User talk:Kasreyn/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: If you wish to comment on any material here, please add a comment to my main talk page, not here. Thanks, Kasreyn 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alienus 02:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

I love your user page. You seem like a cool person.--Anchoress 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Thanks for your note. I quite agree - removing these photos is unnecessary. Hopefully the semi-protection will do the trick. Regards, Jakew 10:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fromthewolfstar

Thanks for being you Maggiethewolfstar 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. My name's not Maggie. -Kasreyn 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Kasreyn

No, Maggie is my name. When I feel friendly toward someone I often sign Maggiethewolfstar

Thanks for getting back to me. Maggiethewolfstar 03:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ohh! Now I get it. *blush* Well, you're welcome.  :) Kasreyn 03:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kasreyn,
You gave me a giggle just now and cheered me up and believe me I need it right now. Here's to all the people that can't be put in boxes! Maggiethewolfstar 04:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid sourcing

Thanks for the compliment. My main interest in those articles (which actually is not all that great) is ensuring that they strictly follow policy; that is, that there is no original research in them, that inclusions are made from a neutral point of view, and that above all everything that is in them is verifiable and comes from reliable sources. For some reason certain topics seem to attract partisans who are both ill informed on the topic and ill informed on Wikipedia's policies. Circumcision in particular seems to attract anti-circumcision activists who have those two flaws in spades. As you've noted, Jakew, while pro-circumcision, is vastly more informed on the topic than any of the anti-circumcision activists, and is diligent about insisting that articles follow policy and guidelines, particularly WP:RS. This tends to infuriate the anti-circumcision activists, who feel they have an extremely important message (i.e. "THE TRUTH!!!!!") that they must get out (via the medium of Wikipedia), perhaps not understanding that Wikipedia is intended as a vehicle for reproducing reliable information, rather than as a soapbox or vehicle for furthering a cause. Jayjg (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from thewolfstar

Hi Kasreyn, Thanks for your comments. Whoever left me that comment about the cabal was saying exactly what you said concerning Wikitruth. Only he said Wikitruth is made by the administrators and other editors in the cabal. You haven't seen any cabal and that's fine. I have and do see a cabal. Long live diversity of opinion. Maggiethewolfstar 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] just curious

are you the codemonkey I think you are? [1]

If so, glad to see you here.  :) Kasreyn 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the handle I tend to go by was already taken on Wikipedia. Still, nice to meet you. :) --Codemonkey 21:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nandeska

I didn't attack anyone. I just asked a simple binary question. Cuzandor 19:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone asked me wheter I am circumcised or not I'd simply say "No", there was no need for all that "I'm not interested in wordswordswordswords" and "Offending condescending block admin". But now I understand that he wished they didn't circumcise him and that he is not proud about being cut. I already apologieszed. Cuzandor 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah cool Cuzandor 03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re.:Citation Needed Tag

Re.: Citation Tag needed: U.S. immigration reform protests, .:Re discussion page,Re.:Backlash, there are two newspaper links that discuss the town in which a mayor, two others got tossed by the voters, the town's daylabor center shut down, the US States dealing with illegal aliens. Martial Law 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Troll Feeding Comment in Talk:George_W_Bush

That was funny, thanks for the comment. I had an anonymous IP-sockpuppet-stalker for a while there. Followed me around to a few pages, but now it seems to have chilled out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs) -Kasreyn 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ann Coulter's Page

Where is your proof (source) that Ann Coulter is avid anti-arab? Please send it to me and justify for that to be kept in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puckmv (talk • contribs)

Her remarks concern Muslims and the religion of Islam. There is a clear distinction in her quotes that she is anti-Islam NOT anti-arab. You are undeniably making generalizations on the religion of Islam. I am just trying to make Wikipedia fair and balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puckmv (talk • contribs)

Note
To any editors reading this exchange, please note that Puckmv later attempted to alter my reply on his talk page to reverse the original intention of my words. I don't know whether he intended this to set me up for an accusation or something, or just for amusement. Regardless, his edit can be seen here. Kasreyn 00:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PH

I just about fell over, when you supported me. Are you running a temperature? Anyway, thanks. Wallie 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lalalulu

I blocked Lalalulu for a week for the deliberately low quality of the contributions. Toronto98 doesn't seem to have contributed for a couple of weeks or so and so I did not block that user. Really, Lalalulu deserves a permanent block but let's just try this for the moment. --Yamla 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheesh

You said: "Get a load of this. I was just trying to make a point about consistency in descriptive standards, and I got a paranoid screed. My question is, what IS considered best usage on Wikipedia? I can't find mention of this issue in the MOS."

