackpot stuff instead. The case for banning is, of course, strengthened by Mr. Alan's track record of behaving abusively to his colleagues.

For reference, my exchange with Mr. Alan, taken from the discussion page for Germanic languages, is repeated below. Yours very truly, Opus33 19:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

This post concerns the following passage, recently deleted by Martijn faassen and restored by its original author, Kenneth Alan:

These are chiefly found in Insular Germanic and Insular Nordic tongues, while the typically Indo-European roots are found chiefly in the Continental Germanic and Continental Nordic.

I urge Mr. Alan to provide some citations to published work that makes this claim. The Wikipedia instructions to contributors make it very clear that we are not supposed to be presenting our own ideas/research; see Wikipedia:No original research. If the claim can be supported by published scholarship, then it should stand, and if it is Mr. Alan's own idea (no matter what its merits), it should be deleted. Opus33 15:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, hypocritical lawbook fascist. How many more times are Wikipedian individuals working on their projects going to be downtrodden by POV original research of geek Wikipediholic cliques who are here to spend their free time like it's a club with sects and they push people around? A Nerd Fraternity? Haze me all you want, it won't phase me. Lord Kenneð 17:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I've told you the same on original research many times. It doesn't seem to help. What is actually going on is not that we are fascists and push you around, but that we are actually right about this and you're not playing by the rules of this community. This is why you keep stumbling upon people who question your contributions and ask for references. It's hardly a clique, as certainly I myself only know about the others due to our shared opposition to your style of editing. Martijn faassen 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I do understand that; however, some people do come across the fascist type when they disagree and demand proof with the overbearing bureaucracy. That tends to lead to unproductive resolution on the matter because I become counter-offensive to the ad-hominem approach of "Kenneth-Alanisations". I know when I am being mocked, whether people really want to push me or are just poking fun a bit.

I'm sorry I had to come up with a name for what you've been doing, but they are very particular to you. I was hoping for a while you could alter your style of contributions, but we're still in the same pattern, so I've given up on that. Martijn faassen 10:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I haven't invented any terms to place you in a singular negative light. I don't intend to. I told you you were acting like Zw and here we go like I knew was happening. Lord Kenneð Alansson 11:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

But there has been a consistent pattern in your edits. If there hadn't been, this page wouldn't be here. What you contribute contains some useful stuff, a lot of private speculation and it's usually very POV. Martijn faassen 10:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

One source I use heavily, is the Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings, by John Haywood, a UK book. Another, The Germanic People by Francis Owen of Alberta. I have also drawn much from A History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones, another UK book. An American book Barbarian Europe(part of the Great Ages of Man series)by Gerald Simons. Complete Illustrated Guide to RUNES, also a UK book by Nigel Pennick. The Northern World: The History and Heritage of Northern Europe, another UK book that had many writers contributing.

I rather doubt that you reflect the contents of these books accurately. I haven't been able to find much corroborating your Vinland theories in the Gwyn Jones book so far, for instance, who for instance takes the 'wine' interpretation entirely seriously (and the grass interpretation as rather fanciful). Martijn faassen 10:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not plagiarise other people's interpretations, regardless if I could give them credit for what I learnt from them. I do learn a whole lot from these authors, but I am not some recital specialist at a fundementalist Baptist Church, and I do not present Catholic style dogma. Lord Kenneð Alansson 11:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not present your own original research. But once your research is accepted as a legitimate one (one deserving discussion) by a large variety of scholars feel free to contribute it. Martijn faassen 10:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I draw a lot of my source text from those three books, as well as others and some websites, like the Viking Network; www.viking.no and some others obscure to English readers because it's in Swedish, but also the Nordic FAQ and Swedish university websites. I also use the Swedish-English Online Dictionary by the Swedish Institute, Northvegr, Regia Anglorum and the Viking Answer Lady. I check the BBC Online, and when i go searching online for clues and sniff around. I can't tell you all the sources because there were so many diverse ones I forget them all.

