User talk:Kmweber/Archive2

Need advocate to prevent libel
I am not a regular user or editor of Wikipedia, though in general I like it and find it useful. I do not know how to properly navigate or program all the fairly complex systems you guys have on how to correct a major problem. I do think that any lawyer could tell you how to solve the problem in a minute: delete the libel permanently. I am the victim of an outrageous libel on the wikipedia page The_eXile. I have edited out the libel, but somebody keeps on reverting it back. There shouldn't be any question that there is a libel on that page - though the writers (who I believe are the editors of the newspaper The eXile) - go through the ruse of stating something like "The eXile reported that .... This report is unverifiable." If it's unverifiable, just delete it! By the way the editors of the exile describe their business in the title of their book "Sex, Drugs, and LIBEL in the New Russia." It's all pretty clear - the only question is how to stop it permanently.

Vandal 66.24.233.50
Thanks for helping out with this vandal; however, please don't skip over when warning vandals. I've removed your addition and replaced it with that template. Thanks! Kurt Weber 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no wait for sufficient vandalism to pile up if it's clear where things are going, I usually sort of seat-of-the-pants it in judging which warnings are necessary. Anyway, I've blocked them now so they shouldn't be any more trouble for today. --fvw *  17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I'm not going to start a fight over that because it's relatively inconsequential. However, I would like to know what particular vandalism of his your "last warning" was in reference to.  Judging from the edit history of his talk page and his contribution history, his last vandalism occurred at the same time as you giving him the last warning.  If we are to assume good faith (which I interpret to mean, among other things, "give the other guy the benefit of the doubt"), then we have to assume that he did not receive his last warning until AFTER his last contribution.  Thus, I have to wonder, why did you bother saying "This is your last warning; if you vandalize again you will be blocked" and then go ahead and block him BEFORE he actually committed any more vandalism? Kurt Weber 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See:
 * His talk page history
 * His contribution log


 * Hmm, that is odd. I could have sworn that... Well, apparantly not. My bad. --fvw *  18:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

hey
hi. if you are the same user as m:user:kmweber, thought I'd let you know I left you a lil lil message. word. dzzno logic2 18:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Euphonium tags
I see you added User instruments tags for the euphonium, but you didn't add the appropriate categories. (Wish it were easier, but hopefully my templates help.) I've done so. Ddawson 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks! Kurt Weber 20:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipolitics
Hey, I read your explanation of your "extreme inclusionism". To me, it seems like it'd be impossible to apply verifiability or NPOV to certain articles you'd want to include, such as Escalator Productivity. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I can't understand why you would think that; I fail to see how it could ever conceivably logically follow from my position. Perhaps you should expound a bit more on your reasoning so I can understand just what it is I'm arguing against :D Kurt Weber 21:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A topic like Escalator Productivity isn't going to have any sources that discuss it, so verifiability would be a challenge. If someone comes along and disputes who "invented" it, for example, there won't be a way to resolve that dispute.  Friday (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For a theory to exist, all that has to be done is for it to be enunciated. Even if the initial statement of the theory occurs on Wikipedia, it has been stated and thus it exists--and is deserving of an article, by my criteria.  The originator of the theory may then be unverifiable and should not be included (or it should be given along the lines of something like "It is believed, though not proven, that this theory was developed by Jim Bob Joe Jack the Forty-Second"), but the theory itself is not.  Kurt Weber 21:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the root disagreement is that I (and, presumably, most Wikipedians) don't see much value in an article in which none of the facts can be verified. There are other wikis who's purpose is to be "any information about anything", but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  To me, the goal of being factual and neutral neccessarily excludes certain topics about which no facts can be determined.  Friday (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, though--you're building a strawman. You don't have to know who originated a theory to know what it says and what it deals with, do you?  And the theory doesn't even have to be true--no one objects to the inclusion of an article on, say, Lamarckism.  Furthermore, I never said "any bullshit anyone may invent is appropriate", simply that anything that actually exists is a worthy subject for inclusion.  And by being stated, a theory comes into existence--it need not be true, it need not be widely accepted or even known, but it is a bona fide theory that is indeed in existence, and so deserves coverage.  Kurt Weber 18:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it comes down to verifiability. An idea I invented yesterday isn't verifiable. Maybe it deserves coverage, but with no verifiable facts about it, I don't see how it could be covered. My socks exist, but they're not verifiable. One could look at my feet and see them, but this would be original research. Friday (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And there's nothing wrong with original research, policy to the contrary notwithstanding. As for verifiability of ideas, all that needs to be done is for it to be put out there, and whoop--it exists, and its existence and contents are verifiable. Kurt Weber 12:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Response from AfD
Hello. I'd like to ask you to please refrain from comments such as those you put on Articles for deletion/Shasha bread Co.Inc in the future since that one broke multiple portions of WP:NOT as well as WP:CIVIL(taunting),and WP:WQT(talk to the subject, not the person, or in this case people). If you'd like to talk about your philosophies, please do so on your user space as long as it is fairly civil, and if you'd like to try and gain consensus for them, please go to How to create policy. Thanks. Karmafist 23:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Inclusionist Eh?
Your are an extreme inclusionist. So will you support my undeletion campaign of this article?