I strongly suspect (though I could be wrong) the problem here is that "Jew" is both a religion and a race, or at least is often considered as one or the other. It's quite reasonable to describe me as a "British-Canadian" (or would if I actually got off my behind and applied for Canadian citizenship). I'm quite comfortable at describing first-generation immigrants that way (and am myself a first-generation immigrant). It is less clear in the case of Jewish people, however. While it may well be relevant to discuss their religion, it is more difficult when using the term in a racial (not racist) manner. Certainly, it'd be reasonable to describe a person as 'Israeli-American'. I'm much less comfortable describing second- (and more-) generation people this way. Someone who's great grandparents came from Germany can't really be described as 'German-American' in my opinion. In this case, though, I just let it stand though I would never add something like that myself. Okay, so what about this particular case? Really, the best answer is whether Mr. Savage describes himself as Jewish-American. If he doesn't, we probably shouldn't use the term. It's debateable, however, as it is definitely significant that Mr. Savage identifies himself as Jewish. It may have something to do with liberals, democrats, and republicans. Personally, I'm just happy to live in Canada.  :) --Yamla 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last word

Well, I didn't really intend for it to be a dialogue with her. She had e-mailed WikiEn-l with a plea for being unblocked. I looked it over and decided that the people who decided to block her seemed to have exercised their judgment in a not-surprising way, and simply left the message to note that I didn't find their actions warranting reversal. As for being sad about it -- I don't know. I saw little evidence that she'd be much of a contributor; she had "angry and uncompromising POV-pusher" written on everything she wrote and I have to admit I'm a fan of just shutting those people down so they don't waste our human resources in cleaning up after them, debating with them, filing lengthy RfCs and RfAs, etc. Wikipedia is just another website (one that I like a lot, mind you), and nobody has a right to edit it, and some people are probably better off just not being on it, for theirs and our sakes. Her e-mail to the list was not, "I made mistakes, I misunderstood, I apologize, so let me turn over a new leaf," it was "I'm tired of being blocked, don't you think it's time for me to be unblocked," which didn't incline me to think anything different would come if she was unblocked. --Fastfission 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter

Thank you for your maintenance of the Ann Coulter article. Be prapared for an edit war, though. --Asbl 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Savage

Stop deleting my changes. It doesn't matter if the quotes that I deleted are accurate quotes. That's not why I deleted them. I deleted them because they aren't balanced by any positive quotes. It's simply an attack on Savage. You're obviously a liberal, and so you want to keep all the liberal garbage in the article. Stating that Ray Taliaferro is "ultra liberal" is hardly controversial. He is. If you get down to it, one could argue that just calling someone a "liberal" is simply a matter of opinion as well. You're the reason why Wikipedia is a joke. Politician818 00:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to spell. The guy's name is Taliaferro, not Tallifiero. Duh. Again, many of the quotes in this article ruin the neutrality of the article. Savagesucks.com, Salon.com, and Mediamatters.com are not neutral sites. It doesn't matter if the quotes are accurate. I don't dispute that. Don't you understand that a bunch of negative quotes about Savage not balanced with anything positive or a response by Savage shows a liberal bias? Politician818 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Savage doesn't "piss everyone off." I'm surprised that you hate him since he bashes Bush a lot. He doesn't "piss" me off. It's your subjective opinion that he's not a good guy. However, for an article to be neutral, it shouldn't be full of quotes that bash him. Either the article should have a balance of quotes or no quotes at all. Sorry. Have a nice day. Politician818 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are the views of left wing organizations that Savage is a misogynist, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay worthy of being in this article? First, their views are unfounded. Secondly, who cares what their views are? Why are their views of Savage any more relevant than my views of Savage? Politician818 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never put fake quotes of praise into the article. I've only given Savage's retorts. Secondly, I did state on the discussion page that I was taking some of those quotes off. Thirdly, can you explain to me what your personal problem with Savage is? I'm interested. He bashes Bush as much as the liberals do. You should like Savage. Also, please tell me why calling Taliaferro an "ultra liberal" is not fair. Again, if Taliaferro is simply referred to as "liberal," isn't that too just a matter of opinion? Politician818 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're mostly correct in that false statements, if correctly quoted, can still be printed in here. However, I've seen some exceptions to that. Gore Vidal defamed William F. Buckley in Esquire Magazine, and Buckley not only successfully sued Vidal but the magazine as well. I don't think that anything in this article has crossed the line, but obviously more responses by Savage should be in this article? How do I prove that Savage said something, BTW? All of Savage's quotes that I put in this article are things that I've heard him say, but how can I prove that he said it? I have to find a source who has transcribed Savage's statements? What if the source is incorrect? That doesn't matter? So logically speaking, I could have my own website and print statements by Savage and then cite my own website as a source in this article? Politician818 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but Buckley dropped the suit against Vidal. Esquire settled, for court costs, while Vidal paid for his own attorney fees. That is not the same as a judgment.MollyBloom 05:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source citations provided for female condom article