We want particular sources for particular theories that you are contributing. This because you consistently contribute rather surprising theories which seem at first glance to be private to your own framework. Such claims need backup. Martijn faassen 10:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Really, it's nice of you to speak as though there is more than one personality in you, that you represent humanity. What, are you Jesus Christ/suffering from schizophrenia? I need you to back up your viewpoints with more than elitist and false populist statistical takes on them that aren't your own. I need something human out of you. We aren't cyborgs nor are we Data from Star Trek. Lord Kenneð Alansson 11:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

So far I've been compared by you with nazis, fascists, stalinists, the catholic hierarchy, fundamentalist protestants, mediterreanist apologists, Jesus Christ and a schizophrenic. Could you please cut that out? I'm not the only one who has asked for particular sources, which why I felt I could use the word 'we' in this case. People are bothered because various theories you're adding (as definite statements, usually) to pages are not recognized by them. If you provide sources we can find information on whether your statements are in fact generally accepted (as you imply with definite statements), or at least are commonly known theories (in which case your statements need NPOV-ing but deserve inclusion). Or whether they don't belong. Martijn faassen 10:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I furthermore derive my sources from my own knowledge of my genealogical studies and extreme immersion in psychology by reading Jung and Freud also considerable lengthy lectures from friendly PhD. psychotherapists, considerable discussion and debate with my history, sociology, civics and law instructors and hours upon hours of having no life pouring over all types of sociologic data I borrowed from the shelves of the classroom and would return them in a few days or the end of the week.

Your private psychological theories on the motivations behind various theories do not belong in wikipedia. Nor are your theories about my psychology very productive in a debate. Martijn faassen 10:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Really, then don't contribute your own psychological input(blindly trusting an author's sources-and/or intent or guessing my motives) if it hurts so much to be a hypocrite. Lord Kenneð Alansson 11:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I am guessing your motives? Sure, by now I am. :) I'm not blinding trusting you or anyone's sources. That's the point. Multiple sources and views need to represented. If you add definite statements to articles I'm skeptical. My goal is to include commonly known theories, interpretations and evidence in a NPOV discussion, and let others draw their own conclusions. Martijn faassen 10:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

In the library, I would bolt for the dictionary to study cognates and etymology. I'd find myself forgetting to do the actual work required because I'd be so enwrapped in learning. Yes, I remember one day it was we had a project to research and I was delving into a website about Breton ethnicism and I think I learnt more about that than what I was told to learn. I'd get laughed at for it while the other people went to party and get wasted on booze and drugs, so you can see why I act hostile. I don't typically respond immedately to commands or ridicule/insults as a general rule. Lord Kenneð Alansson 02:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I've seen rather dogdy history, etymology and linguistics coming out of you, and you don't strike me as an expert. I've tried it the nice way for a while, but I've become more aggressive in removing your contributions, as they are usually hopelessly ideosyncratic, and more aggressive than I would ever be to boot. I'm not the only one who is of this opinion. Besides, you are supposed to have left wikipedia voluntarily, so this debate is not supposed to be taking place. We were supposed to take kindly to your removal of your contributions to talk pages in the past (wiping out your own incriminating history?) because you were leaving. And I heard that this wasn't the first time that you "left". If we're talking psychology, I think our psychological theory about your behavior was correct in that you weren't. Martijn faassen 10:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Let's stay on track to the motivations regarding the editor's intent and framework to the article and likewise that of the authors were derive our sources from, if any psychology is to be involved. That is the limit of extent I have placed upon you, as I critically analyse the authors before applying their statements as my knowledge. I may not have all my facts straight, and when I don't I tend not to argue the issue. Before you spout that I argue everything, be a little more critical of me before making such a statement. You have a personal vendetta that you hide in a veil of bureaucracy. That doesn't help Wikipedia. You have this way of not contributing to the data of the articles except to counter what I contribute. That is ad hominem and inapplicable to Wikipedia, so stop your attacking, judging and demanding or you'll keep looking like an ass, or a NAG! Lord Kenneð Alansson 11:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Now Kenneth, you can't make that claim for me - I am, in fact, a lexicographer, and I do know a thing or two about historical linguistics. I have contributed to several of the articles that you keep reverting. I have asked for references from you. I have gone and looked up the people published in pre-IE linguistic reconstruction and the early history of Germanic languages. Their claims are quite different from yours. They are also more circumspect in their claims, marking speculation as such.

I am still waiting for you to explain to me who your sources are for rather far fetched claims about the etymology of German and Celtic languages. None of the "Celto-Germanic" or "Germano-Celtic" links from Google is at all related. If you could present to me the source and background to the claims you're making, I am prepared to help put togther an entry presenting them as an alternative line of research, but I have to be able to verify that they really are an alternative line of research, held by real people other than yourself.

But you haven't provided any means for me to do that. A name, a journal publication, an accessible reference, or a website where these claims are described and referenced... But instead, nothing.

