User talk:Haizum

Haizum's Sovereign Talk Page

Board Rules

1. Fallacious comments will be marked as such with an asterisk (*) at my sole discretion. Fallacious comments may include: dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, Ignoratio Elenchi, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad verecundiam, Circulus in Probando, Non Sequitur, post hoc ergo propter hoc, Plurium Interrogationum, and others.

2. Comments may be marked and/or labeled in a manner which will remain undisclosed, as will the significance of the label.

3. Not understanding rule #1 is not an excuse for anything, including unauthorized restoration/deletion of comments and cosmetic alterations.

4. Making edits to board rules is strictly prohibited.

5. Please sign all comments.

6. Comments that are old or are no longer relevant to an ongoing discussion may be cosmetically altered at my sole discretion. Per Wikipedia policy, the meaning of the comments will not be changed; the alteration will only be superficial, not substantive.

Thank you for following and respecting the board rules. And remember, per Wikipedia policy you must ask before you can remove a user's comments. Haizum 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Fire Star 15:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Warning struck through by --Fire Star 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All I did was delete the vandalism, then I left a note saying I did.

You should have checked the history before you accused me of screwing up the page.

Please restore my status or I will have no choice but to report it to higher-ups.

-H

You blanked the entire page out, that is not acceptable by wikipedia standards. You should have went through the history then and found a copy that was not vandalized and restore that version instead of simply blanking an entire page out. A lot of people have worked on that particular article and to just wipe it out is totally irresponsible and inconsiderate of those who put their time into it. I'm restoring the complaint logged against you by Fire Star & if you wish to take this up with the admins, go ahead. They've countlessly been blocking people who have done similiar things to that particular page as well. Next time do not blank a page, instead work to correct it if anything. --LifeStar 15:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

THE PAGE WAS ALREADY BLANKED OUT!

If I ever see the page blanked out again with crude language or pictures, I won't do anything lest I be blamed for something I clearly didn't do.

Like I said in my last comment, you could have looked at the history and found a copy that was not vandalized. It is TRUE that someone had vandalized right before you blanked the page, but the logical course would have been to go back to a GOOD copy of the article before the vandalism occurred. That's how we're able to restore the vandalized articles so fast. Next time, just try a little more before you decide to totally blank out the page b/c we see the last person who made the edit. Plus, blanking out a page is not advisable. --LifeStar 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the person who the first vandalism before you blanked the page was cited for vandalism too. --LifeStar 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since I didn't I was experienced enough to restore such a large article, the logical course of action was to make the vandalized page at least suitable for viewing.

It's like if someone damaged a soda machine while trying to break in and I get in trouble for leaving an "out of order" note.

That's fine, the issue has been dealt with. Take some time then to learn some tricks of restoration with the Sandbox in wiki or the intro page to editing pages on wiki. Either case, just be careful when blanking pages, admins and CVU people are just naturally quick to restore and warn b/c of the rampant vandalism on certain pages, esp. the George W. Bush one. --LifeStar 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I now believe that this user wasn't aware of the policy for restoring vandalised pages as mentioned by LifeStar, and that their efforts were in good faith. Unfortunately, the page in question does get a lot of "traffic" and that was why I mixed the editors up a bit. Mea culpa. Haizum isn't in trouble at all as far as I am concerned. If something like this happens again, you may leave a note on the person in question's talk page and they should be happy to remove any similarly mistaken notice. Regards, --Fire Star 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

THANKS! =) -Haizum

Sorry about that Haizum. I hope you understand, we're constantly reverting work done by vandals all the time. The reality is 99% of them use an IP address to make these edits, while 99% of the time users with registered names make contributions or reversions. So when the last version had your name on it and your page was basically blanked out, Fire Star & I thought you were talking about past vandalisms, not the guy before you, who had a registered name of all things! It's a good thing you kept bringing up the history, it was only when I took a deeper look into the content of the past user's edits then did I understand what you meant. Again, I hope you accept my apologies for assuming you purposedly vandalized the article. Have a good day. --LifeStar 16:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, having looked at the history of that article a little more, I understand now how much work the admins actually have to do. In the future I will either make my intentions more clear or allow the more experienced members to make the larger revisions. -H

Unblock request

Why was this user blocked?! Fire Star & I had determined that his past edits were not truly vandalism! Please read his discussion page to see what actually happened. I totally believed he was blocked unfairly and that this is really just biting inexperienced users without really seeing what actually happened. He hasn't done any editing since then and his only recent contributions was to his own talk page with me and Fire Star. I request that his block be immediately removed! --LifeStar 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This blocked user has requested to be unblocked. Admin: If there is a legitimate reason to remove the block, please do so; otherwise, please leave a note to that effect on the User's talk page.
In either case, please remove this template once you're done.