In regard to the cleanup tag placed on the Female Condom sub-article in April 2006, source citations from two separate sources have been inserted to resolve the questions raised. Please review these citations and consider removing the cleanup tag. These citations include a reference link to the presentations summary page of the 2005 PATH Global Consultation on the Female Condom - where peer-reviewed research on issues of the female condom's safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and cost was presented - and a reference link to the September 2005 press release announcing the introduction of the FC2 Female Condom.Bryan Callahan 21:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boo

I seem to randomly find you all over the internet. You should post on your Livejournal again one of these days. ~ Izzy

Iz? Mephista's friend? Hey, it's been a while! How're things?  :) Kasreyn 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, after googling myself I've discovered there's someone else at Gamespot using the same username. I should point out that I have about four years previous claim to it online, though.  :P Kasreyn 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender identity x gender expression

First, from gender identity:

"In sociology, gender identity describes the gender with which a person identifies (i.e, whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or describes oneself in some less conventional way),"

"One such case is that of David Reimer, reported in As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto. It details the persistence of a male gender identity and the stubborn adherence to a male gender role of a person whose penis had been totally destroyed shortly after birth as the result of a botched circumcision, and who had subsequently been surgically reassigned by constructing female genitalia. So the term "gender identity" is broader than the sex of the individual as determined by examination of the external genitalia."

The fact someone has a male gender identity does not mean that he's living as a man. For a lot of reasons, por example, social pressure, he could be living as a woman (probably because he was assigned as a woman; because of his genitals, etc.). So we can't say people change gender identity or (better than this) we can't say every trans person change their gender identity. People change their gender role (or gender expression) because of (a lot of times) a inner gender identity! (by some point of view)

Changing gender identity?? It sound bizarre!

From transexuality Psychological techniques that attempt to alter gender identity to one considered appropriate for the person's assigned sex have been shown to be ineffective, as stated above. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the only effective course of treatment for transsexual people is sex reassignment therapy.

Hugs, Alinefr 04:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter Article

Thanks for regulating the Ann Coulter article. Sorry about being such a little ass about it before. Puckmv 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] drboisclair and doright

Dear Kasreyn: If you are going to warn drboisclair, you need to seriously look at Doright. If you would like examples, I can provide them. --CTSWyneken 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! As you can see below, drboisclair does respond well to critique. No doubt he did deserve it, since he can get carried away, but Doright does tend provoke such. I've several times talked folks out of taking out a RfC on him. I don't think it worth it. I avoid commenting on his posts anymore and will do almost anything not to talk to him directly.

I do not blame you for wanting to avoid putting your head into our hornet's nest. I just want to alert you that if you see drboisclair go ballistic, look to see what Doright said, too. I'll let you know if he or she goes beyond lecturing (see Talk:Martin Niemöller for the latest on that front) and false accusations (see, ironically, (User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive5#False Charges Against Gooverup?)

