User talk:Lordkazan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ARCHIVE 1

In general, one should not remove warnings from talk pages, as sanctions only come after a certain number of warnings, depending on the egregiousness of the violation. If someone is known to remove warnings from talk pages, it may considered grounds for blocking and page protection (see {{wr4}} ). There are other sysops who may disagree, but currently, editors have been blocked and their talk pages protected from editing if they remove warnings (usually recidivists) for "disruption" as it interferes with the administrative duties of protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism. Just a word to the wise. You may instead wish to archive everything on your page, instead of deleting it, and leave a link to the archive on the talk page. This way, the record is there without having to do a history search, but your talk page remains 99.44% clear image:smile.gif.-- Avi 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Completely uncalled for

Your enemy now and forever is a disgusting sentiment. What has Jake done to you?! If you have issues with your parents, wikipedia is NOT the place for you to get therapy; seek professional help. Regardless, either revert that attack, or you will be blocked. -- Avi 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done what you DEMAND but only in protest of your behavior.
He asked for the commentary on his page. Stating that someone is my enemy is not a disgusting sentiment. What is a disgusting sentiment is his pov-pushing, data-blocking he engages in under the guises of removing supposed vandalism. While I may disagree with studies that support circumcision, I don't advocate censoring them, merely posting the criticism of them. He censors information that disagrees with him and claims that he's reverting vandalism when he removes information that disagrees with him.
His issues with his decision to voluntarily be circumcised are issues he needs to deal with himself, not by poisoning the information on wikipedia to propagate the victimization of minors.
Furthermore your "seek professional help" comment is argumentum ad hominem in vioaltion of the wikipedia policy on personal attacks and I will not tolerate it from an adminsitrator has been abusive to me all day and demanding that I remove simple statements of being his enemy. Feeling victimized by having your genitals altered is not a mental disorder and cannot be characterized as such by any medical professional as there is an actual issue of mutilation involved. Consult a pyschological dictionary before attempting to state that someone has a mental issue - out of the three of us I can gaurantee I am the sane one as I HAVE undergoen and entire barrage of intelligence and mental health testing when I was a minor (long before I found out the effects of circ)
I expect an apology from you, and you to enforce wikipedia rules on him to stop him from censoring information he disagrees with or I'm going straight to Jimbo Wales Lordkazan 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks my statement does NOT constitute a personal attack and in making your demand you have just abused your administrator powers. I will not tolerate this as you have been a partisan force in the debate in Talk:circumcision and have not enforced wikipedia policy on user jakew as he has been engaged in censoring information he considers dissenting Lordkazan 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. My point was wikipedia is no substitute for therapy. If you wish to work out any issues you should do so in the proper channels. I did not mean to imply that I thought you needed help; rather that if this was your method (based on your long statement on Jake's page) it was improper. I apologize if you interpreted it differently. -- Avi 19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any possible way for it to be interpreted then how I interpreted it. Furthermore as far as I can tell the statement doesn't constitute a personal attack according to wikipedia policy - either in letter or in spirit. Stating that I am his enemy as he has been censoring information on wikipedia to further an agenda isn't a disgusting sentiment. I am anti-circ, I've statement why very clearly, but all I'ved asked to go into the content page is BALANCED information - criticism of studies to show both sides of the story, and counter-studies. Both have been blocked, some of it by hiding behind the OR policy, part of it just by flat out ignoring the published criticism or reposting other things as if they invalidate the criticism when they do not. Lordkazan 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adjust your expectations Lordkazan

Wiki does not aim for fair, it is a process through which those in positions of authority (the ability to waste inordinate amounts of time) foist their POV on others. Dissenting opinions are rarely included in this place. RapidlyOxidizingMaterial 23:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Secondly, in my judgement, Jake has been behaving within the guidelines, whearas you have commentary regarding how you believe published information is wrong, such as I find this policy to be utter bullocks…, Given the history of this research all being as reliable as cold fusion claims, I still don't believe them - there are pretty clear methodological flaws in it…, and "non-theraputic" includes "ritual and religious" whether the AMA would like to admit it or not to name some, are in my opinion, indications that you find wikipedia policy and guidelines as an impediment, as opposed to the requirements. Talk pages sometimes get heated, but we MUST edit within the guidelines. For example, I believe Jake has a point when he said of all the 40 or 50 observational studies, why that one? and suggested that reviews of many papers are better. One can ALWAYS cherry pick a source. However, that does not mean to say that the paper in question will not get entered, rather, that it requires discussion. You should understand are entering into an article that has been under much controversy for months, if not longer, and which has been subject to much POV pushing, from both sides. We will all be better off if we can discuss the issues reasonably. -- Avi 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If a wikipedia policy is protecting bad studies from getting their criticisms posted right along side them on wikipedia then wikipedia policy is harming wikipedia. Wikipedia's information should be NONBIASED - and in this case the original research policy is impeeding that. Jake has a pretty clear history of censoring information that disagrees with him, and you're enabling him. Furthermore he's pretty clearly shown that he considers that study absolutely written in stone "truth from god" and won't hear the criticisms no matter how valid. I go up to with study with skepticism due to the history of studies on the field, and I find serious flaws with this study. I see circumcision as genital mutilation BECAUSE of the total lack of data that gives a medical reason for it to be performed - even this study, if it's 100% correct, doesn't change that as condoms easily do a much better job. I pulled that source because it's current - that's the only reason i'm citing that source - if I wanted to go dig I could find more - however the wikipedia page completely lacks ANY SERIOUS MENTION of the dissenting studies - that is an NPOV violation! Lordkazan 20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think isolating and focusing your approach would help. I see three basic types of circumcision:

  1. Medically necessary
  2. Religious/Ritualistically necessary
  3. Elective

If you want to bring reliable sourced and studies regarding any one or more of these, then they have to support each separate case. Most major medical organizations agree that there exist some circumstances that warrant circumcision, albeit they may be rare. Also, most organizations are unwilling to render decisions about religious matters, and when they are discussing "routine" they mean the last, totally elective, category. I don't think anyone will argue that no one recommends that any longer.

Now, if yo have papers that state specifically that they think it is criminal to have religious circumcision (even Sweden allows it, under many restrictions), by all means list them.

Also, there is the concept of proportional representation (see WP:NPOV). If the BMA, AMA, CMAJ, etc. all say one thing, and one paper says another the former should get more weight, regardless of thesis, because it represents more established and notable sources. That does not mean to say no mention should be made, but that the article has to be balanced with the preponderance of reliable and verifiable sources. -- Avi 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And there are MANY reliable sources that all those organizations cite that go against circumcision. furthermore this "proportional representation" thing just makes wikipedia a tool of the establishment even if it's wrong - and 2 and 3 are both reprehensible - religion is not a valid grounds to foist your medical opinions onto your children under the law in the USA as desmontrated by the fact that people who don't believe in medical attention of any kind go to jail for not giving their children the medical care they need - Circumcision is the only situation in which healthy tissue is removed from a child on parents preference. All other proceedures that remove or alter heathy tissue are illegal to perform on minors. BTW Points 2%3 are ILLEGAL in Finland! http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rules+circumcision+of+four-year-old+boy+illegal/1135220958830
Proportional representation is being used as a bludgeon to toe the establishment line of "cut up boys genitals" when the scientific evidence shows no good reason to do so - the establishment position is strongly supported by the existing wikipedia article Lordkazan 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your complaint

I've removed your complaint from User talk:Jimbo Wales [1]. Please make an effort to resolve your dispute in the normal way. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who are you to be removing content from other people's talk pages? Lordkazan 13:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

For example, see here. Jakew 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking someone on what authority they are removing content from people's talk pages DOES NOT constitute a personal attack. Perhaps you should read up on the wikipedia rules and stop attempting to use them to push your POV - This is YOUR final warning. Next time you abuse wikipedia rules in any manner (including posting bogus warnings on my page) i will go to the arbitration board and request your immediately and irrevocable ban Lordkazan 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a "mindless zealot" is a personal attack. It is not an abuse of Wikipedia rules to tell you so, but if you want to request arbitration, go ahead. It would probably be unwise from your perspective to draw the arbitrators' attention to your behaviour, but the choice is yours. Jakew 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Likewise buddy, I may be HONEST in my opinion about you, however you have been censorsing wikipedia articles to intentionally violate the NPOV rule by dogging the other two primary rules and outright refusing to allow content to go into pages and vandalizing them stating that you are removing vandalism. If it comes down between someone making statements about a censorist, and the censorist I'd be the arbitration committed would give me a 1 week suspension and you a lifetime one. Furthermore the fact that you're dogging my edits makes me believe you're stalking me - you're not an adminsitrator, following users around is not your job. Lordkazan 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've no interest in stalking you, but as it happens, Tony Sidaway's user talk page is on my watchlist, and so I happened to see your comment.
I'm sorry that you have such a mistaken belief about my actions, including the sustained belief that I refer to vandalism in spite of the fact that I have already explained that I do no such thing. Regardless of your beliefs, you must not make personal attacks. There are no excuses. It's as simple as that. If you do, you're likely to find yourself blocked. Jakew 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mistaken belief? excuse me i'll go back and find reverts by you and start pointing out of diffs if i have to. furthermore one look at your user page and the warnings on it shows that you've been involved in a fair bit of vandalism and there are 10s if not over 100 editors on wikipedia who have independantly accused you of intentionally violating the NPOV rule and vandalizing pages. There is no excuse for your censorship, and if you continue you are likely to find yourself blocked. Now get off my talk page. Lordkazan 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hour block

You've received a number of personal attack warnings before. Now I see this on your user page: "You crawl back down your little hole and eat shit and die". There are absolutely no circumstances under which such language is acceptable. Period.

