User talk:Kmweber/Archive4

Beer run

In case you didn't already notice, Beer run has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Letter to the Editor.

That was a good letter you had in the Clarion the other day. TheUncleBob 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do I know you? Kurt Weber 21:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but my letter was the one printed after yours. :) TheUncleBob 03:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Small world. Kurt Weber 04:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Heads up, Ms. Klaser will be writing a "rebuttal" soon (if all the bad-mouthing she's supposedly been doing about be at work is any indication)... TheUncleBob 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You know this woman? Kurt Weber 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We have this bad habit of working at the same location. TheUncleBob 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Andrew Ceaderhome says "hey".

Do you work at the Princeton Wal-Mart? Kurt Weber 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunatly...

Your edit to Anus language

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive).

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I never knew fascists liked Pink Floyd so much ;-) Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A call for help

Dear Kurt, my name is John Hyams, from Israel, and recently my article regarding RAD Data Communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD_Data_Communications) was unjustly deleted, on the grounds of being an "advertisement". I am saying that the deletion was unjust because:

1) It was written neutrally for a notable, international company that exists for 25 years.

2) It contained many informative links to technology terms.

3) There are so many other similar companies, like Cisco systems for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems) that have done the same and they were not deleted.

4) When I tried to post a revised version of the text after the deletion, "Hetar" accused me of vandalism.

5) All the problems began immediately after the Russian version of the article was submitted. The Russian wikipedian was very harsh with it, and I assume he began the process of the English deletion.

Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Regards,

John --John hyams

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not damage anything; ignorance of English vocabulary does. Kurt Weber 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

List of BSA Councils

Quite frankly, the Scouting WikiProject needs to get over itself.

The purpose of WikiProjects is to facilitate collaboration on related articles, but they do not have any authority above that of anyone else to outright dictate content.

Clearly, there is a dispute as to whether the article in question should be a list or a redirect. The members of the Scouting project do not get to decide that question among themselves. If there is a dispute that the interested participants are unable to resolve themselves, then an RfC should be filed (this is what RfCs are really for--resolving content disputes, not user conduct disputes) and the input and consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole should be sought. That's how things work.

I'm not claiming any sort of special authority for myself; I'm just trying to get you to stop asserting authority you don't possess. Kurt Weber 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your authority is no stronger than ours, so where do you come of deciding this all on your own? At least we had a consensus whereas you declared yourself the sole decision maker. You are doing exactly what you are accusing us of doing. Rlevse 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You did NOT have a consensus. The agreement of two or three people does NOT constitute "consensus". And again, I am asserting no special authority for myself; I'm just trying to preserve the status quo as it was before you asserted authority you do not possess. Kurt Weber 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. But if it means that much to you, put it back the way you want, I have better things to do. Rlevse 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who first left a msg on a user talk page, not me, now isn't that calling the pot calling the kettle black? Rlevse 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you've said that. Your conduct has hardly been proper, but I'm sure you'll never see it that way. The problem with people not involved in the Scouting project trying to change a cat/rename an article/etc, is that they don't see the gestalt of the entire project, they only see the one piece they are concerned with. Rlevse 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole problem, you don't see the big picture. Not seeing the project as a whole defeats the purpose of having a project; otherwise, why have one. You should have seen the Scouting categories before the project people came along; the categories, the rank articles, and council/state/region articles were a total mess -- disorganized structure multiple ways, etc. If it weren't for those people and their initiative -- and I'm talking on an international level here, they'd still be that way. But if you want to revert the Scouting articles into that state, go right ahead. Rlevse 21:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Team Re: RfC Woggly

I am presently coordinating a team of advocates re: my RfC for harassment / threats by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 15:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A word on civility

Dear Kmweber: Hello there. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I feel I must give you some advice on the standards of social interaction that are expected from Wikipedia editors; these standards are outlined at Wikipedia:Civility. In terms of corollary association to this policy with regards to comment on contributors' personal attributes versus the nature of their work, there is also the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Your use of incivil editing summaries, aggressive modus operandi of editing, and creation of pages such as User:Kmweber/Threats to Wikipedia are, I must warn you, not examples of acceptable behaviour here on Wikipedia, and I would ask you to please moderate your behaviour in future in line with accepted norms of behaviour on Wikipedia. Regretfully, should you continue such unacceptable behaviour, you may find yourself banned from editing by a Wikipedia administrator. Once again, thank you for your contributions, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Should there be any questions or concerns you have about Wikipedia editing, please do let either myself or another Wikipedia administrator know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks!