Anyway, I ramble. If you're interested, I'll log each new incident here. --CTSWyneken 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that's what's going on. There are many other such examples, but I'm not sure you want to dig into the past. (Unless you are an archaeologist!) I'll just keep you aware of his next things.--CTSWyneken 19:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Covenant

Howdy! I was just sorting categories and found the comments on the article The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever. I wanted to add my support to your idea of an article for each book. Thanks for offering to do it - Cheers! Her Pegship 16:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Doright

I think that you are unaware of this user's disruptive behavior that is so vast that he should have been banned permanently. He is simply ignored. I thank you for your chastisement, but because Doright is permitted to range free with his constant personal attacks and his misbehavior some of us feel that we have no choice but to defend ourselves. May I suggest that you scold him as well. Please see this example of his trying to lure another editor to violate policy. He pretends to be sympathetic to an editor to get the editor to incriminate himself Luther article. How long must we be subjected to his rudeness?--Drboisclair 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As a followup to this I would like to say that I appreciate your concern, and I am glad of your helpful input in Wikipedia because I believe it to be an objective viewpoint, thank you. Cheers, --Drboisclair 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really appreciate your positive reaction to me and your kind words.  :) But, on examining the talk page archive of Ptmccain you linked above, I didn't find anything extremely wrong with Doright's comments. He was extremely polite, though his comments could definitely be seen as baiting. However, since any reply would likely have been on Ptmccain's own talk page, I don't see how a violation of policy could have resulted.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that people who sputter about "Jewish cabals" at Wikipedia deserve to have their ignorance gently pointed out to them, in the hopes that they might perhaps abandon it. The far more likely result is that such paranoid types will simply wind up getting themselves blocked one way or another. I've tried to get through to such a person before, and no matter how hard I tried to pierce their delusion of persecution, they would not give it up. Still, I had to make the attempt. How is Doright's mild questioning of Ptmccain any different? I think I'll need a better example than the above. Kasreyn 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you about alleging such syndicalism as "cabals" and "cliques". Such talk is disruptive. The situation has improved within the last 4 months. I slipped up in letting it get to me. It won't happen again. Some of the problem comes in the way of direct challenges: [2], taking a look at this entire archive may give you a flavor of it. All of us are human and fallible, and tempers get ignited. I do think that there is a chronic problem that simmers below the surface. I am willing to work toward peace and reconciliation. I have to learn to get used to things I disagree with like putting Martin Luther in the Anti-semitic people category. I have to accept the opinions of my peers on this website, who I respect as objective and discerning on these matters, and I do not want to engage in an edit war. I think that everyone on this website has something positive to offer whoever they are. Respectfully, --Drboisclair 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you are one remarkably polite and well-spoken guy. It's true, sometimes things happen on articles about people and things I deeply care about that drive me up the wall. And I also believe everyone has, or would have, something positive to add. It's just that some can't seem to work within the few simple rules at Wikipedia, like that user I mentioned above, who eventually got perma-blocked... I really thought it was a shame, because she seemed very intelligent and had a great sense of humor. But then some of her edits got reverted (NPOV issue), and she immediately leaped to the conclusion that there was a "cabal" working against her. Worst of all, a bunch of disaffected jerks, sockpuppets of banned users, Wikitruthers, and other vultures, descended on her talk page and started feeding her a line of bull to use her as a pawn. I pointed this out to her and got ignored for my trouble. So trust me, I know how it feels when you try to help a struggling user and they spit it back in your face. You have my sympathy. Kasreyn 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like you to see this latest exchange: [3]. I wish we could let bygones be bygones. There is this constant stirring the pot. --Drboisclair 23:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you did call him an "antagonist". In general, it's always best to discuss a person's actions rather than applying a label to them. From what I've seen, DoRight seems to take offense rather easily, so I'm not surprised it got him upset. As to the cat deletion page, I've already said my piece and moved on. If the cat is kept, I will be keeping an eye on what pages are added to it. I'm definitely not the only one who's expressed concerns over standards of inclusion, so if the cat is kept, I'm going to assume there is at minimum a consensus for higher standards of inclusion. Kasreyn 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you are going to do this. This is a matter of concern. --Drboisclair 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)