User talk:Kuzaar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For old discussion, please see Archives 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Contents

[edit] Thank You

Thanks Kuzaar. I've requested deletion of the TV & Film section as it turns out that all that information is inaccurate anyway. Please go ahead and delete that entire section if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karolinadawson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My page

Why were you edit my page? It was really. Ojciec 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Administrator userbox was removed from your page because you are not an administrator, and users might mistakenly come to you thinking you could help them in that fashion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Hannity

Hi Kuzaar, in re to your request for ideas on dealing with the current friction at Hannity, I should first say that I believe the real source of the problem -- sidestepping the issue of editing based entirely upon political motivations, which is inevitable, and perhaps even a symptom of a healthy democratic society -- is specific Wiki guidelines, or lack thereof, pertaining to sources and their proper usage. If we allow Wiki criticism, we need to allow critical sources. This does not mean the inclusion of spin in an article - the partisan language should be filtered out prior to posting, but the pure facts should not be disallowed. The Fox News website in not going to have critical -- or even unbiased -- info on Sean Hannity, any more than Shell Oil's website is going to post a link to An Inconvenient Truth. MediaMatters and other "left-wing" sources (not counting blogs) are going to have the best access to critical information on a right-wing pundit. If a few editors don't like it, tough titty. MediaMatters and MoveOn have proven to be reliable sources based upon their history. They do not print factually erroneous content, irregardless of any spin. Otherwise Wiki should just not allow criticism on this website.--Jackbirdsong 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan death

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fan death, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fan death. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re my edits to List of Internet slang phrases

Thank you for the clarification. I admit that I wasn't sure about whether to remove some of these or not. Wikipedia:Profanity does say that profanities should be used when there is no other alternative, and I guess that this is the case here. I apologise for any inconvenience. Thank you Steve Thiel 03:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I am still learning the ropes. Thanks for the offer of support also, I will keep you in mind. Regards Steve Thiel

[edit] Ava Lowery

Hi Kuz, I left you a reply of FAAFA's talk page (meant to leave that on my own, but mistakes happen). I trust that you will represent fairly the interests and content policies of the Project in your dealing with that article and editor. I just can't work with him anymore. Crockspot 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Crockspot

(Migrated from FA's talk page) --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • My concerns are all well documented on Talk:Ava Lowery, going back into last summer. I'm pretty much done with FAAFA. He has used up all my good faith. I won't work with him anymore. You guys do your thing, and when you're done, I'll take a look and make edits as I see appropriate. Good luck with that one. BTW, see the section in WP:RS about self-published sources in articles about the subject. From what FAAFA is claiming (of course, I assume he's misinterpreting what you said, since I now question any of his judgements), you may be mistaken about the use of self-published sources (like blogs) as a primary source in articles about the subject. If he has what you told him wrong, please straighten him out. If he's correct, then please reread that section of RS, and reconsider. Crockspot 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • (edit: I though I was on my own talk page for some reason, I meant to reply there, but it doesn't really matter that much.) Crockspot 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • PS. I am talking about blogs in general, not in the Lowery article. FAAFA seems to think that any blog link must be removed, even when it qualifies under the section of RS and V that I pointed out above. (WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves) - Crockspot 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Copying reply to you from my talk page:

  • The "anti-republican" stuff was another editor's issue, not mine. The only issue I have is that the "death threats" section's only "reliable" source, an article from the Progressive, is dubious at best. It states that a particular "death threat" came as the result of her WWJD article, and even implied that those threats came from CU. (Some have maintained that she was talking about a generic conservative underground, but that didn't stop lots of people, particularly from DU, from pointing at CU, and hammering us incessantly about it.) An archived post of Ava's on POAC from nine months previous shows that the particular threat occurred long before WWJD was ever produced, and had nothing to do with CU. As far as I have seen, that one threat was the only publicly documented text that could be construed as a threat. No one on CU ever threatened her, and certainly not in response to WWJD. If there were other actual threats against her regarding WWJD in particular, they have never been published. CU's involvement with Ava is pretty much limited to this thread, which Ava started on CU, and her mother contributed to, threatening us with legal action, etc. (Ava and mom edited out their posts, but others in the thread quoted them, so you can pretty much piece it together.) We didn't even know who Ava was when she showed up, so she was treated pretty much like all liberal trolls are who show up at CU, tolerated by some, vulgarly insulted by others. I think one member's sigline may have been misinterpreted by Ava as a threat against her, but that sigline appeared in all of his posts, so it was a simple misunderstanding. Another member made the masturbation comment, but that is pretty mild for that guy, and he did not know she was a teenager when he made it. The whole think conflated from there. In a nutshell, CU had nothing to do with death threats against her, and the Progressive article is too dubious to be used alone as a reliable source for any threats that may have been made by others. If you can find better sources, then by all means, write a good, well sourced section about it. Just leave CU out of it as far as death threats go. Being "vulgarly insulted" on the internet hardly seems like a notable enough event for encyclopedic inclusion, but if you feel differently, and it can be sourced by other than the Progressive article, I guess it could go in. Other than that, since FAAFA has been adding more sources, she does seem notable enough to me now to have an article. Before, notability wasn't asserted well enough in the article, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. Crockspot 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to FAAFA's comments below, if you check the discussion about blog posts on Talk:Ava Lowery, it is pretty clear that FAAFA is trying to convince me that blog posts are never allowed ever, and even invokes your name over it. I'm not pushing to include any blog posts in the article. But I do think it is appropriate to use a blog post on the talk page to attack the credibility of a "reliable source" that others wish to include. The standard of WP is "verifiability, not truth". The Progressive article is neither verifiable, nor true. When you add that the Progressive is a left-leaning publication, I don't think you can consider it a reliable enough source to cite for this controversy. Crockspot 20:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by F.A.A.F.A.

response Only have a few minutes now - more later. 1) CP is misrepresenting my position. I have never said that ALL blogs, and forums are totally excluded in all cases. The link to Free Republics owner and founder Jim Robinson - a link to an 'article' about the history of FR, not 'in contention' is fine. Links however to forum posts, even if to the forum owner, are generally not allowed, and not in this case. I learned this on the PW article where a link to a forum post by Kifer was rightly excluded, and on the FR article also, when I wanted to link to a post by Jim Robinson admitting that the Anthrax Letter Hoax Suspect was a Freeper. Take a look at the article on Nov. 10, and now, as I linked to in my discussion. The previous version linked to a cache of a forum post, probably by Ava, describing an insult or threat she received, which seems to predate one of her videos, that she did receive threats and insults. An article on Ava whic describes the the threats and insults, seems to state that this insult was received at a date later than the forum post where Ava first described it. The Anti Avans ( and I will only mention that CU is the that forum CP and Jinx belong to,where the insult to Ava, 15 years old at the time, telling he to 'Go masturbate to a picture of Cindy Sheehan' was posted) The Anti Avans used a link to this post to form the OR claim : "Documented death threats were made against Lowery in response to an earlier animation and were apparently conflated into an article discussing the right-wing response to WWJD" - As I wrote earlier -:1)the 'conflated' bit is and was OR 2)Furthermore... Before I found this article 2 days ago, it was GARBAGE Last pre FAAFA version BIASED and POV, so please stop the specious claims that *I* have any other goal than to improve what was a piece of crap before I arrived. 4)I am not adverse to deleting ALL of the threats / insults alleagtions - the entire section- except for a brief mention in the opening paragraph, and suggest that we delete it now, and work on a version here in talk, that we, with the help of an Admin if nesessary, can agree on. I will do that now. -

