User talk:Kasreyn/archive3

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 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Civility, please

Regarding your post here, I request that you remain civil. I further request that you post here the exact words and the diff that you claim were a threat by the newbie. I also suggest that you assume good faith [1], which at this point I am making an effort to maintain myself.Doright 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I assumed good faith when I listed all possibilities: not just that you might have been lying, but also that you simply might have failed to find the threat (ie., assumption of good intent). However, as I stated, your obvious facility with page history makes me suspect you are perfectly capable of finding Gooverup's post in CTS's talk page history yourself. My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that any combination of posting a user's personal information combined with menacing language - however mild - constitutes a threat. If I was mistaken in this, then I was mistaken in thinking Gooverup's post was a threat. It certainly seems like one to me. Perhaps you merely disagree.
I should also point out that you might find better things to do with your time than watching CTSWyneken's userpage and jumping on anyone who says anything you take issue with. Simply put, I was having a discussion with CTS to which you were not invited. My statements regarding you were my attempts at putting into words what I believed CTS's viewpoint might be, as indicated by "Let me see if I have it straight." Nothing I said was uncivil because it was not intended for you and did not reflect my own views. Your butting into a discussion uninvited is itself, however, uncivil. I find it rather odd that you appear to think I'm somehow against you. Since you clearly watch the user pages of those with whom you've come in contact, you must already know I gave Drboisclair an NPA warning tag for a disrespectful comment he made directly to you (when he called you "DoWrong"). I expect some people might take this as a sign of impartiality.
I suspect that it is your determination to keep an eye on anyone who speaks your name that leads to your offendedness. I learned early in life that I have no control over what others might say about me, but I can prove my worth by my own actions. So how about you work on the encyclopedia instead of worrying about other peoples' discussions? Cheers, Kasreyn 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You may want to look at this delete request

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts). --CTSWyneken 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FSM

T oquote you: "Wikipedia isn't here to put down anyone's particular "truth". If FSM makes you happy, great for you. But in creating FSM, Bobby Henderson intended it as a parody. The fact that you have chosen to take it seriously, or that some people you have known have chosen to take it seriously, is irrelevant to what FSM was intended for. If enough people took FSM seriously as a religion - and if we had a reliable, outside source on that number - then those who take FSM seriously could indeed be noted, though of course the parody's original purpose would still be notable and included. Kasreyn 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC) "

I chose not to bring this in the discussion board as it is leaving the area of the FSM and going someplace else. Anyway, what would you consider an reliable outside source? A list of signutures mailed to you? Perhaps people puting down FSM on the religion part of a survey. The national surveys are every how many years? Anyway I just wnated to know what you would consider a reliable outside source. I am just curious not attacking, you just curious. --Codemartin 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BI Article & other

I just saw your webpage. I also voted for Kerry because the alternative was worse. And we now know how bad 'worse' really is. The other articles I edit are the Wiki Law iProject (I am an attorney) and various political articles. As to the BI article -- yes, it is not balanced yet. There was an edit war, and a consensus agreed to 'freeze' it, while editing off-line (look at the off line articles). And the consensus was to discuss it first, and get input, before changing the off-line article. The reason there are some duplications is that eventually the article will be split into two articles.

The problem with the BI article is that initially it read like an advertisement for breast implants. I have a scientific (as well as a law) background, and I had silicone breast implants that ruptured. They were not removed for five years, and I became deathly ill. Yet there are plastic surgeons who insist that even rupture is not harmful. That is flatly untrue. I now work with women who have been harmed by breast implants - silicone and saline. Another plastic surgeon who has agreed to help editing also believes that someday the dangers will be proven, but right now the environment is very political -- and a ton of money has gone into 'proving' implants safe. So far, the only editor to help 'balance' it has been an outrageously POV plastic surgeon that refuses to admit any problems with implants. On other articles, he had also linked to his own personal website (which is forbidden on Wiki articles.) So please be patient, and take the time to read the history here. MollyBloom 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Dear Kasreyn, thank you for your kind comments. It was hard to lose that battle, because I sincerely believed that it was too hard on Luther. I was really upset, but I am at peace now. I think that it has made me a better person. I should have remembered the one lesson that I have learned in life, and that is "never feel threatened by anyone else if they think differently than you do." Much of the time our own private universes come crashing down on us if we notice that people think differently. People do think differently than I do, and it is not going to hurt me or destroy my universe. If it does destroy "my universe", then my universe is too small! We should embrace and celebrate diversity in our world! With kindest regards, --Drboisclair 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins

Nope.. i sort of try to keep under their radar. They're not hard to find, though.. I just can't remember any. But yeah, this is insanely annoying. Dan 03:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BI Article

Hi Kasreyn! Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Yes, I was affected by silicone implants. Shortening - omitting personal info. Thanks for indulging me in this.

PS. Did you see my user page? Do you like my comment about our Resident?MollyBloom 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As to info about BI...I can send you a ton of information on them. Is there somewhere I can send it?MollyBloom 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitic people

Consensus is noted in several places and it is not a fixed number. In some areas it seems that consensus is reached at 80%. When you have 60+ votes on a CfD that is a lot of votes. For me, a consensus is something more that a few votes difference. Adding the 3 listify to the deletes is 28 and dropping the 3 new/anon votes from the keep gives you 31 not really a consensus. As to the criteria, that is something that should be decided on the discussion page for the category. Finally a result of no consensus in fact results in a keep since the category is not being deleted. Vegaswikian 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I didn't SirIsaacBrock 21:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Not only did you delete my comments at VegasWikian's talk page, as I provided proof of to you, you've now deleted my comments on your own talk page. I give up. Do what you want. Just don't expect me to bother to converse with you when you show such little respect for others' opinions. Kasreyn 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats par for the course for IsaacBrock. He has a history of removing dissenting opinions from his talk page and using passive agressive language in talk replies to people. I'm continuing to keep an eye on him. Syrthiss 11:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof and other anti-vandal tools

Well most tools do require Windows to run. However, if you have Windows you have IE, and can use VandalProof. VandalProof just requires you to have IE, you can continue to use Firefox for your regular Wikipedia browsing. Prodego talk 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

You're right, sorry. mr_happyhour

[edit] ADHD

Hi Kasreyn, I have spent the last two nights re-writing and re-structuring the ADHD article. Please take a minute (or three) and read over it and tell me what you think. Please, post your response on the ADHD talk page. *Kat* 06:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Coulter Page

Is it safe to assume you saw my remarks on Puck's discussion site? ave a great weekend! Rsm99833 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Attacking me

Why you always appear in my bussiness? Please stop persecuting me. please

i beg you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.184.167.20 (talk • contribs) .

I added a warning on your talk page for your personal attack against User:Cuzandor. I don't particularly like Cuzandor myself, but that does not give anyone the right to make personal attacks against him or anyone else. I have never "attacked" you. Kasreyn 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The U.S. Civil War, 140 years later

I saw your comments on the U.S. Civil War on the GWB talk page and thought to take you up on your offer of discussions elsewhere. I am not into ad hominem’s and such, I prefer to offer well-reasoned analyses and participate in discussions on the merits of the topics themselves, so here goes:

  1. “Waging the Civil War did America more harm than good. It fundamentally damaged the attitude and character of American citizenship, in my opinion.” -- What fundamental damage are you referring to? Reconstruction did not go as well as it could have (an understatement?) — the trend in the world was toward abolitionism anyway (the major reason that the Europeans didn’t intervene, since Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation equated support for the South with support for the institution of slavery in the U.S.) but when would “eventually” have been? 100 years later would the 1960’s civil rights movements, Dr. Martin Luther King, etc. been possible without the precedent of the Federal government intervening in such matters? Whether anyone has good things to say about the current administration, there is, in my opinion, still much more that is right with the “attitude and character of American citizenship” then there is wrong. I’ve been around the world, I can tell you from firsthand experience what it means to be a citizen of the U.S. versus any other country – I’ll take the U.S., warts and all.
  2. “The South could not have supported itself alone for long. It should have been allowed to secede much earlier, back when there was not so much political face to save.” -- How is this an argument for the timing of secession? Or an argument for secession at all? You are absolutely right — in that the South could not have been self-sufficient, but as part of the U.S. they had (and have today) what they need. FEMA, Bush, everybody involved, screwed up the Katrina response, but can you imagine if they didn’t have the resources of the United States at all? It’s a purely academic argument and doesn’t actually mean a whole lot, but given that there wasn’t much more than cotton to rely on at the time, the CSA didn’t have very rosy prospects for the future. They had energetic, charismatic leadership that might have made up for faults in other areas, but they were well behind the power curve as far as industry and resources goes.
  3. “The ends cannot justify the means; what good is saving a Union if, to do so, you have to force people into it?” -- It is easy to judge from the comfort of distance and time, I’ve argued that on many occasions, but context is still important. Taken within the framework of what was going on at the time, the U.S. Civil War was not unexpected, it had been brewing for many, many years — the debates over the language in the U.S. Constitution in the 1780’s and the wording of the Declaration of Independence show us that much. The ends = 1) the preservation of the Union 2) the emancipation proclamation and eventually the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The means = To paraphrase another great President, “...the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” The Union is (and always will be, thanks to the outcome of the Civil War) un-dissolvable — to death do us part, literally, and writ very large indeed. In my opinion that is not a bad thing at all — both the ends and the means were fully justified.
  4. “…popular history has whitewashed Lincoln.” -- Lincoln was not perfect, he was hot-tempered, well versed in political intrigue and manipulation, among many other things, but I was curious as to what you meant by “whitewashed.”

My apologies for length, but you hit on a topic that I am very interested in. Take care, --Easter Monkey 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I always overwrite, no matter what time of day. I'm EST+12 (EDT+11, UTC+7) so I'm even well rested, well, coffee-fueled at this point in the day at least.
  • On the power of the executive, it seems that the pendulum has indeed swung that way, but these times (early 21st century) are less tumultous than other periods in U.S. history, all things considered. I had your analogy in mind though, that the CSA would have turned into "North Mexico". Even though much went wrong during Reconstruction, again, considering all things, the South is better off than if secession had been permanent. There's no way to tell if the South would have come "crawling back" — like I said, the argument is purely academic. I would think that it wouldn't have happened that way — far too much pride involved having spilled far too much blood to win "secession." Look at Vicksburg - it's only been in the last half-century (not exactly sure of the timeline) that they've started celebrating July 4th.
  • Of course you are right about the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln even admitted as much. During his campaign and again during his first inaugural address, he reiterated that he did not think that he had the right or ability to dictate to the state governments about policy on slavery. When Antietam came out as a quasi-victory for the North, he seized the opportunity to do what he saw was military necessary and expedient — issue the proclamation that he had already written several months before, but had been keeping in his desk for just such an occasion. Most people, then and now, don't actually understand that the e.p. was solely intended to affect military strategy — he knew full well that it was freeing people that he didn't have access to, so why did he do it? Because he knew that it would rally the "base", keep the "Jacobins" placated (as Shelby Foote calls them), keep the Europeans away, and ultimately help him win the war. He wrote in a letter to a friend that if he thought that "freeing the slaves" would help win the war then he would do it; but that if he thought that not doing anything on the question of slavery would help win the war then he would do that instead. He made it very clear to anyone that would listen that he thought it was a military necessity, no more and no less. But a lot of people don't listen, or only hear what they want to hear, that much hasn't changed since 1862. And even then, all this doesn't necessarily mean that it was a bad thing.
  • Thanks for the "whitewash" explanation, I hated high school and have blocked most of it out, but upon reflection it is true that most of my knowledge, true knowledge, of U.S. history came later, and on my own. Do you think that it is a concious decision to leave out the "uncomfortable" parts though? I remember U.S. history classes about the Civil War and slavery and etc. etc. etc. but critical analysis was lacking perhaps, but I think that maybe it was because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the teacher rather than a considered decision to "whitewash" as you say.
One thing is for certain though, living overseas (and in a place like Cambodia) has made me very cynical. --Easter Monkey 10:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Democrat Party" article

Hello Kasreyn. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal wars

Please don't think I was attacking you personally; I'm on "your side" in this debate, as I think anon's should be able to edit (most times, most places); I just hate seeing emotional pleas in place of actual facts and numbers. I know nobody probably has the accurate numbers I want; see also "most vandalism is reverted in five minutes or less" claim; I just got back from a meeting and reverted three 30+ minute old vandalisms on fairly mainstream topics. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James

