User talk:Kasuro

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello Kasuro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

You might like some of these links and tips:
 * Some general guidance.
 * Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Joann e B 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal interpretations
I am going to revert you personal interpretation of Jimmy Wales statement. It is incorrect, see talk of that article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility warning
You are crossing the line of being civil with labeling someone as a dictator, see WP:CIVIL. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A dictator is someone who exercises ultimate control over a community without being accountable to anyone via elections or otherwise. How does that not fit Jimbo? He's the unelected chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation for life. It is quite common to use the term "benevolent dictator" for people in such a role, but I'm leaving out the "benevolent" because that would require that he uses his power "for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own self-interest or benefit" (to quote from that article) and that's hard for an Objectivist to do, since they define moral behaviour precisely as that which furthers their self-interest. Kasuro 17:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This would only be true if we were all here because he forced us to be here, and that is not the case. You do not have to be here, nor does anybody else of the 1000's of people have to be here. You are free to go elsewhere. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So a dictator of a country is not a dictator as long as his subjects are free to emigrate? Kasuro 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that you only have to log of from wikipedia, that is a magnitude different from having to emigrate away from your birth ground, so I can not see how your comparison is valid, and nothing more than an incivility. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, your comparison is invalid. Your magnitude difference is just proportional to the difference of the realms we're talking about - editing a wiki knowledgebase vs. living. Saying you can log off from Wikipedia if you don't like Jimbo is like saying you can just kill yourself if you don't like living under your local dictator. It's saying you can give up on the entire thing if you don't like the conditions. If people don't have a better option, they will prefer suboptimal conditions to giving up entirely. That's why even people who despise Jimbo remain on Wikipedia, just as people in dictatorial countries don't kill themselves. However, in the latter case some will emigrate if they can, whereas there's no option to go to another Wikipedia equivalent because it's a natural monopoly. "Love it or leave it" is an idiotic argument in the real world already, but even more so on Wikipedia. Criticizing Wikipedia's dictator is as legitimate as criticizing any other dictator. Since Jimbo is no longer paying anything for Wikipedia, he has no moral standing to claim eternal leadership. It's just an artifact of his role in the founding of Wikipedia which he has cleverly perpetuated. If this was a private company, it would be a different matter, but Jimbo himself is all the time presenting this as a cultural thing and as a self-governing community, playing down his own supremacy by not using any title like chairman or president, just calling himself "founder". Kasuro 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets agree to diagree on this. I disagree with you assesment. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments made by others
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To add, this is the dif showing the removal. -- Kim van der Linde at venus


 * Please do not assume bad faith. I got into a mess of edit conflicts. Kasuro 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, just be more carefull next time please. When you get an edit conflict, you can see what he differences are between your s and the one you get in conflict with. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading material
I think you might want to read the following pages: They are some of the important policies and guidelines, and I am sure they will clear up some of the confusion you are experiencing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:FREE
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:CON
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:V
 * WP:RS
 * WP:ISNOT
 * I'm well aware of the policies. I rather think you should read them, since the confusion is all on your side. Kasuro 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you start to edit with these policies in mind. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

POV warning
Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so breaches Wikipedia's NPOV rules. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing any of that. As for you, please stop reverting facts from an article, when you cannot challenge their correctness with rational argument. Kasuro 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just repeating the same argument over and over again does not equal a rational argument. Besides that, when something is interpretation, it remains interpretation. If you want to add something, source it, without speculation or interpretation. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so breaches Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What "commentary"? I don't remember putting my personal commentary into articles. If you mean criticism by notable critics, that's common on Wikipedia and doesn't breach any rule. Kasuro 02:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)