68.216.187.22 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted, since the block reason appears to have been a misunderstanding. I apologize for the lengthy delay since your request. // Pathoschild 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks.

Haizum 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Virginia Quarters

I've responded on User talk:Viriditas. --Viriditas 05:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :I've left you another response. --Viriditas 05:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC) ::Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE. --Viriditas 05:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not host original research. See also my message on my talk page. And try to keep it civil (See WP:CIV). Thank you. --Viriditas 05:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Hi, again. I've left you another msg. If you know the origin of the rules (such as whether they were invented by a notable individual) or a notable organization that uses them, that might help. Do you happen to remember who posted them on the original site? --Viriditas 05:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :::::Hi, please don't spam talk pages. A brief reply is acceptable. I'm logging off for about an hour or so, but I'll return to comment further. In the meantime, please don't keep posting the same msg on my talk page. We've covered the issues for now, and I'll get back to you when I return. You may want to pursue a second opinion from another editor. --Viriditas 05:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, again. You may have the name wrong. For example, there may in fact be a reference for what you call "Virginia Quarters" but it probably goes by another, more established name. I'm currently hunting down references for you. Please feel free to help. Once we find the actual name of the quarters variation (and determine that it matches), we can add your text back in. Until that time, please refrain from edit warring. --Viriditas 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: I didn't touch the page since you edited it. Oh, and btw, there are no other names for that variation. "Virginia Quarters" dates back to 2001, at least. The segment will be as verifiable as the others, and it will be reposted. :Haizum, I'm only trying to help. If what you say is true, it will not be added back into the article. I'm working on verifying the rest of the article as well, so your argument is fallacious. Please try to understand Wikipedia policies and how Wikipedia works before threatening to "repost" material that is not appropriate for our encyclopedia. I am willing to admit that a similar, more notable variation may exist, and if it does, we can salvage your text. Why not help me? Let's work together to improve the article. --Viriditas 09:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

False. The segment of the article will be restored, or most of the article will be taken down. In a matter of hours I will have 3rd party links that are as verifiable as the other links in the article. At that point, you will either have to just accept that the segment is verifiable, or remove the other segments that use the same 3rd party website as verification, then you will have to admit that you did not apply your standards fairly (because the Speed Quarters segment was left up the whole time), then I will be forced to report this to those that gave you administrative authority in order to make Wikipedia a better place. It's not complicated.' Haizum 09:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :Hi. I've already verified the rest of the article, and I'm working on adding citations. I have not, however, verified "Virginia Quarters". Please see the task list I've added to the talk page and do a search on any of the variations listed. If they match the rules of what you call "Viriginia Quarters" (and you would have to prove that it does) then you may be in luck. Otherwise, your content will not be added back into the article until it meets basic Wikipedia policies. And btw, I'm not an admin. --Viriditas 09:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

As soon as the version is posted on the same websites that Speed Quarters is posted on, then it will be verifiable. And as I've said over and over again, if you don't repost it, then you are applying different standards to the same type of segment. Haizum 09:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

False:

The external link is not mine.

You've been repeatedly asked to explain why the citation for Speed Quarters is more reputable than the citation for Virginia Quarters, yet you continue to delete one and not the other.

You are blatantly warring. I am requesting peer review.

Also, please review the Wkipedia Civility Policy for your "meatpuppet" comments.

Haizum 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

Your addition of "Speed quarters" to Quarters is original research, and the external link you've provided seems to belong to you and a meatpuppet. --Viriditas 01:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You just admitted that "Speed Quarters" is original research. Why did you repost the article then?

Haizum 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I meant your addition of "Virginia Quarters". In any case, since you have demonstrated that you refuse to stop spamming my talk page, from now on all discussion will take place at Talk:Quarters. If you have something to say to me about that topic, please post it there. I am respecfully asking that you do not use my talk page beacuse you don't appear to be familiar with Wikipedia:Talk pages. Thank you. --Viriditas 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

No, you admitted that "Speed Quarters" is original research.