Normally I'd block someone for a week for that sort of behavior. Since this was in response to your user page being vandalized, and since I can understand why that upsets you, I have only blocked you for a day. If I see similar sentiments from you in the future — with or without profanity — you should expect the next block to be much, much longer.


Regards, Nandesuka 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking sections of my user page constitutes vandalism, you could instead of simply asked me to remove the one sentance. Lordkazan 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It is absolutely not vandalism; the entire paragraph was tainted. You are free, obviously, to rewrite it in a way that does not constitute a personal attack. Nandesuka 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal 67.72.98.87

Eric Robert Rudolph and it's talk page are not the only things this user has vandalized from the looks of his contrib page. Please review his edit history for any other vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordkazan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bed sorry. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's ok - i'm also posting a link to his contribs on his user talk page where a bunch of people are congregating Lordkazan 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Simply for not giving up, and good work. Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Woohoo! thanks :D

[edit] Eric Robert Rudolph

Whoa dude, i was removing vandalism made by another user your blocked. Lordkazan 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Doh! You edit conflicted me before I could remove the misplaced block notice. Sorry. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: User Tags

Of course. First of all, visit the page Wikipedia:Userboxes. If you're not satisfied with the resluts, go to the template page of a user box that looks the most like the one you want ( e.g. Template:user CVU3-en for {{user CVU3-en}} ) and see how it's made through the Edit The Page option. Once there, copy it to your user page and change what you want (use the Show Preview option a lot). Ripping off parts of other people's work is how I learned : ). --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad you mastered it - they're lovely. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations, a two-fer

Thanks for your helpful note. I`m pleased to know that your complete lack of understanding of the religious significance of circumcision and the pride you take in your unwillingness to learn have not gotten in the way of you publishing strong views on the subject. You are a bigot.Dasondas 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the significance, that doesn't mean I have to accept it or approve of it, nor does it mean I have to allow it to be performed on others without their consent. Your repeated personal attacks have been reported Lordkazan 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descent: FreeSpace

Hi, please see Talk:Descent: FreeSpace#link removal for why public distribution of FS2 is still illegal. --Kjoonlee 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The things you mentioned are not very relevant; WP:C says we shouldn't do it. --Kjoonlee 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It is de jure illegal. --Kjoonlee 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Derek_Smart

Regarding your entry, would you consider re-editting it to cool down the tone? Someone is bound to issue the entry a WP:CIV warning as it stands. Thanks. -- Tomlouie | talk 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya, no argument from me. I think it's clear that facts and cooler heads are on your side. Thanks for taking it down a notch. Cheers. -- Tomlouie | talk 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dasondas

I am not sure that he is a true vandal. That is a content dispute. You should go to WP:AN/I instead. Academic Challenger 21:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


It may indeed turn out to be considered vandalism. However, in this case I definitely recommend starting a thread on the Administators Noticebord/Incidents page. The circumcision article has had many edit wars and there will be more people familiar with them there. Academic Challenger 21:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks/Good Faith etc.

User:Crimsone asked me to take a look at the dispute involving you and User:Dasondas, following his warning of Dasondas after the WP:PAIN report, and Dasondas' resultant complaint.

You are right that Dasondas engaged in personal attacks, but your editing has hardly been exemplery either. In paticular:

  • You should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. In paticular, it is not 'NPOV violations', or 'mistakes' in editing. If you think that Dasondas has made those (and I'm not passing judgement on the content here), then there are routes to solving this but it is not vandalism.
  • Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states that shouting, or emboldening text to make/force a point is bad practice; you should probably think very carefully about using such techniques in the future.
  • Wikipedia:Assume good faith also notes that you shouldn't presume that someone is vandalising, just because they disagree with you. In editing Wikipedia, you need to assume that Dasondas is editing with the purpose of improving the encyclopedia - and until incontrovertible evidence appears to denounce this assumption, you need to maintain it.

Don't let your dislike of religious beliefs or acitivities get in the way of objective and netural editing. You are correct that Dasondas' edits were personal attacks, but you must learn to 'presume good faith' when editing on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 09:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Presuming good faith after you have evidence to demonstrate they're not going to act in good faith is foolish Lordkazan 14:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Making personal attacks does not mean that someone is not attempting to improve Wikipedia in good faith - they might just be being rude while doing it. Furthermore, you can still assume good faith and presume that a user did not intend to offend or slipped up once - you have had nowhere near enough interaction with Dasondas to decide that he is a vandal.
Obviously there comes a point where you have to say 'enough is enough', but you need to set that bar a bit higher. Robdurbar 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above (which I agree with entirely), I given a potential solution to this dispute. It has taken me a substantial amount of time to look at the issue, understand the situation, and propose a solution. You can find it [[2]]. The bit about the attack warning is a suggestion for Dasondas. The rest applies equally to you both. It is only my proposed solution, but should it fail, I would suggest that the next stage would be arbitration. --Crimsone 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chill