I have long since come to the conclusion that you have no sources. Since you appear so interested in the motivations of Wikipedia editors, you will indulge me in a bit of psychoanalysis of your motives? The only coherent theory I have is that you are undertaking a Tlönish project of trying to remake the world as you wish it by inserting references to this parallel universe of yours into Wikipedia.

You refuse to abide rules about original research, and then you refuse to actually allow anyone to review your research. You can't seriously expect all of Wikipedia to simply bend to your word?

Diderot 15:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not hiding anything. I have made clear what my problems with your contributions are over and over again. I'm very skeptical of them. I'm trying to make sure the articles you edit stay NPOV. And yes, I'm careful to watch what you're doing now, which I already said before. Martijn faassen 19:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I have put Wikipedia away for a few days to think about some things. One major thing is my problem with some people who have a political agenda to rewrite history and ethnic profiles by infiltrating publishers offices simply to limit what gets sold in order to steer the studies and acceptances in certain favors. When books are no longer sold and I cannot relocate the tattered texts, I have no resource to back up the opinion I present, and well, its just tough luck then, huh. So you know where I am coming from. It's called an infowar...I'm not interested in conjuring anything slanted, but for all the American cable TV channel called the History Channel. Guess what its programming is almost always? Elitist topics always POV. Romans, Greeks, Middle East, anti-Nazi/WW2, Judeo-Christian, and of course the general tabloid ghosts and goblins bullshit. I get a bit fed up with the spoonfed POV education that people assume is true. I don't have the money that these people have, and I actually care about the truth, whether you believe it's POV because its personal for me or not, I'm trying to combat overriding POV in topics sensitive to me, especially long-standing prejudice that filters and clouds the focus of the themes presented towards the subjects. In fact, I care more about that than the specific facts of data, like the height of a settlement from sealevel, because in many respects, those can be the trivialist of things when it comes to the respect of peoples. I am not silly like some Afrocentric people who try to claim everything worldly positive is derived from a black man. That's not my attitude. Please don't mistake or encourage others to believe that because it undermines what credibility I do have. I don't seek a mockery out of Wikipedia and I do understand your reasons Martijn. I'm just a bit frustrated, is all. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ban this user NOW!

Can we please just ban this user. Who knows how much rubbish this guy has added. I've just had to remove a totally incorrect derivation of the surname Merrick given by Kenneth Alan on Richard Amerike. Mintguy (T)

Says you. That's what I've read and been told. You're just itching to lash out. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:18, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I had left this issue a month or two ago, but now that I came back to it again I am surprised to see that nothing really has happened. At this point I am wondering whether Wikipedia is really functioning. How much more patronizing arrogance, paranoid accusations, and -above all- abusive language must we endure before someone with the power to do so steps in and bans this user for ever and ever!? What does it take? When is it finally realized that what this user can contribute is far outweighed by the damage and outcry he causes? Someone please do something now! It is outrageous that a recalcitrant crackpot like he is bullying and offending sensible, valuable contributors. Should we put up a vote first? OK. Let's do it! NOW!

BTW don't believe him when he claims to have access to scandinavian resources. I have seen him write some Swedish and in the few simple sentences he has construed, he appears to not even be able to tell the difference between 'nej' and 'ingen', which can be compared to not knowing the difference between 'no' and 'not' in English.

Oh, and Kenneth, of course you are now once again going to gush out one of your paranoid conspiracy theories all over me, and top it off with some obscene 'out-of-the-blue' insults. And I beg you, to please do so again, so we all can see what you are really like. Please do! I beg you to! Humour me!

Fedor 19:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I had wanted to leave you here without reply but due to the sensitive nature of this issue, I am here repesenting myself better. I haven't bothered you for a long time now (I don't recall how long but surely it is). I don't contribute to the Swedish Wikipedia and haven't for a long time similarly. I am sorry for insulting you the way I did in the past. I do not insult or fight with anybody here, now. I had worked through these problems with Martijn and I am also doing most other things online anyways. I come back, from time to time to check updates on articles to see how they are doing and to correct any mistakes I may have made. Why do you want to ban me then, suddenly and out of nowhere? Lord Kenneð Alansson 03:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drop the charade, Kenneth! Maybe you can fool others, but I -for one- now see through your sudden resort to reason and playing innocent. The record of your past "contributions" must speak for itself. I just hope that someone now will realize the same do something soon... Fedor 13:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This user is back on the swedish Wikipedia - and he is a troll! He just got blocked for 24 hours; see his contribution on the swedish village pump (in english). / Mats 00:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Kenneth_Alan_39a2.html"