This page is listed for deletion. You have threatened Zoe and Tony Sidaway. This is wrong. This and this should prove it. If you do not repent, you will be blocked from editing the rest of Wikipedia.:)-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kurt>God

I originally redirected it to Kurt Cobain but someone changed it to God. I've reverted it back to Cobain. --User:Carie 15:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

From my talk page: Y'all really need to get the corncob out of your ass. The Quadrillion pool should NOT have been deleted, and neither should any others. They do no harm. Get over yourselves.

It's hard to believe that such an established contributor would continue to make personal attacks after, apparently, being warned twice, but there you are. So:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Delete for now as unverified substub. Unopposed to recreate as a sourced and more extensive article. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Unverified or unverifiable? The latter is a reason to delete; with the former, no need to delete--just find sources and list them. No need to delete and recreate. Kurt Weber 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You'd be right if there were some substance. For substubs, it's different. Higher standard must be met to keep. Right now there's nothing. Unverified nothing is deletable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help stop personal attacks

I do not know what else to do. Midlgey and Oliver (mostly MIdgely) continue an onslaught of personal attack. I created an Rfd on an article they like, and they have done nothing but mallign me, rather than address the merits of the Rfd. Midgley has called for a premature closure of the RFd, citing the brawl, that he created. Administrators have asked him to be civil. I have asked and posted numerous requests for civility and nothing works. It is becoming extremely stressful. I have had emails from users I don't even know telling me that this is Midgley's style - to bully and intimidate users who do any thing he doesn't like, and to run them off WIkopedia. Can't someone do something about this? I do not deserve this kind of attack. Gfwesq has also been the target of attacks. Midgely accused Gfwesq of being the same person as me (we are not the same), and Ian (an administrator) knows that we are not the same, since Gfwesq proved it to him by giving him his bar license number. Then Midgely accused me of deleting his 'vote', and used that to launch yet another diatribe against me. Ian explained to him that he inadvertantly moved it to the talk page. Still, MIdgley continues to harass - and this is nothing short of harassment. I am still relatively new to editing Wikopedia (several months now)., and have not come across this kind of vitriol. I can't believe that no admin has yet taken more action than warnings. Please help. THis is the article and Rfd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Patrick_Maxwell MollyBloom 00:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD

As an AIW member please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity and please take a side.

Reversions

Hello - you left a message on my talk page about an hour after I performed significant number of reversions related to Michael D. Wolok. There are a number of users who have expressed a concern with those reversions. I have some more details at the bottom of my talk page which you are most welcome to read. In the meantime, given the number of comments I received, I am not sure if I will be able to personally address each of your concerns. However, I hope that at least I am able to convey some sense of accountability and resolution here. Thanks again for taking notice. --HappyCamper 03:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, of course

You wrote: megalomaniacs and lunatics such as User:Tony Sidaway, User:Zoe, and User:Doc Glasgow who have never made a single positive contribution to the project [1]

This one-week block for a fourth personal attack should come as no surprise to you, but maybe it will give you time to realize that it's possible to disagree with the actions of other Wikipedians without resorting to personal attacks.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

of interest

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. I'm not sure if you're still up for it, given the message on your main userpage, so if that's the case, sign and tell us if you're still interested. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

where went all the capitalists?

Sad to see you leave... Intangible 01:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

member

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

dispute over Saint Seiya

The matter has been settled long ago. Yajaec is perfectly unable to justify his edits so they were reverted as NPOV violation, period.