See my talk mate. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Release the hounds

Hi. It seems Humus already took care of it. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack warning

What you have just said easily constitutes refusal to assume good faith, incivility, and a personal attack. Please refrain from this behaviour. In the interests of fairness as well as according to the statements of policy, I mst warn you that you have violated WP:NPA.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -Crimsone

Refusing to accept manipulation of my statements is not uncivil, and it is not a personal attack. Lordkazan 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The statements violated NPA. You called Dasondas a human rights abuser. Dasondas has not yet seen the suggested resolution to this dispute, and unless you allow him to comment without your making judgement on him first, you are not assuming good faith. you may be suprised. In any case, your current actions are likely to reflect badly on you at arbitration should you insist on taking it there. I assure you, there is a lot less stress to be found in my advice than in a war. Please reconsider your position on this basis. --Crimsone 19:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said before - I have no problem with the solution to the edit war. I DO have a problem with Dasondas and stating the truth (That he is a human rights abuser if he visited forced circumcision upon other) is not an insult. For something to be an insult, it must first be untrue. Now, it may be rude. Lordkazan 19:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling that retort a personal attack is absurd. Where has Lordkazan personally attacked or denigrated the character of Dasondas? Where has Lordkazan used an insult? And lastly, from WP:AGF itself: Accusing the other side in a conflict of failing to assuming good faith can, itself, be a form of failing to assume good faith. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:AGF. I am infact not taking sides. I gave a warning to Dasondas due to a personal attack, and have given one to Lordkazan for a comment today in which he called Dasondas a human rights abuser, and this does indeed violate WP:NPA, as does the legal threat. Lordkazan is in fact the otherside of this conflict, as it Dasondas. I am acting as a mediator only - I am not part of either side of this conflict and will indeed leave as a mediator if I feel (as I' beginning to) that the conflict cannot be resolved.
and it wasn't a legal threat - I said "if i could drag him before a court". Clearly I cannot as very few countries have woken up to the equivalency of FGM and MGM. Some have, but I doubt Dasondas lives in one of them, and I don't. Lordkazan 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Now, as I suggested, the only way to resolve this is to draw a line under it. Dasondas hasn't even seen the proposed solution yet, and for the matter, neither has Robdurbar, to whom dasondas replied in desperation last night after feeling that his concerns hadn't been noted. The proposed solution draws a line at the time of it's posting, as is nessecary for it. Ending this conflict for future peace is more important that dredging up the past to continue the war. --Crimsone 19:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And in trying to resolve it you're asking me to accept misrepresentation of my statements. That is not going to happen. You're also trying to tell me to assume good faith when I have evidence that he wasn't acting in good faith - i'm not going to behave naive. Lordkazan 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not evidence, it's an presumption (ie, you have reached conclusions on the basis of limited information - Robdurbar has already explained this in his message to you. What you are doing is the exact opposite of WP:AGF. For ANY dispute to be resolved, WP:AGF must be observed. --Crimsone 19:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Dasondas called me a bigot for having a different opinion than him. You've seen the diff. How is that not evidence he was not acting in good faith. Lordkazan 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, Robdurbar has already explained this - it's not enough to go on. Even the proposal explains this to some degree. Give Dasondas a chance to comment on the proposed solution before passing judgement and we may see results. Continue this, and you will be the reason for it's failure (because Dasondas doesn't even know it exists yet, and so can't possibly cause it to fail). Given that it is a proposal that you yourself have agreed with, I would suggest that perhaps you wouldn't want that.--Crimsone 19:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's non sequitur. My righteous indignation has no bearing on the success or failure of the Proposal as it is not associated with the proposal itself. Lordkazan 19:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Part of this dispute is indeed personal attacks. A LARGE part of it is in assuming good faith. As such, it is integral to the proposal itself - the proposal is in fact designed to promote good faith between you both. Without it, it cannot work. --Crimsone 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Assuming something when you have evidence to the contrary is called being delusional. I'll consider his edits in good faith when I have reason to do so. To this point I have been refering to his past edits, not any potential future edits. Lordkazan 20:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, Robdurbar has already been through this with you. Besides, the entire point of dispute resolution is in changing the future - that is, to stop a dispute that is likely to continue into the future, and to promote a situation that allows the future to be without the previous dispute. I'm sure that you would agree that in a process that is all about the future, dredging up the past (and just one statement from it at that) is counter-productive. --Crimsone 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Or it can be a matter of priniciple - which is the issue here. I feel that my statements have been mischaracterized to try to downplay the egregiousness of his attack upon me in an attempt to be accomodating. That goes against my priniciples. I will not accept blame for being antagonistic to him when I was not. Lordkazan 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that is not the case. It is being said that he may have percieved them to be antagonistic (which is perfectly valid, as this often happens in miscommunication), not that you intended them to be antagonistic. The accusations of vandalism (se robdurbars message) would have added to the effect. Matters of principle generally get in the way of dispute resolution. Pride is often the downfall of the best of intentions.
Are you trying to suggest I'm being prideful? I see no reasonable* way that he could have seen opposition to circumcision to be antagonistic. (Though I do know several unreasonable ways, but I'm going to refrain from speculation) Lordkazan 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Crimsone+Lordkazan religious discussion

