User talk:Kmweber/Archive1

AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed
Could you please help?

I have been a positively contributing editor of the polygamy article since the end of last year, with numerous amounts of knowledge on the subject. However, I have subsequently been attacked by POV anti-polygamists who have undermined the article with their POV agenda and who now consistently prevent me from editing anything in it since the end of April. I have produced volumes of evidence of the abuse in the TALK pages, which anti-polygamists have even attempted to hide by "archiving."

Here are some of the TALK articles giving the chronology of the abuse I have received.


 * The Ghostintheshell Situation 7 May 2005
 * Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals 16 May 2005
 * Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki 27 May 2005
 * The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN 8 July 2005 16:11
 * Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki 17 Jun 2005
 * I am being oppressed by Anti-Polygamists 18 July 2005
 * Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof 20 July 2005
 * Anti-Polygamy Article, Talk, and VfD (Article & TALK begun 30 Jun 2005, suspicously VfD-called on 9 July 2005, deleted 22 July 2005. Also see Nereocystis'sattempt to speed up the deletion on 18 Jul 2005.)
 * Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION 5 August 2005
 * Pattern Observed on how some disputed issues DID conclude
 * The Needed Steps to Change the Pattern in order to Resolve and Prevent these Disputes
 * Offers for Good Faith Acts
 * Hope for this Positive Conclusion
 * DISCUSSION Segment


 * I started the very first TALK post on group marriage - to try to start to solve one subtopic problem that Nereocystis was causing at the polygamy article. They soon stalked me over there too.
 * Uriah923's Dispute resolution interrupts previous resolution discussion 16 August 2005
 * My explanatory post, comment-titled, "Unbigotted help is welcome, Uriah923. Thank you." 14:18, 18 August 2005
 * Uriah923's post, in direct contradiction to what I had "agreed." 15:34, 18 August 2005
 * Uriah923's post, Archiving the TALK pages, doing exactly what I had said I did not want to happen. 15:59, 18 August 2005
 * My post immediately registering my disapproval 16:55, 18 August 2005
 * The subsequent TALK
 * Nereocystis's double-standard 20:11, 25 August 2005. I responded to an extremely abusive post by Nereocystis, which took time away from trying to get stuff done on the other TALK.  Their abuse set it off from there.  They had ignored the numerous proven-invalid references from Dunkelza, but then went overboard trying to invent a mystery about referenced proven-authority sites.
 * The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage proposed 17:43, 26 August 2005. The Discussion shows that even that easy act of good faith was refused by Nereocystis.
 * Uriah923 said they would leave me to await the official help which I had said I was awaiting for. 18:59, 26 August 2005 In the following posts between us, I said I did not want them to leave, but if there could not be any act of WIN-WIN and good faith towards me, then we would have to go back to the resolution offer we had been discussing before.  It had always been said (even by Uriah923) that, without my approval, their new offer would not work.  I offered a way for good faith to be established, but they did not return to participate in anything any more (as of this writing).
 * Requests for comment/Researcher99 called by Nereocystis on 17:01, 28 August 2005.  They employed assistance from Dunkelza who they drew from the group marriage TALK (who had provided proven invalid usenet and form threads as supposed "references," and  Kewp.  (Kewp has only made 4 posts in polygamy TALK, only starting since Aug 22.  The first one is a pure anti-polygamy propaganda promoting underage issues, and the other three talk as if they had been a part of everything all along. post #2, post #3, and post #4.  Yet, these two who have not been around for more than a couple weeks claim to know the situation in the Requests for comment/Researcher99.