And you know my "threats" of vandalism warning are justified. POV in itself is not vandalism. But delibarately adding misinformation is.

In the last weeks, I have undisputably proved (by providing various official material) that Yajaec's edits were erroneous. If, even after I have explained it to him, he continues to make these particular edits, it will be taken as misinformation (as he was perfectly informed by me that his texts are erroneous).

That's my view on the subject and it won't change. There's no need for all these discussions. I've only asked him to provide sources and references to back up his edits. Which he has been totally unable to provide for 2 weeks now. As I said, the matter is settled.

By the way, I can't see in which way you could be of any help here. Not that I don't like you, not at all. But this is stricly a POV matter and if you don't know the subject we're dealing about, it is highly probable that one of the 2 parties will try to influence you, and without knowledge about the comics we're talking about, I can't see how you could be able to neutraly "judge" all this. Folken de Fanel 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When a user has been shown undisputable proof that what he is adding is misinformation, if he continues to add it, it means it's intentional misinformation.

Yajaec doesn't need all these RfC-stuff, he was just unable to provide proofs. I can't see why this should go any further. Folken de Fanel 10:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I don't claim any ownership on anything. Unless Wikipedia has become a restricted area where no one can edit anything freely, I'm merely doing what is required of a Wikipedian : to take care of the articles.

2) Proof is proof. If there's no proof I can do nothing about it.

3) I will refer to his edits as vandalism if he continues to make malicious edits, that's all. Deliberately adding misinformation is malicious edits. Folken de Fanel 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Yajaec "refrained from editing the article" because he knew it was useless and would lead to conflict and that it would be reproached to him.

2) There were facts stated. That's sufficient. As I said, you are not the most qualified (meaning only that you don't know what we are talking about. I'm not being rude toward you) to say what is assertion and what is consensus or truth.

3)There's no good faith in Yajaec seeing his recent will to deliberately omit certain facts.

4) Please stop harassing me about your so-called "consensus". The article was already rewritten following the NPOV policy. Wikipedia policy rules over subjective "consensuses" implying POV violation in order to please certain members. That is, consensus is not "compromise". I can't agree with Yajaec and he can't agree with me : thus we won't agree.

What can I do if a certain member wasn't able to violate the NPOV policy as he wanted ?

5) Given the context of the "free" encyclopedia, and given the fact most of us are from free occidental countries, I have to right to have my opinion about something, moreover if this opinion is backed up with evidences.

There are thousands of articles here edited each day because of POV violation and vandalism. If everyone was getting blocked each time he said "you're violating the NPOV rule" or "you vandalized the article", indeed Wikipedia would be dead.

Hopefully that's not the case, and not every members are as menacing as you each time someone is not agreeing with you.

This leads me to:

6) I'm officially asking you not to adress me any more message. As your comments start to have a threatening and authoritative tone (your various threats of blocking if I don't adopt the same opinion as you about yajaec), in accord with the WP:NPA you often cited, I don't want to receive them anymore.

That is, unless you manage to be nicer in your answer, and if you stop having prejudice against me. Folken de Fanel 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Indianapolis Colts Season

You're welcome for the expansion. :) However, those phrases were not mine, as that section was originally written by Alakazam. But as I was expanding on that section, I guess I just overlooked those phrases, so I will take fault for that. I will fix those if you would like me to. Thanks. Manningmbd 18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Harm

You said:

Hey, I figured I'd continue this here (if you want to continue) because it's an interesting discussion and, as you pointed out, does not really belong on the AfD page.

I think this is a fascinating question, but at the moment I don't really have time to continue discussing it. I think this argument brings up fundamental "inclusionist / deletionist" issues that are (as you say) very very interesting. Unfortunately, I see this as an argument that could very quickly grab a lot of time - and I'm getting killed at work at the moment. So while it's a fascinating discussion (and one I think I'd enjoy having with you at some point), it's not really one I think I can do justice to right now. Thanks anyways, though - and I hope I'll see you around here again soon (you crazy inclusionist, you). :-P --TheOtherBob 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)