User talk:Lode Runner

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!


 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.


 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Flockmeal 04:29, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Erroneous claim
Lode Runner, I'm replying here since it is off-topic for the FGC article, but you just repeated a common myth. The only study to date indicates that there is no difference in keratinisation of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised males. Jakew 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't repeat the claim unless I find sources that state otherwise. However, I do believe that desensitization does occur as evidenced by the fact that most uncircumcised males (myself included) feel quite uncomfortable if the exposed, dry glans rubs up against things (e.g. underwear.) --Lode Runner 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a fair bit of evidence to the contrary there, too.    Jakew 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also supporting (cited) evidence found on the foreskin and sexual effects of circumcision page. The one thing almost all of the sources (but one, I think) have in common is that male circumcision does have some sort of rather pronounced effect.  My argument was simply that no such effects can be reasonably assumed to accompany removal of the clitoral hood, because the clitoral hood (usually) only covers half of the clit anyway and is redundant due to the protection provided by the labia. --Lode Runner 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How puzzling that you should have such an impression of the sources. Ah well. Jakew 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which impression?  That they exist?  Yes, they exist and are cited by the articles I mentioned.  No, I haven't reviewed them in-depth.  Yes, most of the cited claims are what I'd consider pronounced effects.  "When the foreskin was retracted a more than ten-fold increase in force was needed [to penetrate a testing apparatus]", "Senkul found that the circumcised men took significantly longer to ejaculate after circumcision",  etc. --Lode Runner 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Are you aware of the Citizendium project?

It's basically Wikipedia, but with verified credentials, so original research from experts in the field only, is allowed (not just random OR, only for instance a Ph.D. in English Literature talking about shakespeare).

The changes you suggested to wikipedia are fundamentally incompatible with the project's vision, and stated purpose; however they are not so with Citizendium. Since your userpage notes that you intend to leave wikipedia if you cannot gain consensus for your change (and let's be frank: you won't get them here) you may wish to go there. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not interested, thanks. There's a huge difference between actual original research submitted by experts and a basic logical conclusion (which is branded "synthesis" and thus banned.)  They are not the same thing.


 * Also, I removed one sentence from your reply on the Village Pump page. I clearly stated on the WP:NOR talk page that offtopic personal attacks would not be tolerated.  If you want to badmouth me, do it here or on the WP:NOR talk page.  I will not let you derail this discussion into talking about my horrible alleged sin regarding the SINGLE edit (not "edits", like you said--unless you want to be pedantic and include spelling fixes) that I made. If this removal was, in itself, another horrible sin please keep your objections off of the village pump page.  Take whatever action you deem necessary, get the higher-ups themselves to permaban me, but please leave this debate alone. --Lode Runner 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's generally not a good idea to be attempting to change WP:TALK policy without consideration for the aspect of it saying "do not edit other people's comments". Also, it'd be nice to see some good faith here: I made no personal attacks: I made a comment based on my opinion of your edits. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you don't get to propose a policy change, and then exclude people who disagree with you from debate. That's just not how it works. You don't have any standing to say "I will not let you...": see WP:OWN for details. I believe this makes my point abundantly clear: you are misrepresenting policy, and in the process violating further policy; it's disruptive, and it's unacceptable. As I'm involved in this discussion, I obviously would not take any actions, but if others were to, I would clearly support it. (rescinded in the face of clear disruptive editing) 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC) &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to exlude material that attacks me instead of my idea, nothing more.--Lode Runner 05:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And removing personal attacks and off-topic information is NOT against policy. --Lode Runner 05:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but policy page disruption is.

I take issue not with punishment (I accept that), but the lies you said in your "remedy" section.

1. "he's in the past several days significantly attempted to modify WP:NOR without consensus"

Sorry, but I did have consensus--on the talk page. Not a SINGLE person disagreed. I waited 2+ days for opposition. None came, and I was not aware of any contradiction at the time so I didn't see the harm in adding it right away. I was not aware that all such policy decisions must be run by the pump first. My mistake was honest, and I did not attempt to re-introduce my section after its removal.