Haizum 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. --Viriditas 03:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, review the Wkipedia Civility Policy for your "meatpuppet" comments. Haizum 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I asked you not to post on my talk page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SOCK and the use of the term "meatpuppet" on Wikipedia. Any other comments on Quarters should be addressed on Talk:Quarters. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Viriditas 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so instead of an insult, it's a flat out lie. Good work. Haizum 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse

It is a lie to say that he did not contradict himself.

It is a lie to say that he was not dishonest about citation information.

These are facts, not personal attacks. You had no right to delete my comments, which I stand by.

Haizum 05:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking and WP:POINT

Your blanking and edit summary on Pwn states, "original research" is not allowed on Wikipedia. There are no verifiable or reputable references to support this article. Please contact Viriditas with any questions. You may want to review WP:NOR. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. And, please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Viriditas 06:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop

* blanking pages

* harassing and personally attacking other users

* threatening other users - specifically Striver

If you continue to do so you will be blocked for 24 hours. You have been warned in the past. This is your last warning. freestylefrappe 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I will not acknowledge such statements.

Haizum 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum freestylefrappe 05:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence Haizum 06:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

On what grounds can you claim that I "threatened" the user Striver? None.

I quote:

"9/11 part two, bigger and better" (which has since been edited)

"the assasination of George Bush to create a martyr"

Those statements indicate some level of hostility toward the United States government and its highest official, especially when no context is given to suggest otherwise.

Striver was reported to both the FBI and United States Secret Service. If Striver is subjected to any legal action, that will be the response and responsibility of the United States government, not myself; therefore my actions did not constitute a personal legal threat as described by the Wikipedia policy page on legal threats. As far I am included, I merely informed this user that the comments made were worth reporting, worth reporting by anyone responsible enough to do so; I just happened to be the first one to notice.

Keep your half-truths and empty threats off of my talk page. Got that?

Haizum 06:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to User talk:Freestylefrappe

Please desist in this bizzare action. As most people apparently see it, there is no need to comment on a user talk page that was blanked. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not recognize illogical requests, but I will not contest your statement. Haizum 03:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Advice: Please stop targeting one or more users pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. This also applies to your personal talk page. Thanks. --Madchester 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No statements have been altered in terms of meaning, otherwise I am free to organize and highlight comments on my talk page to my liking. You should heed your own advice and not make changes to my talk page, epsecially when they have nothing to do with you. Haizum 03:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides basic grammatical or spelling revisions, please avoid altering other users' messages. Please note that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines suggests that users should "refrain from editing others' comments without their permission." --Madchester 03:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A "comment" is an annotation, which by definition must convey a meaning. If I am not altering the meaning of someone's annotation, their "comment", then I am not breaching Wikipedia policy. Haizum 03:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Olympic medal table

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!

Please note that the use of loaded terms like "dominance" are in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please choose your words more carefully. Thanks.--Madchester 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

When one says "right eye dominant" they are not implying that the right eye is superior to the left eye. The same applies to the medal table; it is gold medal dominant, as opposed to a traditional ranking system. It's not complicated. Haizum 03:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the current wording is already sufficient, there is no need to use such NPOV diction. Change for the sake of change, especially one with loaded terminology is unecessary. --Madchester 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The word 'dominant' is only loaded if the beholder is biased. It is used frequently in ecology, genetics, and even music. Haizum 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be in violation of Wikipedia policy if I were to append a character to the end of a user's comment for the purpose of a footnote, such as an asterisks? This would not be making any cosmetic or substantive alteration to the comment. Haizum 03:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is my responsibility to cite the fact that you misrepresented the context of "don't label." Haizum 06:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Block