I was in the middle of editing my comment. I'm merely stating that principle is a matter that stems from pride. No more, and no less. Please also know that different people have different opinions, to which everybody is entitled. Though you may not be able to see how someone could see certainn comments as antagonistic, I'm sure that you realise that it doesn't nessecarily mean that they couldn't have. It merely means that you are unable to see why, which is fair enough as we (as human beings) often can't see issues we have strong views on from a perspective that stands against our own. It's a common problem that results in disputes just like this. In fact, Wars have been fought because of it :). It's just one of those things we all need to take into account. As a person who finds aspects of cetrain religions disagreeable but nevertheless has close relationships with people of those religions, I encounter it all the time, and sometimes have even been guilty of it. I always manage to talk it out in the end though once I've realised, as to those who do it to me. --Crimsone 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually i'm pretty sure I have his reason for considering it antagonistic nailed to the spot, but I have been "playing stupid" to refrain from speculation. There is no reasonable way he could have considered it antagonistic, there is also no reasonable way that it is different from female genital mutilation - but we both know people are not reasonable; religion wouldn't exist it people were reasonable. He, like many religious individuals, sees anything that states his religion is incorrect to be a personal insult. While I see religion and the crimes it has committed against myself and society as a danger. The collision of the two diametrically opposed positions is going to be as energetic as a matter/anti-mater interaction Lordkazan 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
To an extent, I would have to agree with that (except the qualification of what is reasonable). I would also have to say though that an opinion of a religion as incorrect does not mean that it is. If there is one thing that science has proven, it's that as much as it can't prove a religion, it can't disprove it either. Such points of view don't need to enter the discussion on an article, and aren't proof either way. Science itself is a bit of a faith in this world to most, and if it has shown anything in religion, it has shown that human beings are generally pre-disposed to a religious faith, even if that faith is that there is no valid religion. To be see such criticism in persuit of changes to an article as antagonistic is quite understandable in that light. Different people have different perspectives, and a pro-religious one is no more or less incorrect than a non-religious one. The key thing to note is that we are all human, and all are entitled to opinions - as long as they don't find their way into articles and don't enter discussions of how to articles (or at least do so as little as possible), all is well with wiki :) --Crimsone 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Being unable to disprove somethings does not add on iota of validity to that something. Not only has science be unable to prove religion, it has been completely unable to produce ANY support for it what so ever. This renders belief in religion irrational. Irrationality is a dangerous. Science is not faith, it is the exclusion of it - the opinion of an underinformeed majority is irrelevant (argumentum ad populum). Furthermore being pre-dipsosed to being religious doesn't make being religious reasonable, or valid - merely predictable. A pro-religious one is signficantly less correct than a non-religious/religious-neutral one, especially for wikipedia purposes. He was changing religiously neutral content in the article to be religiously non-neutral. As staunchly antireligious as I am, I maintain religious neutrality in the content of articles, and avoid editing articles that are on religious content all together. Being entitled to an opinion, does not make that opinion valid. Lordkazan 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Neither is ANY opinion valid in a wiki article. Science doesn't aim to prove - it aims to disprove. Belief in something that does not have one iota of proof OR disproof is not irrational - it is purely coming down on one side of a 50/50 argument on the basis of ones own experiences. In an argument where there is neither proof or disproof, ones own experiences are the only rational basis for a decision either way. I will not comment further on the edit iself in terms of religious bias as there is no need - One party included an element of bias one way (whetehr knowingly or unknowingly), and the other removed that bias in good faith, swinging a religious section to a non-religious bias. Such is described in the proposal, as is the correct way of addressing such NPOV issues on Wiki. --Crimsone 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Science's job is neither to prove or disprove - it is to explain. I recommend you consult a dictionary on the definition of irrational - see definition 3 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrational&x=0&y=0 - Ones own expirience is NOT a rational asis for a decision on the factuality of things pertaining to the natural world as humans are prone to perception bias, recollection bias and several more mental mechanisms that trash individual human objectivity. And of course neither opinion is valid to be in a wikipedia article - that wasn't in this discussion, and I would appreciate it if you stop insulting my by telling me that which I already know and which I didn't suggest anything against. It shows presumption on your part that I intend to violate that rule, and that is insulting. Lordkazan 21:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow there, this seems to be running along nicely. Lordkazan, Crimsone is correct that you should be careful about making legal threats (though your's appears to be light-hearted?) and that you really ought to let Dasondas have a look at Crimsone's proposal. If you don't like or if he doesn't like it - then fine, you don't have to accept it. Crimsone has not been taking sides here and has only tried to come up with a solution - after reading a request for help in a dispute. I hope that her experience here does not put her off helping in other cases.