2. "now reverts other people's contributions on article talk as "invalid"

I said "off-topic" and "personal attack" too. You miscatagorize my justifications by using "invalid" only, because Wikipedia does support the removal of off-topic material and personal attacks.

I ask that you clarify these points to avoid demonizing my username. --Lode Runner 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you might be interested in checking this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_it_possible_to_change_NOR_policy_in_this_manner.3F

It seems that my ideas find merit even at the higher levels. I wonder what the founders of Wikipedia will say? --Lode Runner 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They're duly clarified here. As I said, if you take exception, you may always request unblock through the unblock template. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then (assuming no objection) I will duly clarify them underneath your pronouncement, when my block has expired.


 * In the meantime, I can't help but notice that one of your fellow admins just changed original research policy without consensus (GASP!) I don't want to be petty about it, but I think it sheds a new light on the way my misdemeanors have been treated. --Lode Runner 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your uncivil behaviour
Please stop your uncivil behavior on the Depression Talk page. Please remember that you may be blocked when your conduct severely disrupts the project, is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Please refrain from gross incivility and personal attacks. Paul gene (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're an admin, go ahead and block me now. If not, don't waste your breath. You have shown zero interest in adding actual, objective content to the article, preferring instead to quote rules that don't apply or remove/rewrite sourced material. Your attempts to appear civil and polite belie your continued rule-lawyering attempts to hijack (and now spam) the talk page and the CES section.


 * Regarding behavior that may result in one being blocked, I think that repeatedly accusing your fellow editors of fictional rules violations is a lot worse than indirectly calling someone delusional (which was said as a direct response to said accusations/spamming.) --Lode Runner (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi, Lode Runner I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to "Alleged Americanization"
Hello, I saw your post on the discussion page of Bean (film) from late 2007 which I wanted to address. Your post was very well written, but contains a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia, which I felt the need to correct. At Wikipedia, we do not believe in conducting original research. This means it is not for us to decide whether the film in question is Americanized; instead, we must rely on a reliable source. Reliable sources contain useful opinions that we can rely on for posting analysis.

In this case, Amy Bioncolli has written for our edification a review of Mr. Bean's Holiday in which she refers to Bean (film) as "Americanized." Thus, on Wikipedia, we may now refer to Mr. Bean as an Americanizied film according to the analysis of Amy Bioncolli. Before you criticize the veracity of Bioncolli's analysis, it may not be described as superficial, questionable, or undocumented unless you have found a tertiary source to verify such a claim.

I hope I've taught you a little about Wikipedia today. Within certain bounds, your contributions have received praise and are of value. I hope you have a chance to review the links I've provided and do not make the same mistake again. 76.21.250.12 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty big words... coming from someone who hasn't even bothered to create an account. As I've stated a thousand times before, the OR restriction does not and/or should not apply to talk pages, because it turns constructive debate into insipid rule-quoting and source spamming. I never attempted to insert OR into the article, nor did I claim that it should be done. I merely presented an obvious argument; one which I did not have a handy source for. Upon re-reading the post, there is an obvious implicit request for clarification; regardless as to whether or not a statement is sourced, if it is confusing or nonsensical it should be clarified.


 * "it may not be described as superficial, questionable, or undocumented unless you have found a tertiary source to verify such a claim." Incorrect. I may describe it as such right here (and on the article talk page), if I have a rational and constructive explanation for my point of view. Just because some of us have lives (and do not have access to well stocked libraries full of journals and magazines to browse) does not mean we are not permitted to contribute ideas to the talk pages. Furthermore, I seem to recall that falsely accusing someone of a rules violation IS against the rules, so I advise you to work do some reading on your own before attempting to "educate" anyone else here. --Lode Runner (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)