User talk:Lord Kenneth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note: this user is not User:Kenneð, User:Kenneth Alansson or User:Kenneth Alan although their talk pages may redirect to here.

Well... I am God.

Hi. Your redirect is fine. It just isn't triggered after the edit, because Wikipedia wants to show the author precisely what he has done. That's why there's redirect=no in the URL after you edit the page. Evercat 01:00 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Lord Kenneth. You can mention how you came to be here on your user page if you want. There were maybe 4 or 5 people involved in making that BBS post, I'm sure they'll be very interested to know who you are. -- Tim Starling 04:16 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Please see meta:Opera Arabic bug and see if you can add a few data points. If Opera hasn't been notified of the problem already, someone should do this. --Brion 06:22, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)


See talk:Unitarian Universalism for a response. - UtherSRG 08:12, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've finally replied there again. Sorry for the delay. - UtherSRG 13:24, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Steve Irwin:

I think this crap about Steve Irwin "endangering" his child is pretty stupid. Now, I don't like to defer to authorities, because they can be wrong (obviously), but he's been around crocodiles his whole life and probably knows more about their behavior than most of us. - Lord Kenneth 03:05, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

True, he's been around them a lot. But the more widely respected (and non-clownish) crocodile expert, Malcolm Douglas, has said that Crocodiles are inherently unpredicatble. He told the story of a friend of his who had reared a crocodile from birth; he had completely domesticated it. Every day he would take the crocodile down to the local pub and would feed it. One day, after several years of completely no troubles with the croc, he was feeding it and turned around to talk to a friend, and the crocodile bit his arm clean off. Whether or not Steve Irwin is an 'expert' in the field, he shouldn't have even risked it. On another matter, his baby is very very young. He was shaking it and not supporting its head, which was bad in itself. It's about time Steve Irwin is revealed for the clown he is. I sincerely hope he does not get Australian of the Year. - Mark 06:32, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Talk:Atheism

Refrain from insults, ad hominem does nothing for your case. I am not a vandal. Don't refer to me as such again without alot better justification. Jack 05:16, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In case you havn't been paying attention, I am going thru the Wikipedia:Conflict resolution process with you. We are currently at Step 4: Mediation. You can consult wikipedia:requests for mediation if you like. Assuming you are unwilling or unable to achieve mediation with me (I do) I will of course be seeking binding arbitration and banning. Feel free to contact me, or others, with any questions or concerns. Jack 03:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Umm, there don't yet exist any formal & accepted mediation procedures - so I don't think that you can say that you are actually at the stage of mediation.. --snoyes 04:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I can and do. Jack 09:55, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brianism

I see you have made some good edits to Scientific skepticism. If you are a skeptic, I assume you would not want to see Brianism (a sub-branch of skepticism) deleted from Wikipedia. Please would you have a look at that article's talk page and place a vote? To keep or abstain, I hope, but vote as you think. Thanks! SpellBott 13:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for marking up your user page. I was feeling particularly juvenile that day. Cheers, Cyan 05:00, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help over on Agnosticism, Jack is becoming quite tiresome to deal with. Of course, I expect now he'll consider us to be co-conspirators or something. :) Bryan 04:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

I request that you join me in the mediation process. You can signal your willingness of lack thereof at the above link. What is best for the wikipedia is a friendly and positive social atmosphere, and sometimes this requires mediation. Jack 21:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello Lord Kenneth. I notice you haven't yet replied to JackLynch's invitation to join him in mediation. You may still be considering the idea, so I thought I would give you a bit more information. Mediation is intended to act as a way of helping to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. The process is very new and we still working on ideas of how to go about this - a lot of that will have to be worked out as we go along although we are discussing ideas on the mailing list and elsewhere. The mediator acts as a neutral party to try and increase understanding and resolve arguments. It's not a matter of the mediator making any decisions or any judgements, but having a neutral third party involved in discussions might help. The mediators are listed at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and that page also has links to other relevant pages. I hope this helps. Regards -- sannse 18:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