In the few weeks leading up to my first post here, 18 July 2005, I attempted to resolve the issue by creating a second article called anti-polygamy. The purpose was to allow the neutral NPOV anthropological polygamy article to be freed of all the bigoted anti-polygamy POV, and have the non-neutral POV anti-polygamy agenda and debate arguments to be discussed on the anti-polygamy article. The latter was also for NPOV to allow both anti- and pro- to present both sides of their arguments in the anti-polygamy debate. NPOV for both articles. Neutral NPOV for polygamy. Both Anti-polygamy POV and Pro-polygamy POV arguments presented in the anti-polygamy article. I had no sooner started that article and it was under attack by anti-polygamists seeking to hide their agenda from being so openly presented. (Instead, their agenda seeks to appear "authoritative" by subtly sneaking their hostile POV into the main polygamy article.) On the polygamy TALK page, after I had pointed out the timeline evidence there, of some of the anti-polygamy attacks occurring on that new anti-polygamy article's TALK page, someone later (ANON  as IP:  70.176.232.214) sneaked in and removed the subsection showing the timeline evidence! Less than a couple couple hours after that, an anti-polygamist put the Anti-polygamy article for a "Vote for Deletion".  They were trying to hide their anti-polygamy POV agenda and, instead of following Wiki Guidelines of first "building upon" that new article, they were immediately trying to get it all fully deleted. Naturally, uninformed anti-polygamists were all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and welcome the deletion. When I discovered this, I added some explanation on that Anti-Polygamy - "Vote for Deletion" page. It has now been 9 days since it first went up for a "vote," and I am concerned that it may get deleted before anyone realy understands what has been going on.

There is so much more I could add for you here but I hope this has provided enough to give you an idea of the serious problem. No matter how much I have sought to accommmodate even the anti-polygamists, they accept nothing less than total destruction of every edit I now make. They refuse the Wiki Guidelines of restoring to STATUS QUO in controversial topics, but instead try to suggest that I am the one who does not want to TALK when it is they who refuse to TALK with me under the Guidelines.

What I need is both a moratorium on deleting that anti-polygamy article and to therefore be able to have a real solution in addressing the overwhelming problem of the hostile anti-polygamy POV infesting the neutral anthropological polygamy article.

If your Libertarian views permit you to be NPOV on this, I could really use your help. If you're willing to help as an Advocate, I would truly appreciate it. Thanks.

Researcher 19:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * How are you doing? Iam still waiting and seriously need your help. Thanks! Researcher 17:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello! I see you got back this last week.  I am still patiently awating your AMA help!  So much has happened since I first asked for your help.  When you get the opportunity to read thruugh what I've given you already, I'll be glad to catch you up to speed on what has happened since.  I really do need your help!  I'll check back on Monday.  Have a good weekend.  Researcher 23:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I updated some of the links for your investigation. I hope you can help!  Thanks!  Researcher 20:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Indiana Wikipedians category
should probably use Wikipedians/Indiana instead for the sake of consistency, unless there is a category for Wikipedians by state. Will look once I get back to editing regularly in a few days. 73, KC9CQJ 06:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh - found the Category:Mojo_Nixon in the Categories_for_deletion section, so I decided to do a little research on its history. Lo and behold I find another wikipedian from Indiana. I did my bit and added it to my page. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Engr-stub
Hi - over at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Stub sorting, we've just discovered that you created a new stub type a few days ago. Normally, when new stub types are created, it is after a week's debate at the WikiProject's criteria page, so as to check that the proposed stub type isn't already covered by other stub messages and has sufficient stubs to be viable (usually 100 or so).

As it is, this stub category appears to be very similar to industry-stub, and virtually everry article that could be given the new stub could be given this stub instead. If you could give any details of reasons for the separate stub, please list them at WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria. Thanks! Grutness...  wha?  06:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

National Cowper's Fluid Day
Hi, Kmweber. I found this article while I was sorting through all the biographical stubs. I can't find any mention of it outside Wikipedia. Is there another source to verify the information? Joyous 20:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mojo Nixon
What is the point of this category? In either case your edits to Michael J. Fox, Joan Rivers and Elvis Presley have been reverted as nonsensical. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * What's the point of it? The point of it is explained quite clearly on the category page!  And those three edits are NOT nonsensical--they have to do with the Anti-Elvis, people from whom Elvis is trying to get out, and Elvis himself, as explained in Mojo Nixon's song Elvis is Everywhere Kurt Weber 15:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Crank
Template:Crank, which you created, has been nominated for deletion at Templates for deletion. (re: Mojo Nixon: have you ever seen him perform? I used to live in San Diego and saw him several times--crazy!) Blank Verse  &empty;  15:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Elvis
First of all, putting a tag on something is not, in itself vandalism. Second, removing it from an article you created is specifically disallowed in the text the template produces. If anything, your removal was leaning toward vandal tendencies - you should disagree in the page's talk. Third, you didn't say it was from some song or other and I'm 100% certain that claiming Anti-Elvis is Michael J. Fox is about as patent as nonsense gets, so I stand by my tag. Finally, if I have vandalised your page, it is not more vandalism as you claim in my talk page, since the first claim has been speedied again and not recreated so was not vandalism.

