Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 14 September 2006

The following users can expect me to ignore their posts on my talk page (I will update this as users get added):

• Dasondas, for insulting me and stating that I am a bigot/antisemite/islamophobe for opposing non-voluntary circumcision, and refusing to apologize. Lordkazan 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• User_Talk:Lordkazan/Archive 1: Beginning of Time – Sept 12, 2006

Comments At the top of your talk

I'm recting to Dasondas' comments on User talk:Crimsone, and those comments really should be removed Lordkazan - no matter what your opinion, those do count as personal attacks. Robdurbar 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How is the truth, which i have diffs to prove, constitute a personal attack? Lordkazan 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of how it is phrased. Regardless of the veracity of the statement, the need for civility here remains. Thank you. -- Avi 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So WP:CIV advocates censorship? I have PROOF that he did such. It is a simple statement of the fact that I will not acknowledge comments from him, and why. I could put the diffs there. It is not a personal attack by any reasonable definition when it's demonstrably true. Lordkazan 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the statement constitutes a public declaration of intent to use WP:CIV#Reducing_the_impact Point 3 "Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community." Lordkazan 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a contravention of that statement. If you were to simply say that "I do not wish, and will not to respond to comments by Desondas", that would be your perogative, and would be ignoring what incivility you see in the situation. If you had no comment whatsoever, then THAT would be operating "as if the offender does not exist".

What purpose does your statement serve anyway, other than to have other users take a bad view of somebody you have a problem with? If Dasondas had the same statement on his page, he would be told the very same thing. --Crimsone 17:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1) To save me the effort of explaining to people why I'm not responding to his comments, 2) as a documentation of the demonstrable truth. Lordkazan 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an issue at all if you all simply went away and left me alone - the quotation of WP:CIV I have was recommended to me by an admin. Requesting I remove demonstrable factual information, simple because it makes a user look bad (maybe they should have thought about that in advance?) is censorship, a contradiction of my principles - and a contradiction of wikipedia's entire atmosphere. Lordkazan 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you that Dasondas should apologise for what they said - whether it was intended or not, he or she should be able to re-read the sentences in question and see how they could be construed as offesnsive and as labelling you antii-islamic, when I don't think you have been. I'm not gonna push the issue either - its just that Dasondas made a complaint which had not yet been responded to. This is a user talk page - it is not an encyclopedia article and there is no need to follow encyclopedic principles on it at all. Avi/Crimsone are correct that you have every right to ignore Dasondas, and even to inform the user of the fact on their talk page; but lists or comments about disliked users, or users who you will not work with, are really things that should be kept to one-self. Robdurbar 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and your free to have it. It's my opinion that I have the right to, on my own talk page, post a list of users that I will not deal with, and why. If he was simply to apologize to me - his entry would go bye. I gave him ample opportunity to apologize, instead he choice to again tell me that I was "virulently antisemitic and islamaphobic" when they had NOTHING to do with religion beyond the fact that some religions engage in the practice that I am opposed to having forced upon individuals who cannot/do not consent. It personally insulting to me - i have both jewish and islamic friends. I am fully supportive of religious freedom (despite being totally opposed to religion) so long as practicing their religion doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. The practice I oppose is an infringement upon the rights of others - it is forcing their religion upon others. Anyone objectively taking a look at this should be able to understand that, and anyone not making knee-jerk reactions should know that it's against the practice, not the religion. I know several jewish people who are opposed to circumcision. Heck - jewish circumcision wasn't foreskin amputation until the 3rd century CE! It was thusly changed because before then it had been merely a scoring of the skin and could be concealed, and the rabbis didn't want jewish athletes to be able to conceal it! Bah, now i'm lecturing like a college professor! His complaint is without merit, I have nothing on this page about him that is nonfactual and cannot be demonstrated to be truth via wikipedia diffs. If he has a problem with me, he can do the same thing I'm trying to attempt with him: ignoring him! Lordkazan 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my opinion; its my interpretation (backed up by other users above) of the Misplaced Pages community's opinion, as expressed at WP:NPA and Misplaced Pages:Civility. As I said before, I'm not going to get drawn into a long discussion here - if you really want to keep it there, then I won't personally take it any further. However, one last thing I will say is that the factual accuracy is relatively irrelvant. I could provide you with diffs showing that user x is a complete and utter d******d, but that would still make it a personal attack if I said who I was referring too --Robdurbar 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"(backed up by other users above)" argumentum ad populum. I asked an admin via IM, and he's the one that pointed out the part of WP:CIV I quoted above.

Your analogy about factual accuracy is a false one - the term "dickhead" is seem as insulting. If you were to instead phrase that as being "rude" then it's not in any way a personal attack since it was factual.

My statement at the top of my page is likewise - it says what he did, without using perjorative terms, and is factual. I consider it uncivil to tell me to censor the truth from anywhere on wikipedia. Lordkazan 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

("argumentum ad populum") - User:Robdurbar and User:Avraham are also administrators. - You yourself will note how that impacts on your choice of latin (why latin I don't know - it seems to be the "in thing" online these days.) This is likewise my final comment on this. No answers to this are required - if you wish to get a more conclusive view, I recommend that you seek the opinions of other admins. --Crimsone 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

because latin is proper nomenclature for most logical fallacies. Lordkazan 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

Gay marriage being considered social justice is only your point of view and not a fact and wikipedia articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Please revert your edit to the Gay marriage category. In the future, please refrain from adding your point of view to articles. It is considered vandalism. 75.3.23.157 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that it's considered a social justice issue. You vandalized a category page. Discontinue your vandalism immediately. Coming to the page of someone who is cleaning up vandalism to complain about POV when you were doing POV edits is only a way to get yourself watched more Lordkazan 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you are confused on a couple of issues.

You don't seem to know what social justice is.

You also don't seem to understand wikipedia's vandalism policy. Adding your opinion to an article is vandalism and removing point of view, as I did, is not vandalism.

I hope that clears this up for you. 75.3.23.157 16:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your insulting suggestions, i know exactly what Social Justice is, and your removing that tag from the Same-sex marriage category is POV-pushing vandalism and will be reverted all day long. If you continue to vandalize you will be blocked from editing wikipedia Lordkazan 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely that a German atheist could understand what social justice is. 75.3.23.157 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see you are opposed to anything associated with religion, that means you would oppose social justice (assuming you were actually telling the truth when you said you know what it is), and if you believe that gay marriage is apart of social justice, you would oppose gay marriage. 75.3.23.157 17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing

Please don't visit my talk page simply to leave inane, inapplicable warning templates. If you have a substantive issue with one of my contributions, please explain it in detail, preferably on the article's talk page. I did not "blank" anything. I removed clear violations of WP:NPOV and I explained exactly why I did it. Please assume good faith. Cheers, DickClarkMises 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You blanked content that had clear citations to reliable sources. Lordkazan 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)