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. --Madchester 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing you have adminship isn't it? Haizum 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so I was blocked from editing everything but my own page, which is the location of the alleged "personal attacks," anyone can see that this makes little sense. If you are ever subject to an RFA, I'll be there. Haizum 17:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to disagree with other users. However, labelling such comments as being "fallacious, illogical or emotive" is considered a personal attack. --Madchester 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are considered personal attacks by you; other than that happenstance, they aren't. Haizum 01:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have released your block and talk page protection. I have also restored the comments that you removed when you were involved in an editing dispute of Quarters in December. Plese don't remove or edit other people's talk page comments, per WP:TPG or you may be subjected to another block in the future. --Madchester 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm free to clean up/blank my talk page at any time. If you have a problem with this and choose to make an issue out of it, I will recreate this talk page on my user page to my liking. Haizum 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, when a comment is fallacious or emotive, it is so by fact not opinion; therefore the identification of such comments is not a personal attack. If you have a disorder that hinders logical ability, please let me know, otherwise adhere to Wikipedia's policy of neutral and factual analysis. Haizum 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, as erroneous as you may find them, posting discussion page rules is not a personal attack on anyone. I will cite your removal of them as administrative abuse. Haizum 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

1. You are allowed to archive your talk page, when it gets too long. Otherwise, you can't simply remove comments, simply for the sake of "clean up". You are not allowed to change other users' comment, save for basic grammatical or spelling errors. Once again, I recommend reviewing Wikipedia - talk page guidelines to see what is and isn't allowed. --Madchester 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me prove you wrong. According to the guidelines...

Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context. So as you can see, editing the meaning of a person's is not allowed, however, there is no such guideline or policy for cosmetic alterations.

Therefore I must conclude that your revertion and deletion of my edits to my own page is simply bullying because:

1. You falsely implied that Wikipedia guidelines are policy.

2. You falsely claimed that I was violating Wikipedia policy by making cosmetic alterations when no such statement exists in your citation.

3. You used nonexistent Wikipedia policy as grounds for a block and/or reprimand.

It is my responsibility to cite the aforementioned as administrative abuse. Haizum 02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you misrepresented other users' comments by labelling them as being "illogical", "fallacious", "emotive", or "worthless" ([1], [2]), which are considered personal attacks, a form of talk page vandalism. Earlier, you also removed numerous comments from other editors, by accusing them as being lies. [3], [4] Reverting such vandalism/page-blanking is perfectly acceptable within the guidelines. Cheers. --Madchester 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

False. The keyword there Madchester is "or". I marked comments with an asterisk as being EITHER illogical, fallacious, emotive, OR worthless. For your information, the comments that I marked were fallacious, which is a factual statement based upon the substance of the comments, not the person. Since your previous comment is a fallacy (because you assumed that I marked the comments in question as "worthless") I am going to mark it. There is no point in you arguing that it is not a fallacy, anyone can see that it is; and since I will not be editing the meaning of your comment, it "is perfectly acceptable within the guidelines." Haizum 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also note that my asterisk rule is now specific to fallacies, so there is no use in trying to claim that I marked your comment as "worthless." Haizum 03:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Feb. 19, personal attacks/Harassment

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

Once again, please refrain from WP:NPA, specifically using appendices to make accusatory comments... in bad faith. --Madchester 04:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You are blatantly abusing your powers. I need not 'accuse' you of anything. Your comment was a fallacy and that is incontrovertible. Since when was pointing out factual information a violation of policy? It isn't, so it's clear that you are simply bitter. You assume my actions are in bad faith because that is a luxury you have as an administrator, however, much like objectable speech in court is noted by the judge to be 'over ruled' even though the jury is fully aware of the speech in question, I reserve the right to note a fallacy (which is observable as fact) as such in the same spirit of fair debate (since I am not allowed to remove comments altogether).

"You just blocked me," and "you just made a fallacious statement," are equally factual. If you agree, then you must lift the block and allow me to use my asterisks; if you disagree, meaning that you don't see the two aforementioned statements as readily observable fact, then you may want to address your obvious cognitive dissonance with medical assistance. I suggest the former as a positive alternative to having your administrative status stripped for inconstancy and inconsistency, just a suggestion.

It is my responsibility to cite your second block as administrative abuse regardless of its duration. Haizum 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have blocked me from editing Wikipedia articles (which I have not "disrupted" as of recent), yet I am not blocked from my own talk page where these alleged "personal attacks" would have taken place (if they were true). Anyone can see that such a block makes little sense. It is clear that you are hindering my ability to contribute to Wikipedia because of a personal vendetta, otherwise I would be blocked from my own discussion page where you claim I am being disruptive. Haizum 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're still making personal attacks. Claiming someone needs "medical assistance" or belittling somoene's intelligence by saying that they have "cognitive dissonance" is not appropriate behaviour in Wikipedia, per WP:NPA. Further, threatening to cite someone for abusing their powers is in violation of Wikipedia:Harassment, which states that no threats are allowed.