LordKenneth, I just wanted to mention that it is my opinion that your user page is in bad taste, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm not filing a complaint or anything like it, but I felt that this was an instance where a remark needed to be left on your talk page. If there are users here who violate Wikipedia's policies, then Conflict resolution needs to occur, but posting them on your user page is an act of antagonism and aggressiveness that serves little purpose (as far as I can see) other than to enrage the listed users. It is your user page, of course, but in a larger sense all user pages belong to this community. It would be good then, I think, if we all tried to keep our user pages from pulling apart the building of community that is a part of Wikipedia's purpose. I do want to note that I'm not suggesting necessarily that the three users you list haven't done anything wrong--I'm unaware of the circumstances. But note your grievances where they need to be noted and be done with it. Dealing with unprofessional or vandalistic users should be something we do reluctantly, not exuberantly. Just my opinion. Do with it what you will. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If they are unfair and consistently POV, I think they should be watched. I agree that vandals should not be instantly banned or whatnot-- but clearly they should be kept an eye on. As for the last person in the list, he added himself there :). I'll remove someone when I see that they stopped their actions. - Lord Kenneth 13:18, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Thank you for considering my suggestion. I hope that your wall of shame empties soon, and remains so: Jwrosenzweig 15:19, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what Reddi thinks about scientific skepticism, and what you say about his views isn't really backed by what he's said on the talk page, but anyway: an article that is entirely a glorification of a practice, without any acknowledgement that the practice can be abused, isn't really NPOV -- especially not when people have raised questions about it (whatever one might think of those questions' validity). No other article on a philosophical system includes only favorable views; look at utilitarianism, for example. — No-One Jones (talk) 22:59, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Very good. If you'll direct your attention to philosophy of science, you'll notice the section (albeit brief) devoted to Paul Feyerabend's critiques; so someone has already done what you suggest. As for the flat earth comparisons, they're less than relevant; the roundness of the earth is physical fact, whereas skepticism is an epistemological and philosophical viewpoint, open to argument. I'm not going to edit war over this, but if there are any critiques of skepticism out there, they ought to be included. . . I must read up on this, or perhaps Reddi will come up with something a bit more substantial. (The current criticisms are rather weak). — No-One Jones (talk) 23:26, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello Lord Kenneth. I've not seen a reply to my last message so I would like to write once more to ask if you would be willing to participate in mediation with Jack Lynch. I'd like to assure you again that the only aim of this is to help resolve the conflict with which Jack has requested assistance. Regards -- sannse 15:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) (member of the mediation committee)

(from User talk:Sannse): The fault is not with me, it is with Jack himself. HE is the one making biased and unfair changes. I don't see how I can mediate with him when he's the actual problem. But, what do you suggest? - Lord Kenneth 19:32, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
Following up Jack's request doesn't imply I think any fault is with you (or with Jack for that matter). The idea is to try to find solutions to your disagreements. If you agreed to mediation one of the committee would act as mediator to talk to you both about where the problems lie and how best to solve them. I understand you feel the problem is with Jack, obviously he feels the opposite and perhaps mediation can help you come to some sort of resolution. Regards -- sannse 23:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(rsp to something said on Talk:Scientific skepticism, which would be off-topic there)

You said, about geocentrism, that it's "an assumption based on philosophical ideas" -- you do realize that describes modern science as well? Science requires the assumption (and it cannot be proven to be more than an assumption) that the physical universe exists independent of our minds. I recommend reading ontology and epistemology. — No-One Jones (talk) 16:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Assuming that the earth is at the center of the universe because a god made it is not scientific; assuming that the earth is at the center of the universe because you have a scientific model explains it, however, is -- and geocentrism did have a scientific basis. (and by the way: assuming that the universe exists independent of your mind isn't scientific either.) — No-One Jones (talk) 16:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That an assumption was wrong does not mean that it was unscientific; Newtonian mechanics weren't entirely correct, but they were scientific in method, as was geocentrism. As for consciousness, well, biology is also a science that assumes a universe independent of the mind -- but enough: if I wanted to teach Phil. 101 to 17-year-olds, I'd find a high school that would at least pay me to do it. I think my time will be better spent researching scientific skepticism than wrangling with stubborn teenagers, so adieu for now. — No-One Jones (talk) 16:40, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mylord, please

Mylord, please care to look at time stamps on the pages you edit. You just kicked me out, generated editing conflicts and increased Wiki congestion in a context where bandwidth is an issue and servers are so slow. Thank you dearly. Sincerely, irismeister 19:03, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

That's quite all right and thank you for the swift answer. irismeister 19:26, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

Lord Kenneth please check the edit history and the talk page to see what kind of contributor iris meister is. iridology certainly needs all the help it can get in cleaning it up and keeping it cleaned up. theresa knott 19:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note on iridology ... if you look at the edit history you'll see there's an interesting (cough, cough) little pattern from one participant. I am currently waiting for him to finish his 10 or 20 or 30 edits in a row and then plan to revert most of them. It's gotten impossible to judge them all separately. DavidWBrooks 19:07, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for protection might be a useful page for you. Was you comment about Ekpyrotic supposed to be a request for protection or were you just complaining about Reddi? :) Angela. 01:47, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think the current version of scientific skepticism is POV.

The article should state that the list of proven mistakes by skeptics is small when compared to the list of proven mistakes by people who don't follow Scientific skepticism.