I'm not going to reinstate the nonsense tag on your page, but I'm going to ask that you go retitle the entry on my talk page out of being fair. I will be watching the page, and if I don't think the nonsense has gone will take it to VfD. -Splash 01:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * From the song: Everybody's got Elvis in 'em/Everybody except for one person, that is/Yeah, one person/The evil OPPOSITE of Elvis/The Anti-Elvis!/Anti-Elvis got no Elvis in him, lemme tell ya/Michael J. Fox has no Elvis in him.Kurt Weber 04:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you continue to use misleading edit summaries to mask your vandalism, your account will be blocked. For example, , and . --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Woops!
Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your talk page. Thank-you for pointing it out to me. Chris Roy 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fellow Hoosier
===>Thanks for the invitation I've added my name to the list of Indiana Wikipedians. I was surprised to see 1.) your zealous hatred of collectivism, and 2.) your fanatical adherence to Objectivism/Libertarianism. Is there something in particular that motivated this? Justin (koavf) July 7, 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * Well, it probably started when I was in grade school. There was a poster on the wall that said "None of us is as smart as all of us", and it made me retch--even then, I found such ideas revolting.  It wasn't until later that I learned that there was indeed a good reason for such an emotional response--I was browsing the local library and came across a book called Anthem (novel) by some lady I had never heard of.  I found I could really identify with "Equality 7-2521", and everything went from there.


 * Also, throughout school, I always hated group work. More often than not, I wound up doing all the work ("OK, Kurt, you're the smart one, so whatever you say we'll put down") and everyone else got the credit.  When we were allowed to choose groups, this wasn't as much of a problem--my friends were themselves self-reliant (and proud of it), so everyone was able to contribute something; however, even then I found I could work faster and more happily if I didn't have to worry about getting everyone else's approval.  Furthermore, the "Kurt, you're the smart one" rule only applied until a majority of the rest of the group thought I was wrong--it didn't matter that I could back up my position and they couldn't, if they outvoted me the teacher would compel me to put down what they wanted; then the teacher would grade it, the "majority answer" was wrong, I got a lower grade than I deserved, and I was pissed off.  Unfortunately, I didn't have the courage of convictions at the time to simply refuse--in fact, I think to a degree I even accepted what they were telling me: that I was subordinate to the majority; that I must do what the group wants me to do regardless of whether it was right or wrong.


 * Anyway, that's the story of how I came to accept the political and ethical theories of Objectivism. My conversion to its metaphysics and epistemology is much more in-depth (and much more violent--having come across moral relativism and solipsism entirely independently, I was extremely loath to reject it)--a much, much longer story, although I will say that from the beginning I agreed with Rand that one had to have a particular reason to hold a certain principle; it's just that for a while I held that all such reasons were equally valid if they were held honestly.