I repeat myself - assuming good faith does not mean rolling over, but it means believing - jsut for a minute - that two people, one with an anti-religious belief and one with strongly held relgious beliegs, can put these aside when editing to do so from a neutral point of view, and believe that that the other has done the same. Neither of you - Das/LordK - have achieved the second part of that condition yet, which means that you have been guilty of not assuming good faith.

Now if Das apologises, and there are no more personal attacks, then our good faith assumptions are correct and Wikipedia benefits. If he does not, or if he commits more personal attacks, then we can think again. An editor assuming good faith, however, will labour under the assumption that the former will happen, unless the latter does. Robdurbar 21:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't operate on assumptions, doing so is irrational and as the saying goes "assumption is the mother of all fuck ups" (Under Siege 2: Dark Territory) . I will give him the chance to in the future demonstrate good faith in editing, and I strive to maintain good faith in editing and keep my biases to myself and keep the articles NPOV (or in the case of the circumcision and genital mutilation articles - strive to bring them TWORD NPOV as they are currently displaying some pro-circumcision bias). My "legal threat" was operative on the "if i could" - clearly I cannot as neither of us lives in one of the short list of countries in which non-theraputic circumcision is illegal without informed consent of the person being circumcised. Most western countries still allow parental consent to be acceptable (which is bogus and does not constitute consent on this subject). I would wager money on by the end of my life that no longer being the case. Lordkazan 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for interrupting, but can I just draw your (Lordkazan's) attention to Help:Talk pages? Specifically: "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette"
Now, I understand that nobody's perfect in this respect, but perhaps you might find things easier if you avoided mentioning your personal opinions (especially when they're likely to offend) on talk pages unless absolutely necessary. It really isn't their purpose. Jakew 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are not welcome on my talk page Jakew, and you have no room to criticise my use of my talk page when you're one of the people keeping Circumcision in a pro-circucmsion biased state by any abuse of wikipedia rules you can manage. Lordkazan 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I had a reply constructed to answer the point last made by yourself (lordkazan), but sufficed to say, I was not inferring any future rulebreaking. Replies from Jakew and Robdurbar sum it up quite nicely :) --Crimsone 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinly-veiled anti-semitism