If you don't agree with someone's comments, simply leave a comment stating why you disagree. Or ignore the comments. I have seen many talk page comments that I disagree with, but I have never in anyway tampered with what those particular editors had to say. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. But to remove such comments, or give them negative labels is inappropriate and considered to be accusatory attacks. Such personal attacks are not tolerated whatsoever on Wikipedia, especially when it's targetting a specific group of editors you find "illogical", "emotive", "fallacious", etc. (See Wikipedia:Harassment#Targeted personal attacks, also Wikipedia - Etiquette, which says that users should not label other users or their edits.)

I would recommend that you keep your cool to avoid future conflicts with other users. I've noticed that you've had confrontations with other users in the past, and I hope that you can show more restraint to avoid any future run-ins. Thanks, --Madchester 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're spinning it Madchester. The "cognitive dissonance" bit was a hypothetical, not a claim, as was the "medical assistance" bit; there is a difference. If I was to say, "Madchester, if you kill people for no reason, then you are evil/psychotic/insane/etc," it is a conditional statement, a hypothetical. Yet you come back and complain that I called you evil/psychotic/insane/etc, in other words, you aren't paying any attention. There is no other way to put it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion

Identifying a fallacious statement is an empirical process; it is not opinion. I cannot be reprimanded for using an emperical process to arrive at a factual conclusion. By your logic, it would be wrong of me to label a statement that contains the word "widget." Identifying "widget" in a sentence can be done by locating the letters W I D G E T in sequence, it is an emperical process much like finding a fallacy within a statement. If you disagree, then you are just wrong. Look it up.

I have never in anyway tampered with what those particular editors had to say.

Hey guess what, neither have I. Removing a comment is one thing, but cosmetic changes do not alter the meaning; it does not alter what the editors had to say.

Such personal attacks are not tolerated whatsoever on Wikipedia

Neither are vendettas, Madchester.

I've noticed that you've had confrontations with other users in the past

The first delinquent editor hastily claimed that I vandalized a page and he was overuled by logic (and an admin).

The second delinquent editor claimed that I made a personal legal threat when I reported suspicious rhetoric to the US Secret Service. Logic prevailed in that incident.

The third deliquent editor challenged me and was vanquished by his peers in an RFA.

All of those who have fought with me have failed.

I will keep my existing labeling system, and I will create a new system that will not be disclosed. I suggest you deal with it. Haizum 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention: You implied that "don't label" suggests that I literally don't attach a descriptive term or epithet to comments via a character. However, the Etiquette article you cited says, "Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner." That has a completely different meaning and has nothing to do with what I'm doing. Would you like me to empirically describe to you what a lie is? Haizum 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You should consult WP:TPG. Specifically the section regarding taking things out of context and misrepresentation. Haizum 06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You should consult Wikipedia for the contextual definition of "label;"

a "label" is informal term for categorizing a person or thing or group of people or things on the basis of actual or perceived differences (eg. people may be "labelled" as gay/straight, black/white, liberal/conservative, top/bottom; the act of describing a person as one of these things is to apply a "label"); see also loaded language and stereotype

Haizum 06:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What say you, Madchester, what say you? Haizum 07:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 21:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 10:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 11:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 13:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your silence is telling. Haizum 13:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal Labeling

My personal labels will be found on my user page until logic proves that labeling within the talk page is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. Alteration or deletion of these markings will not be tolerated. Haizum 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fark.com "updates"

Haizum, Wiki is not your personal weblog to air grievances against Fark.com. Please do not edit the criticism section with your personal stories and vendettas against the website. The issue of people criticizing the website for having a liberal/conservative bias has been addressed using verifiable sources. Your entry violates Wiki's NPOV policy and I have removed the entry from the section.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at tarrant84@gmail.com. For your information, I am a conservative. Your posts were not removed for political beliefs, only because they violate numerous Wiki policies. Your personal claims against the website are unsubstantiated, and even if they were legitimate, they are not relevant to Wiki.

The reason you were initially temporarily banned from Fark.com is because you engaged in several ad hominem attacks against other users. Due to your complaints which allged discrimination, moderators were specifically advised to ignore your right wing posts to ensure no discrimination was taiking place. This was not because anyone felt you were discriminated against, but rather to ensure your unsubstinatiated claims of discrimination were never legitimized. Your perma-ban was a result of threatening the life of two moderators-- not in a theoretical sense, but in a "You live on X street, Y is your address, and I'm heading over."