 * Kurt Weber 7 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

===>In case you are interested I've responded to your comments on my Talk page. Justin (koavf) July 9, 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Template:Crank
Please do not re-create content that has been deleted by consensus. See: []. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 8, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
 * Consensus is wrong. See above. Kurt Weber 8 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand... Above you say Furthermore, the "Kurt, you're the smart one" rule only applied until a majority of the rest of the group thought I was wrong--it didn't matter that I could back up my position and they couldn't. What evidence can you bring forward to show that this template is useful?  I'm really sorry that kids made fun of your ginormous brain in elementary school or something and that Ayn Rand is your savior, but you must realize that these unconstructive edits are perceived as vandalism.  I might understand your point if you were actually doing something useful, but what I've seen so far (the addition of the anti-elvis cruft to the articles of Elvis, Michael J. Fox, Joan Rivers and the recreation of this template) you seem to be trying to be trolling to make a very abstruse WP:POINT.  I hope you find another way to resolve your traumatic childhood experience other than continued vandalism... otherwise your account will probably be sanctioned.  Umm... out of curiousity, if you've been opposed to group activities ever since the gingerbread house and paper-mache days, what on earth attracted you to spend hours and hours of your life on a community encyclopedia?  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 8, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the childishness and respond to the substance :
 * "What evidence can you bring forward to show that this template is useful?"
 * It's basically Template:controversial to a greater degree--instead of simply being in dispute by the public at large, it's largely rejected by people who actually know what they're talking about. As I noted above, there is no such thing as "truth by consensus", but nonetheless this is important information to provide readers if you're really interested in NPOV.
 * "I might understand your point if you were actually doing something useful,"
 * As I am, by evidenced by my edit history
 * "(the addition of the anti-elvis cruft to the articles of Elvis, Michael J. Fox, Joan Rivers and the recreation of this template)"
 * Popular assertion to the contrary, those were indeed good-faith edits. While I realize that I probably should have added "According to the Mojo Nixon song Elvis is Everywhere", that does not change their good-faith nature.  Characterization of them as "vandalism" or "trolling" is simply incorrect.
 * "what on earth attracted you to spend hours and hours of your life on a community encyclopedia?"
 * Straw man. I'm not opposed to working with others in the abstract; I derive value from working on Wikipedia, and so I do so.  I derived no value from performing mundane tasks that were MUCH beneath me in "cooperation" with what were mostly utter incompetents who had no respect for the creative power of the human mind. Kurt Weber 9 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

Latin
It has been proposed that User_la be deleted on the grounds that there are no native speakers anymore. Since you are one of only three people using this template, we would appreciate your comment: Templates for deletion.

Dragons flight 00:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

childish

 * Yes, it's your talk page--but it's still rude to delete someone else's comments, not to mention childish since you're simply ignoring them rather than responding to them

One's own user talk page is the lone exception to the rule about deleting others' comments. Apparently Gabriel read your comment. That's all you can ask of him. He's all charged up about cruelty to wolves, and he's a clueless newbie, so do us all a favor and stop snarling at him, okay?

He needs gentle coaching in how to write without bias. Can you give him such coaching? If not, please run with a different pack.

And did you notice all the wolf references? ;-) Uncle Ed 01:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

abuse of powers
I just noticed User talk:VinnyCee. I'm sorry but I have never abused my powers, and don't really like the accusation that I have. Yes, there have been some people that have questioned things I've done, but I think that calling it "abuse" is harsh to say the least. violet/riga (t) 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Policy change proposal
I asked you as question you may have missed on the TfD page. You said you had made a proposal somewhere, in your begin and end code votes, I asked where. Tomer TALK 23:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the proposal is on Village Pump/Policy Kurt Weber 01:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism, Ayn Rand, etc.
While you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, your stark and uncalled for comments on my talk page weren't exactly a nice way of sharing your beliefs. You may not consider me a liberal, but I would argue that I and most of my country would not consider Goldwater or Badnarik liberals. What's in a name? The Iraqi Republican Guard (under Saddam Hussein) couldn't have been much more different from, or less affiliated with, the United States Republican Party. I didn't see anyone raising a fuss that the two described themselves with the same word.

I certainly respect your right to differ, and if you would ever like to share any of your viewpoints with me in a more civilized and polite manner, please feel free to contact me and do so. As such, I will continue calling myself a liberal as long as I continue to fit the generally accepted definition of the word in the US, and I would suggest you avoid calling yourself such if your beliefs match up with those that you gave me as examples. Again, you have a right to your own opinion and mindset, but you can't expect everyone to agree with you.