Me and James go way back, we're just playful in our edit summaries. I know it was mispelled, I don't think he's a POV pusher, I doubt he thinks I'm a troll, we just mess around with each other... it's all in good fun :) --kizzle 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, thanks for your note, it's no problem. You're actually not the first editor to be, at best, confused by some apparent incivility between kizzle and me. If either he or I were a responsible adult, we'd knock off the horseplay and settle down to the serious work of building an encylopedia. Hell hasn't yet frozen over, though. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Requested: On the Jews and Their Lies

I'd love to have an outside opinion on the changes I made there today. Full justification is on the talk page. When you get there, you'll see why. --CTSWyneken 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. It is one of the reasons I do not engage him directly. You'll note that I've called him on the lack of care he takes on citations. One of these days, he's going to insult the wrong admin. Anyway, I hope you find a good, quiet place to edit. Basket weaving? French Canadian Explorers? --CTSWyneken 10:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Saw your comment a few days ago, unfortunately, my day job struck again...thanks for noticing, your quote page inspired me to revisit some of mine, and that was before you had posted your note to me. --Easter Monkey 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpicking (en mal español)

La frase es "grande vocabulario", mi amigo! Expreciónes de grandeza siempre son invertido.

Pero, no te preocupes, porque su español probablemente no es tan malo como mío por lo general. :) Fearwig 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

Wikisource is indeed a member of the foundation. Wikisource serves a repository of sorts, it is not a source ala WP:RS per se, but when documents of known validity are availiable there, some editors prefer to link to those since they tend to be more stable.

Since the original document I cite in this instance, the Kitzmiller ruling, is uploaded there [2] and a link there is provide to the original court document [3] at the court's website, it's an acceptable use of wikisource. Hope that answers your question sufficiently; if not let me know. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of wee points: wikisource documents can be linked using an internal link, prefacing the title with [[Wikisource:
The reason the Kitzmiller ruling was uploaded is that the official document is in pdf format and is rather long: the wikisource version is identical in wording, but differs in formatting where necessary and adds an intro and index, so can be linked directly to sections or to page numbers, for example Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science#Page 87 of 139.
There's probably less danger of vandalism than with Wikipedia, and this can be checked by reference to the pdf and by clicking the history tab to see any changes. ..dave souza, talk 07:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] confused

my comments were deleted from a talk page. this is an unpresedented act of stifling of open discourse at wikipedia and probably constitutes an abuse of whatever authority you possess. but aside from that i also found the hypocrisy astounding, as i was accused of making a "personal attack" in the midst of a section suggesting that what ann coulter wears and whether she's a transsexual should be added to an encyclopedia article. does this seem to demonstrate a lack of self-awareness or valuing of fairness in discourse on your part? please stay away from my contributions untill you've overcome these comprimises to your credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

I have replied on your talk page. Please note that I did not delete your comments. If you have a problem with your comment being removed, talk to the editor who did. Thanks, Kasreyn 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
very true. i apologise for it being so difficult to separate one editor from the next within a mob of editors seemingly hellbent on transforming that article into a dailykos diary. the person running around deleting things from talk pages is justforasecond[[4]].
If you are the same editor as above, apology accepted. You can use the edit history page on an article to see who made which edits, which should help avoid confusion in the future. Note also that I do not wield any particular "authority" at Wikipedia. I am not an admin, just an ordinary editor. Kasreyn 23:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

just wanted to say I've been here for a while and only recently starting noticing your extremely civil, helpful, and articule comments on the talk pages... its good to have you on board the political pages, as they can always use more level-headed people :) --kizzle 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of info on WP:ANI

Kindly refrain from this type of removal of helpful info. Thanks. Netscott 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit. I had no idea I did that. I think I was accidentally editing a version of the page from edit history rather than a current version & must not have noticed the pink bar at the top. I will be more careful in the future. Sorry, Kasreyn 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. You might try replacing some of the info that you removed accidentally. Take it easy. Netscott 11:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)