Many conservatives and liberals post on Fark.com and enjoy doing so-- this ensures a healthy, fun, and lively discussion. However, your personal posts violated rules which infringed on the rights of other users. Due to several repeated warnings and violations of the FARQ, you were permanantly removed from the website. If you still feel this was in error, please email the administrators.

Regarding Wiki entries, please take your dispute with Fark.com elsewhere. Wiki is neither the appropriate weblog nor are your rantings backed by verifiable sources. Email the administrators and moderators of that site if you feel you have been the victim of political discrimination.

Thanks, -Jordan tarrant84 08:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)tarrant84 tarrant84@gmail.com

1. You aren't allowed to delete discussion comments. 2. Don't spam my talk page. Haizum 09:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your perma-ban was a result of threatening the life of two moderators-- not in a theoretical sense, but in a "You live on X street, Y is your address, and I'm heading over. Back it up. We all want to see a transcript. Oh, what's that? You don't have one because you made that up? Oh, gosh, that's a shame. I'll be sure to fwd your lies to Rob (farkback@gmail.com). Haizum 10:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:TPG Haizum 10:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

In recent and semirecent posts, you've shown a curious interest in Wikipedia policy & procedure. Consequently, I'm sure you'll be interested in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. To wit, you may be dismayed to learn that Wikipedia actually discourages

• "The inappropriate use of legal technicalities with respect to Wikipedia's policy"

Being a dedicated and helpful Wikipedian, I'm confident that you'll alter your behavior accordingly. !? 10:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not an arbitration case, and until it is, I'll consider your comment a threat. Haizum 11:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I need not rely on 'technicalities' to defend myself; Wikipedia policy is explicit, and I have quoted it directly in my defense. Haizum 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fark.com

Please do so, you can put them anywhere on my namespace if they contain personal information (such as your email address, etc) if need be. --Zsinj^Talk 16:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have a valid email. You can put it in User talk:Zsinj/Haizum. --Zsinj^Talk 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over everything again: your email, comments on talk pages between you two and my revert. It appears that the most recent removal (three paregraphs, half the Critisizm section) was based upon a compromise the other editor wants to make with you. Per that email, it looks like the other editor is getting a source to back up some of the information, but remember that here at Wikipedia, we appreciate sources in order to backup false accusations of hoaxes. --Zsinj^Talk 17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm finally able to sum this up. Tarrant84 believes you wrote the section in question, which you didn't. Tarrant84 is also getting a little agitated due to your offensive comments on the article's talk page. The email seems to be a result of the misunderatanding. While I do not know why you got involved with the Fark.com edit war, apparantly it didn't originally involve you. As such, I suggest that try to make that article better instead of critisizing its contributors on the talk page. Thanks. Any other questions or commants are welcome on my talk page. --Zsinj^Talk 18:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm glad to hear it! Hopefully we can resolve this with tarrent84 just as we have today. Thanks for your cooperation and I hope to continue to see you arount Wikipedia in the future! --Zsinj^Talk 18:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon and policy

I agree that the anon is not following good policy. However, that does not mean that everything they say is completely invalid or without merit. It is a shame that their conduct (which I assume arises out of frustration) serves only to weaken the legitimacy of their arguments. Johntex\^talk 18:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Interestingly, at this very moment, there is someone trying to promote a new Policy Guideline as settled community practice at Wikipedia:Censorship. This includes a statement saying that putting images behind one extra click is somehow against policy. They are doing this despite a large amount of discussion on the talk page. I find this an extraordinary problem. I hope that you will comment there and let people know that this idea deserves more discussion before it is ruled out by fiat. Best, Johntex\^talk 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This will clearly be an ongoing dicussion for the forseeable future. I hope we can work out a compromise similar to what you and I have suggested. I hope you have a good night's rest. Best, Johntex\^talk 20:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I just registered my opposition to the proposed guideline as currently written. When I have a bit more time, I'll read all the new comments and then decide what further comment might be appropriate. Best, Johntex\^talk 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion on personal attacks

I just wanted to say that I am with you on your remarks on personal attacks in the cartoons article. If you need some kind of backup, tell me. If not, I have had enough of Raphael, especially under his previous, last-warning-name, changing my texts and his attacks on me, so I, and some others, are avoiding those article talk spaces if not absolutely necessary for a while. DanielDemaret 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, JOhntex and Haizum.