In case you were wondering, I have read Rand's Anthem but have not felt so inclined to delve any further into her writings or philosophy.

--BDD 23:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The modern leftist movement has hijacked the word "liberal" to fit its own nefarious, decidedly anti-liberal ends. It has done the same with the word "progressive", using it to refer to policies of slavery, theft, and subordination--all of which are definitely regressive.  That they have managed to deceive the public into thinking that these are indeed the proper meanings of these beautiful words does not change the fact that they are not.  Modern popular usage is wrong. Kurt Weber 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities
I happened to come upon the Wikicities page you created. This name is certain to confuse many people, because there's an existing Wikicities project. I suggest that you select another name for what you're doing, and move the Wikicities page there. Then Wikicities could become a redirect to Wikicities. JamesMLane 17:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been meaning to do that for some time now, after I (quite accidentally) became aware of the other, better-known project by that name. You've spurred me into action, though; it'll be done quickly.  Thanks! Kurt Weber 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Space Vector Inducer
You may wish to know that this is up for VfD at Votes for deletion/Space Vector Inducer, and it's been speedied for comment at Talk:Space Vector Inducer, personally I think it sounds absolutely fantastic, you may wish to comment there. Alf 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, I put it up several months ago as utter bullshit to see how long it would take to get deleted. I was kinda hoping to see it moved to BJAODN, though :D Kurt Weber 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coughing the beans. I would have liked to have seen it go to BJAODN too :) it's certainly better than average. Alf 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Indiana
Just wondering why you made the map image bigger on Template:WikiProject Indiana, I think it makes the template too big. I hope it's not a relative size thing, becasue I live in Western Australia, and you will rue the day I make a project template for there. --Commander Keane 09:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * After a closer look, it seems you have just matched the pixel size with the Wisconsin equivalent, which doesn't really work due to that being the image width, and it is the image hegith that is critical. --Commander Keane 12:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:


 * [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]]

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And 95% of the time, I do :D When all I'm doing is tagging a couple thousand talk pages, though, there's really no point. Kurt Weber 13:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Harrington
Hello Kurt. Please can you explain what Harrington is supposed to be? It says "Harrington is the first Wikicity, founded by Kurt Weber." But there is no Harrington Wikicity and no Wikicities user called Kurt Weber or Kmweber. Angela. 15:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * See above--that was something I set up before I became aware of the better-known independent project by that name. I've been meaning to move it for some time but I've been too lazy to remember.  Kurt Weber 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the message above. I'll redirect it for now. If you want to set up a Harrington Wikicity, you can request one at Wikicities:Special:CreateWiki. Or perhaps the WikiProjects are more what you were intending to do? Angela. 16:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * You might want to fix the section on your user page at User:Kmweber too. Angela. 16:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've now removed the part that said "I am the originator of Wikicities" since it is misleading to anyone who sees that and thinks you actually started the wikicities.com site. Angela. 06:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

 * Dear all,


 * Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
 * Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.


 * The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29


 * The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
 * We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.


 * Best regards,
 * Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
 * I sterbinski 01:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

User Page Cat Change
Hi! Just wanted to let you know that your user page wasn't vandalized. Category:Indiana Wikipedians is being merged into Category:Wikipedians in Indiana. Just wanted to let you know ;-).  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist 03:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Our reverts were overlapping just now as we were both following a vandal on multiple pages; thanks for the help. Kertrats 19:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * NP...glad to do it. Kurt Weber 19:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

alex
Yeah, I know Mr. Houston. He's a badass. 04:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool...he and I used to be in our high school marching band together...now he's the drum major and I'm visual tech. Small world... Kurt Weber 19:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalizing Warning
I was actually not vandalising. If you go to Endless_Online/VazzVersion, You'll see my version of the page which I was trying to revert when all the other people were vandalising it. If you could please revert it to that version and protect it, I would be very grateful.

Vazz 02:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

im sorry but the bnp is a fascist party and u can not denie that i will reinstate it

Brit pat
 * And I will continue reverting your POV-pushing and vandalism. Kurt Weber 16:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)