User talk:JBKramer

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JBKramer/Archive/May06. Sections without timestamps are not archived

gardiasis

its listed as an STD here on the STD article, and it says on the article for it that it can be transmitted by the anal oral route fecal oral route andn anal/oral-fecal/oral includes rimming in the definition for this. rimming is oral sex and if a disease or infection can be transmitted through oral sex vaginal sex or anal sex it is considered an STD. maybe the gardiasis article should be more complete in this context. Qrc2006 11:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

then why is it listed as an STD. if it is so rare, but still transmittable sexually, perhaps we con compromise it can be added in with a number 1 in superscript and that can be defined in a footnote as rarely, perhaps Hep C can be added in this way too since the article on STDs seems to say the same thing about it? Qrc2006 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

does it really matter if it isnt usually sexually transmittable, i mean just because most cases are from sexual contact doesnt mean some arnt. Qrc2006 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

i am not adding misinformation to wikipedia, all of my edits have been in good faith. And i did not add Gardiasis to the list of STDs on the STD article, and there it is. When i created this category, i created it because i saw this list RIGHT HERE, did u even check it out? Qrc2006 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

i dont think you are taking me seriously here JBKramer, you havn't answered my question. It is lised as an std on the sexually transmitted diseases article, why is this? If i based the inclusion of this protozoa on the basis of this article how is that adding in misinformation. If it is indeed not an STD perhaps you should remove it from that article as well, because it fooled me. Where can we ask someone else about this? Qrc2006 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

please don't tell me what to do. there is no rule saying i must ask before adding a template. i will continue to be bold. and i am glad that you will continue to edit that list, which apperantly fooled me. please assume good faither here, i have only the best intentions. and why should i stop? if i hadnt started this template would not even exist. Qrc2006 11:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Sexually transmitted disease

Your change to the page Sexually transmitted disease was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) .

Importerly WP:BLP warning

If you're refering to Derek Smart, it's a true statement, i merely reverted someone else' censorship of the information. Talk to the original editor who added it about the citation, but it's known to be true - he admitted it himself. Lordkazan 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded on editors talk page. JBKramer 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert it, i just reverted someone else' removal - it's KNOWN to be a true statement - talk to the original editor about a citation [follies has a record of all the usenet emails though] Lordkazan 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

guideline discussion

hi JB, would you please indicate whether or not you are proposing a guideline?

• Wikipedia_talk:911_POV_disputes#NPOV_is_immutable_part_2

Thanks — Xiutwel (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am. Are you interested in editing an encyclopedia? I think not. JBKramer 11:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Forums ARE a valid source when you're QUOTING or making REFERENCE to the quote. Lordkazan 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that direct quotations are not a reliable source is vandalism, and don't tell me what I can and cannot do - there is no Wikipedia Policy prohibiting me from using popups to do ANY revert i feel is appropriate Lordkazan 19:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good for them, I am supposed to care about other people's opinion on that because? I use the tools I have to the best efficiency, if you don't like it that's your problem Lordkazan 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

So are you Lordkazan 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

O'RLY? - by your method of counting i only have two as well (Reverts of vandalism are not counted for 3RR) Lordkazan 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, those are valid citations since we're citing quotes on websites which we can confirm the poster is who they say they are. That makes his revert vandalism. Clearly your are not familiar with the history of this article User:Supreme_Cmdr probably IS Derek Smart (that the username he uses constantly), as is a SPA Lordkazan 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

DO not remove warnings

Do not remove valid warnings from your, or any other users talk page ass you did to User_Talk:Supreme_Cmdr, it is considered vandalism. User:Supreme_Cmdr has been temporarily blocked from wikipedia as the result of his content blanking, making your removal of these warnings improper. See this diff Lordkazan 20:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I remove all invalid warnings. JBKramer 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The warnings weren't invalid - an administrator blocked him Lordkazan 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on your duplicitious AIV report. He will be unblocked shortly. JBKramer 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)