I should have explained more about the editing. It sounds a bit worse than it was. Let me repeat what I told you before Johntex, that what Raphael did, I do not think it was intentional. I would not have brought it up at all, if it were not for the fact that he kept doing it after I asked him not to.

What was done repeatedly I think might be better termed "slashing into my text". The problem with this, was that when I, or anyone else read it, since he did not always put his signature, it looked as if I had signed some of his text, and and sometimes it looked as if he had signed some of my text.

So it looked as if Raphael had changed my text at several places. Again, not intentionally. It is the kind of thing one does sometimes with email, but it really doesnt work here, especially if not every line is signed by the slasher.

I should also note that when I asked him to clean it up, Raphaels did try to do this. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Some of my text was gone. So, I added a note to the section that it would be better to start anew that to try to salvage the old.

And then, unfortunately, slashing happened again. I still do not think that it was intentional, so there is not point in tedious looking into history to look for it. I have also seen it being done after that in the mohammed talks, and there, since no cleaning was done, when last I looked, one can find instances of slashing into Haizum's text. I did not check whether the texts there were confused or not.

I hope this clarifies things. I accept the apology that Raphael has made me, of course, and I will apologize for being unclear about the exact nature of my accusation. DanielDemaret 21:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding beyond hope

Yes, he does do that a lot. But, I think his english may have improved a tad since he started. I have asked JohnTex about advice, since he is an administrator, about what to do. If an editor really is, as you say, beyond hope, what does one do? DanielDemaret 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps Arbitration? I am not experienced in conflicts, so I am not sure if that might be the proper way, in the end. I have just reat that there is such a process. DanielDemaret 14:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's annoying, but arbitration isn't necessary. He (and others of his bent) can blather on about injustice and offense and insult as much as they like, the fact is that a huge supermajority supports keeping the cartoons at the top of the article, so that's where they will stay. If we find the "no offensive images!" brigade tiresome, we can just ignore them, secure in the knowledge that the pictures aren't going anywhere. Babajobu 16:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Impressive tenacity

APO confusion

Your tenacity is impressive. It is difficult because the two of you seem to be speaking in different languages. One of logic and one of desire (to remove whatever is perceived to have casused this insult, which means grasping whatever tools are available, and so occasionally trying on those of logic ).Varga Mila 18:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

please stop removing my comments from Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Raphael1 19:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, nice try. Once again you ignore the definition of a word. I didn't remove anything from Wikipedia, I moved your comment to your talk page because it was user talk content. It had nothing to do with my thread or the topic in general, therefore it was disruptive. If you want to post that type of comment, it must be done on a user talk page. Haizum 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

too bad

That is too bad. You are first inviting people to make comments and then asking them to quit from your thread? What does that mean? I can see that you also deleted some other comments from the talk page. The deletion of the comments from the talk page is so bad. Asking to delete some comments from the discussion page is so rude. Resid Gulerdem 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What's really too bad is how I could care less. Oh wait, there I go, I just cared less. Haizum 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me decide about what, where and how I express myself in a talk page. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Chill out. Haizum 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad controversy

Kudo's for your efforts at keeping the article NPOV and in correspondance with Wikipedia standards. It is a pleasure to read your rational, logical argumentation. Respectfully Celcius 10:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

UK/US spelling

Is the spelling 'civilisation' really incorrect as you state on your recent Vile Vortices edit or simply a UK spelling? It's wikipedia policy not to change the spelling of an article if the only difference is to take it from UK to US spelling or vice versa, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). Fair enough if the actual link pointed to the wrong place but it didn't! Certainly the dictionaries I've got access to think 'civilisation' is valid. Anyway just thought I'd mention it Kymara 11:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ending with a bang

I keep saying I'm leaving, then I post to the talkpage again. This time I'm going for sure! ;-) Babajobu 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

I will remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

-

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors.
Do not make them.

restored by Haizum 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A person who disagrees with your views is not automatically a troll. Gerard Foley 15:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I read your comment, I'm not interested, please leave me alone. Thank you, Gerard Foley 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)