I wanted to change the article today but I couldn't. Andries 20:55, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The talk page is in no way stable. You haven't come to any agreement, so unprotecting it would just cause the edit war to break out again, wouldn't it? Anyway, it's only been protected three days. Angela. 21:24, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that you stop worrying about that article until some more people get involved with it. Why not start a vote so that some consensus can be reached before the page is unprotected? Angela. 22:09, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)


Do not call other editors a troll in edit summaries or talk pages. Got that? See the 'Respect other contributors' part of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --mav 06:17, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please justify your listing of mav's image on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements, or I'll remove it. Please note that every other listing presents evidence that a (possibly illicit) copying took place. As far as I can tell, your case rests on 'there's a studio backdrop' which is hardly conclusive of anything. I know amateur photographers who have similar backdrops. —Morven 11:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Mylord, the quack is back : )

Kindly inform you that the pseudoscientist and quack holds two doctorates and one postdoctoral title, all in medicine : ) He published seven volumes and fifty something articles on the issue, (all in peer-reviewed periodicals :) He is a full professor of iridial studies, holder of several registered patents, and one in probably less than a dozen world-class five-star irismeisters : ). He also recently initiated 23 major Wiki articles.
To be compared with special-English, spellchecking expert extraordinaire Ms Theresa Knott, currently an author of several bucket-and-spade illustrations using the Word image editing facility. Ms Theresa Knott recently made Wiki headlines vandalizing the iridology:talk page and making a point of honor out of cutting stuff she doesn't either read, or spell correctly, let alone understand : )
To be continued, quote : )
Ah, I checked and see that you're right. Irismeister is the quack. It doesn't matter to my changes, though, what I had removed was probably something he wouldn't like me to remove anyway, which was the POV benefits section he had probably just edited at the time. Keep up the good work against the quacks and pseudoscientists! - Lord Kenneth 01:00, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
unqoute
So, mylord, you may wish to revise the quality-maintaining policies in matters of general Wikipedian interest, for the sake of good science, and yes, some good taste : ) In the mean time I will edit the given article one sentence at a time, to help fellow editors cope and adjust to the manners and habits of Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia : ) Sincerely, irismeister 10:09, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. - Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated request for hard ban on Lord_Kenneth

Com'on mylord, say what you know about the quack I am and let truth silence only the perpetrators of ad hominem like the one you are. I thought you understand taste. You only badly need more toilet training before adding anything else, mylord : ) (quote you're full of **** all... here unquote :)°
Not recommended : ) Unworthy of anything, let alone lordship : ) Sincerely, irismeister 08:55, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
13,000+ page edits in three months, and growing with every new babysitting session :)

I agree - this type of nonsense should be banned - both persons, from Wiki privileges. Matt Scanlon (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poll notification

Jack (now known as Sam Spade) created a poll at Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll on the capital G issue in atheism, so I figured I should drop a note about it to all the major participants in the editing on that article since Jan 11. Bryan 05:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

What ever happened to Wikipedia:No personal attacks? RickK 06:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're the one trying to get someone banned/name changed for having the nick "CrucifiedChrist". I have no clue who they are, but you whine too much... - Lord Kenneth 02:55, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You're the subject of a quickpoll

You reverted Scientific skepticism four times within 24 hours and you are clearly aware of the policies. Note, however, the very limited suggested penalty and the comment associated with the listing. Jamesday 04:26, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Irismeister arbitration ruling

Following the ruling by the Arbitration committee on the matter of Irismeister (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister), you are reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikiquette and to avoid making personal attacks in future. --Camembert

If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing. Maximus Rex 01:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] message

Lordken your comments ring true, that is the current policy. I, like you, disagree with this policy but railing against the system (as I too did at one time) is not going to change it. I plan on trying to reform it from the inside wikipedia is too important and widely used to be left to the current administration. I suggest that if you really want to change it for the better (by emphasizing what can be proven true rather than what is said to be such) you work studiously get some rank and do battle in the upper echelons rather than reacting in such a way as to give all the power to your detractors. GrazingshipIV 17:50, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What's up, man?

Oh, I agree! This Wikipedia is way too POV and a propaganda machine. All the bureaucratic fumblings stand in the way of actually learning much about anything. I thought it was cool when I had first come here, but after initiating edits and seeing what it's really like, I have determined that -> It's a flop! Why don't ya mosey along by my page and see my history and links about me. I have been exactly there. Lord Kenneð 03:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneð

Kenneth Alan has redirected this to your userpage. I have blanked it. If Kenneð is in fact your account, will you please confirm this by undoing my blanking? If it is not, will you please leave a note on the talk page to that effect? Thanks. —No-One Jones 22:58, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism On Lord Kenneth's User Page

I object to people inserting things into Lord Kenneth's User Page without his expressed consent. Lord Kenneð 21:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If Lord Kenneth objects he can say so - it's up to him.
Lord Kenneth - I've added the explanation to the top of your user page and this page because of the constant redirects from Kenneth Alan/Kenneð's pages. I hope you are OK with this, it seems a way of avoiding the constant reverts while still showing your separate identities. If you revert I shall leave it of course. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Removing the "wall of shame"

I suggest there be some sort of agreement on removing the wall of shame before people arbitrarily edit someone else's user page.

So lets discuss this and if lordken is monitoring please join in. GrazingshipIV 23:41, May 11, 2004 (UTC) le dying"

KALFAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.226.28 (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race (fantasy)

A while back, you contributed that discussion and I feel as you this page should be deleted. Have you looked at it again?--Tallard 05:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)