Heh... I reviewed your contributions - do you edit anything other than articles relating to circumcision? Are you a "sinlge-purpose account" as they call it? Anyway, Judaism mandates circumcision for all boys at the age of eight days. Do you propose the (State of New Jersey) (Federal Government) make legislation that prohibits this on human rights grounds? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it worth knowing that this is in no way anti-semitism. Lordkazan is anti-religious. This is to say, he does not believe that any religion is justification for any given involving a third part, because he beleive it to be unreasonable (as said earlier). Crimsone 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - I had seen Crzrussian call anticircucmsion thinly veiled antisemitism elsewhere. And I told him he was wrong. as for your question Crzrussian. Absolutely it should be banned just like female genital mutilation. Banned from being performed on minors for anything other than immediate and clear medical need (ie to treat a severe case of pathological phimosis for example). If someone wants to get it done for religious purposes that should be their choice as an adult, not their parents choice as a child. That's forcing their religion on the child and permanatly and irreversable altering that child's body. That child may grow up to be an atheist, or a buddhist, or a sikh, or a million other different things that don't circumcise. It should be the choice of the individual - not the parents. That is in no way antisemitism. Lordkazan 02:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The above comments of lordkazan are not only virulently anti-Semitic, they are also anti-Islamic. Neo-natal circumcision is a religious obligation of both faiths, and anybody advocating the criminalization of circumcision in the nasty, intolerant, and quase-violent manner that lordkazan has been doing obsessively for some time throughout various forums in Wikipedia is without any doubt at all engaging in anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic behavior. Whether this makes him an anti-Semite and an Islamophobe is a relevant question. Crimsone, you should be ashamed of yourself for defending and consorting with purveyors of these filthy sentiments. Dasondas 02:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No, my comment is not antisemitic. I'll give you an example of an antisemitic comment "those damn dirty jews, they stole all our land" - that would be an antisemitic comment. Opposition to circumcision is not antisemitism. Nor is it anti-islamic. It is anti-circumcision. I don't give a rats ass what your religion's voodoo requirements are. Circumcision is a violating of the rights of a child when not performed for immediate medical necessity. If you wish to be circumcised as an adult for whatever reason, be my guest. Circumcision is a nasty, irreversable mutilation of the human body without the consent of the victim. Your claims of me being an antisemite are personal insults and will not be tolerated. The next time you attempt to mischaracterize my statements as anti-semitism I WILL REPORT YOU. Lordkazan 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff: I spoke of "very thinly veiled Anti-Semitism, among other anti-'s". - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't defend the lordkazans statement. That is a statement of his views that he has chosen to make, and I refuse to comment on it other than to say I find them somewhat disagreeable (but I'm entitled to my opinion as anybody else is) - he made the statement and he can defend it himself. I was suggesting that it was a long step to anti-semitism (and it is). If Christianity circumcised, no doubt Lorkazan would be against that too.
Anti-semitism is about hatred and discrimination of jewish people in particular simply for being jewish. This is not the case here from what I can see. It is a statement that he believes circumcision to be morally unsound because he does not believe that ones religion, whatever it is, is good reason enough to circumcise a child as he believes that religion itself has no validity as a reason for anything. AT least, that's what has been said on this talk page. Crimsone 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Lordkazan, Your position is most definitely insensitive to Jews and Muslims. While I am not suggesting that you personally are motivated by anti-semitic animus, I am suggesting that the movement as a whole is definitely so motivated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No it's not insenstive to jews and muslims - your position is insensative to the rights of the victim. Religion it not an excuse to violate the rights of another person. You do not have the right to mutilate your child's genitals, you merely get away with it. Lordkazan 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore your suggestion is incorrect - the movement is not motivated by an antisemitic impetus, and infact if you ever got to know most of the members you would know they have less tolerance for antisemitism than the majority of people. The occasional person motiviated by antisemitism is instantly fallen upon by the rest as if they were a pack of wolves and the antisemite was a lame doe. Antisemitism is NOT TOLERATED among the anticircumcision movement. We are against non-voluntary circumcision, not against any particular religion Lordkazan 02:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank G-d we have a line of First Amendment court cases which permit all sorts of religiously motivated activity, including the circumcisions you so virulently oppose. Why don't you adopt a more pressing cause - we have Darfur, poverty, AIDS relief, inner-city children need teaching - your efforts will have a greater impact. We have been circumcizing our baby boys for thousands of years before your movement, and will continue to do so in perpetuity. Your position is ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the first ammendment, or much about rights. If the first ammendment allowed genital mutilation then the law banning female genital mutilation would be unconstitutional. Guess what - it doesn't. An exercise of a right, that infringes the rights of others, is not protected and is subject to being banned. The western world has just as of yet failed to see the equivalence of female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation. Once that equivalence is recognized the first ammendment will not protect your human rights abuse. I choose this subject because I am a victim of male genital mutilation. Your list of "why don't you do this" constitutes the logical fallacy of false dilema. Just because I am working on this doesn't mean I am not working on that. Your position is a human rights abuse, mine is standing up for human rights. You accuse me of bigotry, I accuse you of a crime - in 100 years, we'll let history be the judge. I'd wadger $100 billion dollars history will judge me correct. Lordkazan 03:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not my understanding - the Supreme Court's understanding. When I get home, I'll pull out my Constitutional Law textbook and look up the cases for you. You ought not edit any articles on this topic - you're unable to stay neutral. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? don't tell me what I am and am not capable of doing. I can write a perfectly neutral article on this.
Fruthermore - Your understanding is incorrect. The Female Genital Mutilation ban passed a First Ammendment challenge unscathed. When western civilization grows up and drops the double standard and bans male genital mutilation it will merely be the extension of the FGM ban. Existing SCOTUS case law establishes that any law which bans a practice that is exercised by a certain religion is constitutional if it passes the Lemon Test and is not targeted at any specific religion, but is a blanket ban ("it burdeons all religions equally"). No right of yours allows you to violate the rights of others, one claiming to know constitutional law and owning constitutional law textbooks should know this. Lordkazan 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem Lordkazan. I will of course assume good faith and take your word for that. However, a good way of showing it to others might be to request an unblock on the article concerned, and start work on it in accordance with the proposal. :) I will assume also that Dasondas will allow you to do this, and will hopefully join you in doing so. :) Crimsone 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Once he apologizes to me for claiming that i'm an islamophobe and an antisemite. Lordkazan 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinctive scars

We all have our own traumas. You are welcome to discuss any issue vigorously and strongly, but resorting to argumentum ad hominem is generally considered a sign of a weak argument here. I think you'll be much more persuasive if you focus strictly on the quality of your fellow editors' arguments rather than the state of their penises.

I will be more blunt, however, to make sure this message gets through: the next time you talk about another editor's dick in a debate I'm going to block you into next week so fast your head will spin. Are we clear? Nandesuka 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your highly offensive suggestion