Canadianism 00:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not in the habit of collaborating with irrational collectivists. Kurt Weber 00:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am incorrect, are you criticizing my economic posistion (Left Vs. Right)? Or, is there some other meaning you are using, because if opinion A is correct, then you are critisizing something I did not even mention. I find it awkward that you are putting inclusionism behind your far-right views, if optinion A is correct.

Canadianism 01:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Following Your Advice
Per your opinion on Articles_for_deletion/Safeline regarding policy, i'm going to block you for 24 hours. Why? Well, I also believe that the spirit of policy should be pursued rather adhering to strict dogma, although I normally try to gain consensus rather than acting renegade in order to do so. You see, in my opinion comments on AfD should be directed towards the deletion discussion itself, not general Wikipedia policy discussion -- it's a huge pain in the ass to wade through pointless off topic bickering when that bickering could be just as easily put on a talk page somewhere or on that "How to create a policy" link above. I consider this block pretty borderline, but necessary considering that this is the second time in the past few days i've seen you in an off topic back and forth on Afd, which I find to be disruptive, and that it would apparently follow your belief structure anyway. Ironically enough, what you said on there technically is policy already, because on Wikipedia, when all else fails...WP:IAR. During your day off. Think about what I said. Look around. If you've still got a beef, either on AfD or elsewhere, feel free to contact me and we'll talk about it. Karmafist 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Two things. First, what policy SHOULD BE is not a matter of personal opinion but rather objective fact.  The eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved that everything is a matter of objective fact--that is, every statement is either objectively true or objectively false and every question has one objectively correct answer and one or more objectively incorrect answers.  True, in many cases no one knows what that objectively correct answer is, but it does exist.  This applies to Wikipedia as well.  Second, your basis is irrational.  I was not "arguing policy on AfD"; someone challenged my vote and I explained my rationale.  Simple as that.  Kurt Weber 22:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Hope you enjoyed your day off :-). Karmafist 23:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The word "should" inherently indicates a belief, which is almost always subjective. Please give me an instance where someone has used the word should without advocating a personal belief or assumption as you did above...
 * 2) Your fan status of Ayn Rand notwithstanding, almost nothing is as simple as you just put it above. Tell me this: Let's say my favorite color is... blue. There may be some testable psychological or sociological data factoring into why my favorite color is blue, but then again there may be other imminently unprovable,intangible and fairly random personal views that are behind that belief. And that's just with favorite colors...When you get into the really volatile topics like Racism, Religion, and so on, alot of the reasoning is dogmatic, which is by its nature, subjective. In the end, Rand or Plato or Mike Lupica or anyone else with an opinion can graft on objective facts (things that can be proved or disproved) onto opinions(things that cannot be proved or disproved), but in the end, any philosophy has those opinions, and therefore subjectivity, at its core.
 * 3) You can explain your vote or change of vote with one statement on WP:AFD. You were in a back and forth arguement that could have just as easily been put on a talk page somewhere with a link to it to avoid a potential violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL due to frayed tempers. An instigator is just as guilty as a violator in my eyes.
 * Your fundamental false premise: that there is no objectively correct answer to "What is the way things should be?" Once you can overcome that, everything else will fall into place.  Actually, more fundamentally, you make the error of thinking that there is any question that lacks an objectively correct answer.  That is simply not true.  For every question, there is one objectively correct and an infinite number of objectively incorrect or meaningless answers--including the question "What is the best color?".  Kurt Weber 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Maryville Middle School
Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 10:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop
You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion and vandalism
Wow, you've got some unusual views, and I can't say I agree with all of them. That said, it's always fun to see anyone who believes something strongly and is willing to stand up for it.