Maybe CP got upset that I called the previous version that he worked on 'garbage' - but look at the version before 'we' started working on it 3 short days ago. Note also the insults on the talk page directed towards me, and Ava and her site also. All 'we' are trying to do is improve the article. I think we have done a good job. more later - F.A.A.F.A. 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(As a preliminary comment, before I read the above) Please, if you could, limit your opinion to the discussion at the Ava Lowery page and any content issues you have, and don't use this space to respond to Crockspot's statement, I will not allow this statement to turn into a back-and-forth debate while it is on my talk page. Once I go through your comments I will speak up here and on the article's talk page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, having reviewed the above statement, I will leave a brief comment on your talk page as I did for Crockspot. If you feel you have anything more to add before I recommend a course in the article's discussion, feel free to speak up. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Without intent to insult, I think CP may have a misunderstanding of what constitutes Original Research. Take a look at the page he is working on for the article which got AfD'd Consevative Undergound The majority of the article is OR, with no RS V sourcing at all - vast tracts of it. He may say it's a 'work in progress' - but why would anyone spend so much time compiling what is clearly exclusionable non RS+V OR, if they knew that wouldn't meet WP - F.A.A.F.A. 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated to you previously, I consider the CU article to be a dead issue, that I haven't worked on in a long time, and I will probably delete it myself soon. Please stop insulting me. Your intentions are quite clear. I've had just about enough. I've written plenty of opinions about OR as a member of the BLP patrol, which have been endorsed by Jimbo. Stop please. Crockspot 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I will agree, FAAFA, that your above comment could be easily construed as an insult to Crockspot, and, at a minimum, is uncivil. Please review the first point that I left on your talk page; I will not be able to mediate in this issue if you continue to be combative. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a point that I have mentioned to him on my response on his talk page. As I said to him, it is an exceedingly fine line (particularly in the world of words that is politics!) between using language descriptively and implying motive, value, or anything not explicitly stated in writing an article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all very confusing as to where I'm supposed to post in response to specific points. Can we repost all this discussion - now spread on three separate pages on a special page in the Ava Lowery space? This whole cvility thing is frustrating. I worded my claims above - about CP possibly misunderstanding WP OR, as MILDLY as I could and I still get accused of inclivility! Meanwhile, I've been observing the edits from an Admin who is currently nominated for 'promotion' to Arbcom, whose tone is much more harsh - MOST of the time. My behavior has improved drmatically. When I get accused by other editors of all kinds of imaginary malfeasance, I lose patience, but still think I have displayed acceptable behavior. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation?

Kuzaar, would you be willing to informally mediate some disputes on the Free Republic article?

We have differences of opinion on NPOV, RS, undue weight, and other issues as well.

Thanks in advance if you can. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be out of town, so I will ask another admin, as there's edit warring going on. Please weigh in with your thoughts as well when you return. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in the United States