Your continued suggestions as to how one should practice his religion, along with your continued references to my own religious practices (of which you know absolutely nothing since I have never discussed them here) are in and of themselves intolerant and bigoted. Your position that neo-natal circumcision should be criminalized is Islamophobic and anti-Semitic, and your so-called "solution" which you have mentioned in at least three separate areas of Wikipedia is as offensive as your original position. The number of violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV you have made against me in recent days is simply staggering, and you should hope that I don`t find the time and energy to organize them all together into an arbitration case against your vile, harassing, and intolerant behavior. Dasondas 04:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given you enough chances to apologize for you baseless accusations of antisemitism and islamophobia. I'm reporting you, and not going to try to be reasonable with you again and simply ignore you. Lordkazan 04:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, this is indeed becoming disruptive now. Reporting it will do no good (again, see his talk), and I actually agree to an extent (with the intolerance statement). It is however becoming disruptive. It is in the interests of wikipedia that you both agree to disagree and never mention this subject to or about each other again. Wikipedia is the reason you are here after all, and is indeed more important (as is the wiki community), than to do otherwise.
I'll agree to never bother wasting my time typing messages to him again expecting a rational and reasonable response that doesn't involve baseless accusations and faulty assumptions and blatant mischaracterization of my statements. So put more tersely: i will neither speak to him, or read his posts. Lordkazan 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That's great - Will you agree though to abide by the proposal for editing the article in questions if you so choose to edit it, which follows wiki policy? If so, and if there is an agreement from Dasondas, the dispute can end here, with no more intolerance, personal attacks, or anything else. All will be peaceful at wiki and the wiki community will be happy. Crimsone 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreeing with your proposal on editing the page to show both POVs was never a problem at all. Lordkazan 04:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem at all Lordkazak - that is music to my ears :) Please remember though, that everything needs to be properly cited. I'm not saying that you wouldn't cite it of course, but I'm just making sure :) Crimsone 05:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's not even start the discussion about Jakew and him blocking my sources offhand in Talk:Circumcision when I consider his sources (such as the Auvert HIV study) to be fatally flawed works for junk science and can cite other studies that contradict it and point out fatal flaws in the methodology of the study - and he simply ignores the contradictory studies as "not being of as good of a quality since they're an observational study". You really don't want to get into the dirty parts of that article. Lordkazan 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL - I'm not referring to that :). Not in the slightest. Original research is not allowed on wikipedia, and the less questionable the source the better, (WP:CITE has the guidelines), but I was referring only to actually making sure that the sources are cited in some way, rather than the types and origins of the sources themselves. Crimsone 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if I can go with a citation I can just bypass Jakew's roadblocking since, hey I have a citation, and I don't really care what Dasondas has to say. Lordkazan 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
At no time have I referred to user:lordkazan as an anti-Semite or Islamophobe. This is untrue, and he knows it. Lying about another user is a violation of WP:NPA. Personal talk pages are not exempt from WP:NPA Dasondas 14:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit, don't attempt to revise history, it's all plain and clear on my talk page, and Don't post on my talk page again Lordkazan 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a reference to where I have ever referred to you as an anti-Semite or Islamophobe. If you do not do so, and do not remove these attacks from the various pages where they now appear, you should expect that there will be consequences. Lying about another user is considered to be a serious violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV Dasondas 14:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordkazan&diff=74845229&oldid=74839711
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordkazan&diff=74830873&oldid=74829835
and that is only two of about 4 to 8 times you do it. Now get off my talk page and stay off. Lordkazan 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In neither one of those diffs do I call you an anti-Semite or Islamophobe. It looks to me like you wish to continue fighting. I`d prefer not, but if you don`t retract the slander, what choice will I have? Dasondas 15:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You're so full of shit, you're the one that wants to continue fighting - you're coming to my talk page trying to pretend that you didn't call me an antisemite and islamophobe when you have the diffs right in front of your dishonest face. NOW GET OFF MY TALK PAGE Lordkazan 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that your above post conforms to WP:NPA and WP:CIV? Dasondas 15:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dasondas, please stop baiting LordKazan. Thanks. LordKazan, if someone is baiting you, just ignore him. Nandesuka 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge to the FGM ban

Curiosity piqued. Can't find a case anywhere. Care to provide a citation, or at least a case name? - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, here it is: 18 U.S.C. § 116. Let me check for related cases. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a consitutional challenge to the Federal statute, but I am loving Washington v. Baxter, ___ P.3d ___, 2006 WL 2348960, (Wash. App., Div. 2, August 15, 2006), which begins to recite facts as follows:
"¶ 2 After pondering chapter 17 of Genesis for several weeks, Edwin Baxter concluded that God was directing him to circumcise his eight-year-old son, E.N.B. Baxter explained to E.N.B. that, although he normally should not let people touch his private parts, this was different. Baxter, who had no medical training, then numbed E.N.B.'s penis with ice and attempted to remove the boy's foreskin with a hunting knife. Afterward, he attempted to control the bleeding with an animal wound cauterizing powder. When this failed, he called 911, acknowledging that his son was eight years old.
"¶ 3 Responding to the scene, medical and law enforcement personnel found E.N.B. lying in a dirty bathtub bleeding from the penis. The child's mother was also present. An ambulance took E.N.B. to a hospital, where a physician closed the laceration with sutures. The physician concluded that there would likely be scarring, but no permanent impairment.
Hehehehe :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That physician is a fucking idiot and should loose his medical license, oh and the guy was convicted of a crime Lordkazan 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)