That said, please be careful about how you use the term vandalism. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and accusing someone of vandalism is an accusation of bad faith, something you should be very careful about doing. Feel free to claim that deletion is destructive, terrible, detestible, or against the spirit of Wikipedia if that's how you feel, but don't accuse someone of vandalism unless you feel the person didn't genuinely feel he or she was doing the right thing. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please desist from personal attacks. In particular, please do not replace something that has been removed as an attack, especially when it has been made clear that it will be considered one.  Finally, please be more carefull about the accusations that you make in your edit summaries.  You might be wrong. Less formally, what do you hope to accomplish with language like that?  It's not civil to start with, and serves only to polarize debate.  If you're looking for a flame war, I think you'll be suprised at the response from editors whom you wouldn't call "deletionist".  Very few people appreciate their playground being turned into a battlefield. If you are able to make coherent, consistant arguments for why something should be kept, please do so.  Not only will it gain you some respect, it might allow you to win your case.  As it is, notice  brenneman (t) (c)  23:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion IS vandalism. I will continue to call things what they are; to do otherwise would be dishonest.  Kurt Weber 00:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No it is not, as brenneman has said, many "inclusionists" do not categorize it as vandalism either and it is an accepted part of Wikipedia. If persist in calling anyone who is a deletionist a vandal you will be brought for WP:RFC.Gateman1997 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Dispute resolution. Thank you. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting my AfD edits
Why, exactly, did you see fit to revert my edits to Articles_for_deletion/Lerner-LaRouche_debate? Kurt Weber 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies - I must have hit the "Rollback" button by mistake. - Willmcw 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Block Notice Regarding AFD behavior
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Karmafist 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem with your argument. As you stated on IRC:
 * "This isn't about deletionism or inclusionism, it's about you being an asshole to people who disagree with you."
 * For the reader unfamiliar with the situation, the block was set in response to my repeated use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" on several AfD entries; according to karmafist, I was being an asshole to deletionists (who do indeed disagree with me) by calling them "vandals".


 * Now, karmafist, you and I both know that there are people who think it is acceptable to replace the contents of Snoopy with, say, "Snoopy is a shitfaced cockmaster." I disagree with those people, and I'm sure you do, too.  In fact, there are lots of people who do--and they refer to the aforementioned individuals as "vandals".  However, they are never blocked for this.  Since, according to you, "being an asshole to people who disagree with you" is a blockable offense, it follows that one of the following must be true:
 * Calling someone a "vandal" does not constitute being an asshole, in which case I should not have been blocked because by calling deletionists (who disagree with me) "vandals", I was not being an asshole to people who disagree with me.
 * Your statement that it is unacceptable to be an asshole to people who disagree with me is false, in which case I should not have been blocked because assholery is in fact not unacceptable behavior.


 * Or perhaps you meant to say that because someone disagrees with you is not ipso facto sufficient reason to be an asshole to him. Again, one of the following must be true:
 * Calling someone a "vandal" does constitute assholery, in which case one can infer (from the fact that those who refer to the Snoopy types as "vandals" have never been blocked for that) that it is acceptable to engage in this specific type of assholery towards those who are indeed vandals--and, as I proved on User talk:Aaron Brenneman, deletionists are indeed vandals (you claimed that my proof was "bullshit" and that it did not need refutation, but your assertion does not make it so)
 * Calling someone a "vandal" does NOT constitute assholery, in which case it's all irrelevant since, as I was not being an asshole, the conditions under which being an asshole is acceptable are not an issue.
 * Calling someone a "vandal" only constitutes assholery if it is false, in which case see the above-mentioned proof as to why that is not the case here.