Ah, Kuzaar getting in the middle of a dispute between PelleSmith and myself. How presumptive of you! Anyway, let's cut to the chase PelleSmith has been rude and uncooperative with me from the moment I got involved in the article. The comments are in the edit history. Now, I don't need to explain anything to you anyway. He even admits that he has made comments that are rude and inappropriate. Also, if a source is BS then I am going to call that source BS. You may think that is inappropriate, but that is your opinion that you have decided to thrust upon everyone. So let me state again: the so-called CAIR study is BS. There. Got that off my chest. It is a perfectly acceptable comment because that is what this page is for. Now, if PelleSmith gives me another lecture about being civil then I am going to ignore it and I am going to repeat that the fact that he has been uncivil himself. Now, if you come back and repeat your lecture then I will repeat everything that I just stated here. Yes, it is a waste of time, but I guess that is the outgrowth of Zora's personal attack on me, her attempt to read my mind and motivations, and PelleSmith's and, now, your attempts to defend Zora's and PelleSmith's attacks on me. Yes, it is a waste of time, but it can end just as simply as it started. Don't comment on me and my motivations and focus on the article. I don't need you lectures, I don't need PelleSmith's lectures and I don't need Zora's lectures and personal attacks. If you all stop then my long-winded replies to your disingenuous lectures will end. But when the odds are three to one my only form of self-defense is long-winded, boring repetitious pages of BS refuting your lectures that are not required, disingenuous, and sometimes just flat out incorrect. Kuzaar, I will now tell you what I have told PelleSmith and Zora several times: Foucus on the article and not me, got it?--Getaway 17:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You have accused PelleSmith of incivility that I have not seen, and I will not stand idly by when you accuse an editor acting in good faith, of bad faith. If you can show me where he/she has been uncivil, and justify calling a study cited in an nationally published work (CNN) "BS" (which itself IS uncivil and not appropriate for a project whose goal is an encyclopedia), I will retract my assertions. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the above comment: I am focusing on the article but since you have made disruptive commments on the talk page, I am forced to focus on you as well. Using an uncivil editing style on a talk page is almost certain to make other users respond in an unhelpful way. I'm trying to help you understand that, but you appear to be misconstruing my efforts as a personal attack on yourself, which they are clearly not. Remember how important WP:CIVIL is when editing politically sensitive pages and you'll go far. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Kuzaar, I will not get drawn into your desire to control the situation. I do not have to show you where the inappropriate behavior of PelleSmith and Zora happened. You can review all of the comments if you want to be in control of the article and my dispute with PelleSmith and Zora. I want to work on the article, but if you are going to take their side then you will get treated as you treat others. You obviously have NOT read all of the comments or you would NOT be stating incorrectly that PelleSmith has not written inappropriate comments toward me. You obviously have not read all of the comments or you would know that PelleSmith admits that he wrote inappropriate comments earlier. Please butt out and focus on the article.--Getaway 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Then show me where that is the case- your accusations of PelleSmith of incivility is entirely unjustified. Please either justify these accusations or I will prune your attacks on him/her per WP:RTP and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Kuzaar, I am going to have to ask you not engage in inappropriate behavior. You just threaten me and Wikipedia policy does not allow you to threaten anyone. Please review this sample from the rules:
    • Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.
--Getaway 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I have not threatened you in any fashion, or administrator intervention. I have stated, however, that attacks and unjustified accusations on talk pages must be refactored or pruned, according to the above policies. Now that you are familiar with the guidelines of unacceptable behavior on talk pages, please justify your accusations of Pellesmith of incivility. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Kuzaar, I am making a second attempt to resolve this dispute with you. I ask that you stop talking about me. I ask that you stop threatening me. This is my second attempt to end your inappropriate behavior.--Getaway 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am talking to you (not about you), and am not threatening you. You have made an unjustified accusation of incivility on an article talk page, and I am just asking that you justify it, something you have been attempting to avoid answering in this entire section. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop making threats toward me and stop tracking down people such as PelleSmith to engage in your inappropriate behavior with you.--Getaway 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's "No Personal Attacks" and talk page guidelines are in place for a reason. They exist to keep inappropriate comments such as your use of inflammatory language and accusations of PelleSmith of uncivil behavior from having a place on talk pages. Now, please answer my question: where is it that PelleSmith engaged in incivility that warranted your comment? --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not have to answer your question and I will not answer your question. Now, stop your threats, it violates Wikipedia policy.--Getaway 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You will not because you cannot, because PelleSmith has not been uncivil. Now, please redact your unjustified accusation on the talk page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 00:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I ain't redact a single thing. I was correct about the World Almanac quoting Encyclopaedia Britannica, but I had to respond to all of the BS. No one stopped me from correcting the article and it is going to stay correct and it ain't going back to its previous incorrect state.--Getaway 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not questioning a figure that I have a problem with- asking questions about sources is perfectly acceptable. Accusing other users of personal attacks and incivility when they have done neither, is not. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a comment regarding the comments you have both made on my talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith 23:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't like that you reverted my vandalism to User talk:Pmanderson!

fuck you. you cant block me and you know it, you piece of puny shit. tell the other shitheads to leave the Gibbon articles alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.190.189 (talk • contribs)

What were you saying about being blocked? :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Nice to see you. Yep, that would be Rogue Winds, and yes, I'm still here. ;) Some of us from RW are still hanging around regularly on IRC in #serriya on irc.oppresses.us if you ever cared to chat, too. --Keolah 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Mate

Thanks for your feedback mate. Usually, it takes at least 4 beers for me to snap ... :) I will ensure from now on to make certain that my account is logged out before leaving it. It was an accident and I do apologize again personally to you and thank you for combating the vandalism that took place. All the best. -- Daniel.

[edit] Heinrich Hertz

Please consider re-visiting Talk:Heinrich Hertz#jewish ancestry. I'd be interested in your feedback about the suggested edit strategy I've proposed. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy/Temp

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy/Temp, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy/Temp. 12 Noon 2¢ 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manon Dave

On further review, you're right -- it is a hoax! I've closed the AFD, speedied the article, and am removing the references that were planted in other articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who are you? And what do you want?

You, Kuzaar, left this message: (diff) (hist) . . m User talk:InaMaka‎; 16:32 . . (-185) . . Kuzaar (Talk | contribs) (actually, nix that, I certainly don't want to be anything that could be construed uncivil to an upstanding user) The edit is here: Unexplained edit. My question is: Who are you? And what do you want?--InaMaka (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Never mind that comment, you just reminded me of someone I knew once. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gate of Alchemy.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gate of Alchemy.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)