Now, which of these alternatives is it? Alternately, you can show me a fallacy (if I were you, I would try and find a false dichotomy--or trichotomy, for that matter--as my argument rests on showing you how none of the possible conclusions of your argument justify a block on me; perhaps you will be able to find an alternative I have missed that does indeed justify blocking me) or a mistaken premise and I will gladly concede that my behavior was wrong and was deserving of a block, and will change in the future. Kurt Weber 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Left-Liberals
Thanks for the correction on my tagging, as 'left-liberal', a miserable whim-worshiping whiner with their 'right to a Wiki article'. Sometimes, though the message has to be bent to target the widest audience and more folk know that 'left-liberal' = 'collectivist sheep who whine about their "rights" '. Eddie.willers 20:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sports templates.
I've changed the logos to templates...logos are not permissible on user pages under the fair use provisions of copyright law. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to see your reasoning on the legality of this. Logos are expressly not permitted on user pages.  Ral315 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Super Bowl XL: Please stop!
Please stop listing the Colts as the AFC Champions on Super Bowl XL. This is the second time you have done this. The user who reverted you a few hours ago wrote on the edit summary, "The AFC championship game is next month doesn't guarnteed Colts would be in the Super Bowl". Wikipedia is suppose to be factual, not speculative. As Chris Berman always says, "That's why they play the game." Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Block Notice
I told you before if you called anyone a "deletionist vandal" that you'd be blocked again, but not only did you do this several times, but then vandalize my page to try and make me seem as biased towards blocking you. It didn't work. If you'd like to make positive contributions after your block, Wikipedia will welcome you back. karmafist 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand why you think otherwise (and I doubt what I say will change your mind), but the "A=A" userbox was just a general joke that only went on your userpage because you have a shitload of them and I wondered how long it would take you to notice another one; it was not done with any specific malice towards you. Kurt Weber 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bumpusmills1
Bumpusmills1 continues to leave cryptic, threatening, and off-topic comments on the talk page of the League of the South site. He needs to be SHUT DOWN. WillC 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblock
I've taken off the indefinite block from Karmafist and asked him to please do his best to ignore your existence; I hope you will be bright enough to do the same. I have also placed a note on WP:ANI about you.

The problem is that you appear to believe "if you can't prove me wrong to my satisfaction, then it means I am right, and can continue to behave this way". This is not the case.

I don't question your good faith and belief in the encyclopedia project. But please consider that, empirically, if you piss people off as much as you observably do, it might just be you and not them. Working well with others is almost as important on Wikipedia as knowing your stuff; if someone fails to work with others as spectacularly as you are doing, they will not be welcome here.

(Hell, you pissed me off that much on #wikipedia, and I'm still unblocking you in this instance. Please take this as an example of me trying to get this right.)

Being able to work effectively with people you consider stupid is pretty much mandatory to working on Wikipedia. It's not optional. If you can't put up with this, then this may not be the wiki for you.

I've asked other admins to keep blocks for disruption down to 24 hours at a time; but I urge you to try to change your ways of interacting with others here, because my word has no particular force and only counts as asking others nicely - David Gerard 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said on the list, if this is how the game is played then I'm willing to play it. Fair enough.


 * However, it seems that you unblocked User:kmweber, which does not appear to have had any effect on the blocks that were placed on User:Kmweber. That problem's still rearing its ugly head.  Kurt Weber 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry - I only undid Karmafist's block. As of right now (19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) there are no active blocks on User:Kmweber. I won't be doing further unblocking. But let's see how things go. See also WP:ANI - there's still an unfortunate amount of ill will toward you, but you have a chance to convince people otherwise - David Gerard 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternatives to WP:3RR, see WP:0RR
Hello, I noticed you inquiring about alternatives to the 3RR and the entire concept of reverting and Peter recently came up with just such a guideline. See WP:0RR which encourages users to preserve information and viewpoints by enhancing and adding to another editor's changes that you many not like but only revert or remove an addition if it is obvious vandalism. The 0RR also frees people from thinking exclusively in terms of "reverting", which I agree is needlessly confrontational. zen master T 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

AMA
Hey, thanks for helping on the request page by answering a request, make sure you update it on the request page afterwards so we can keep it tidy and current. Thanks again. --Wgfinley 00:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Phroziac pointed that out to me on IRC this afternoon. Thanks, though!  Kurt Weber 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Kwanzaa NPOV
I may have been unclear, since I was in a hurry when I wrote the AN/I. The problem was the way the site was linked. Linking it as "The TRUTH about Kwanzaa" would not be NPOV. -- SCZenz 02:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also might have over-hastily reverted one of those links there. Thanks for taking a look. -- SCZenz 02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Gan Ying
In general, if the article begins with BCE/CE vs. BC/AD, you keep it that way. This is especially true for non-Christian cultures in favor of BCE/CE or articles on Christian topics in favor of BC/AD. It's analogous to UK vs. US English. If you approach the issue any other way you run smack dab into raging edit wars. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gan Ying is not a Christian figure and the article as it was originally written used the common era format. The only change the anon made in this case was in the date format.  In this case, the response is cut and dried.  The Pre-Columbian article is less apparent since it is a non-Christian culture defined from a somewhat Christian-skewed perspective, but when the date was introduced in the article, it was in CE.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource templates
Those wikisource templates are really fairly obnoxious at the head of the article. At best the template should be in the article talk page and not right up front in the lead section. --Stbalbach 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)