NOTE: If you wish to comment on any material here, please add a comment to my main talk page, not here. Thanks, Kasreyn 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your post here, I request that you remain civil. I further request that you post here the exact words and the diff that you claim were a threat by the newbie. I also suggest that you assume good faith [1], which at this point I am making an effort to maintain myself. Doright 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts). -- CTSWyneken 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
T oquote you: "Wikipedia isn't here to put down anyone's particular "truth". If FSM makes you happy, great for you. But in creating FSM, Bobby Henderson intended it as a parody. The fact that you have chosen to take it seriously, or that some people you have known have chosen to take it seriously, is irrelevant to what FSM was intended for. If enough people took FSM seriously as a religion - and if we had a reliable, outside source on that number - then those who take FSM seriously could indeed be noted, though of course the parody's original purpose would still be notable and included. Kasreyn 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC) "
I chose not to bring this in the discussion board as it is leaving the area of the FSM and going someplace else. Anyway, what would you consider an reliable outside source? A list of signutures mailed to you? Perhaps people puting down FSM on the religion part of a survey. The national surveys are every how many years? Anyway I just wnated to know what you would consider a reliable outside source. I am just curious not attacking, you just curious. -- Codemartin 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I just saw your webpage. I also voted for Kerry because the alternative was worse. And we now know how bad 'worse' really is. The other articles I edit are the Wiki Law iProject (I am an attorney) and various political articles. As to the BI article -- yes, it is not balanced yet. There was an edit war, and a consensus agreed to 'freeze' it, while editing off-line (look at the off line articles). And the consensus was to discuss it first, and get input, before changing the off-line article. The reason there are some duplications is that eventually the article will be split into two articles.
The problem with the BI article is that initially it read like an advertisement for breast implants. I have a scientific (as well as a law) background, and I had silicone breast implants that ruptured. They were not removed for five years, and I became deathly ill. Yet there are plastic surgeons who insist that even rupture is not harmful. That is flatly untrue. I now work with women who have been harmed by breast implants - silicone and saline. Another plastic surgeon who has agreed to help editing also believes that someday the dangers will be proven, but right now the environment is very political -- and a ton of money has gone into 'proving' implants safe. So far, the only editor to help 'balance' it has been an outrageously POV plastic surgeon that refuses to admit any problems with implants. On other articles, he had also linked to his own personal website (which is forbidden on Wiki articles.) So please be patient, and take the time to read the history here. MollyBloom 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kasreyn, thank you for your kind comments. It was hard to lose that battle, because I sincerely believed that it was too hard on Luther. I was really upset, but I am at peace now. I think that it has made me a better person. I should have remembered the one lesson that I have learned in life, and that is "never feel threatened by anyone else if they think differently than you do." Much of the time our own private universes come crashing down on us if we notice that people think differently. People do think differently than I do, and it is not going to hurt me or destroy my universe. If it does destroy "my universe", then my universe is too small! We should embrace and celebrate diversity in our world! With kindest regards, -- Drboisclair 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope.. i sort of try to keep under their radar. They're not hard to find, though.. I just can't remember any. But yeah, this is insanely annoying. Dan 03:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kasreyn! Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Yes, I was affected by silicone implants. Shortening - omitting personal info. Thanks for indulging me in this.
PS. Did you see my user page? Do you like my comment about our Resident? MollyBloom 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
As to info about BI...I can send you a ton of information on them. Is there somewhere I can send it? MollyBloom 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is noted in several places and it is not a fixed number. In some areas it seems that consensus is reached at 80%. When you have 60+ votes on a CfD that is a lot of votes. For me, a consensus is something more that a few votes difference. Adding the 3 listify to the deletes is 28 and dropping the 3 new/anon votes from the keep gives you 31 not really a consensus. As to the criteria, that is something that should be decided on the discussion page for the category. Finally a result of no consensus in fact results in a keep since the category is not being deleted. Vegaswikian 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats par for the course for IsaacBrock. He has a history of removing dissenting opinions from his talk page and using passive agressive language in talk replies to people. I'm continuing to keep an eye on him. Syrthiss 11:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well most tools do require Windows to run. However, if you have Windows you have IE, and can use VandalProof. VandalProof just requires you to have IE, you can continue to use Firefox for your regular Wikipedia browsing. Prodego talk 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, sorry. mr_happyhour
Hi Kasreyn, I have spent the last two nights re-writing and re-structuring the ADHD article. Please take a minute (or three) and read over it and tell me what you think. Please, post your response on the ADHD talk page. *Kat* 06:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume you saw my remarks on Puck's discussion site? ave a great weekend! Rsm99833 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why you always appear in my bussiness? Please stop persecuting me. please
i beg you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.184.167.20 ( talk • contribs) .
I saw your comments on the U.S. Civil War on the GWB talk page and thought to take you up on your offer of discussions elsewhere. I am not into ad hominem’s and such, I prefer to offer well-reasoned analyses and participate in discussions on the merits of the topics themselves, so here goes:
My apologies for length, but you hit on a topic that I am very interested in. Take care, -- Easter Monkey 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kasreyn. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't think I was attacking you personally; I'm on "your side" in this debate, as I think anon's should be able to edit (most times, most places); I just hate seeing emotional pleas in place of actual facts and numbers. I know nobody probably has the accurate numbers I want; see also "most vandalism is reverted in five minutes or less" claim; I just got back from a meeting and reverted three 30+ minute old vandalisms on fairly mainstream topics. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Me and James go way back, we're just playful in our edit summaries. I know it was mispelled, I don't think he's a POV pusher, I doubt he thinks I'm a troll, we just mess around with each other... it's all in good fun :) -- kizzle 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, thanks for your note, it's no problem. You're actually not the first editor to be, at best, confused by some apparent incivility between kizzle and me. If either he or I were a responsible adult, we'd knock off the horseplay and settle down to the serious work of building an encylopedia. Hell hasn't yet frozen over, though. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to have an outside opinion on the changes I made there today. Full justification is on the talk page. When you get there, you'll see why. -- CTSWyneken 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Saw your comment a few days ago, unfortunately, my day job struck again...thanks for noticing, your quote page inspired me to revisit some of mine, and that was before you had posted your note to me. -- Easter Monkey 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
La frase es "grande vocabulario", mi amigo! Expreciónes de grandeza siempre son invertido.
Pero, no te preocupes, porque su español probablemente no es tan malo como mío por lo general. :) Fearwig 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource is indeed a member of the foundation. Wikisource serves a repository of sorts, it is not a source ala WP:RS per se, but when documents of known validity are availiable there, some editors prefer to link to those since they tend to be more stable.
Since the original document I cite in this instance, the Kitzmiller ruling, is uploaded there [2] and a link there is provide to the original court document [3] at the court's website, it's an acceptable use of wikisource. Hope that answers your question sufficiently; if not let me know. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
my comments were deleted from a talk page. this is an unpresedented act of stifling of open discourse at wikipedia and probably constitutes an abuse of whatever authority you possess. but aside from that i also found the hypocrisy astounding, as i was accused of making a "personal attack" in the midst of a section suggesting that what ann coulter wears and whether she's a transsexual should be added to an encyclopedia article. does this seem to demonstrate a lack of self-awareness or valuing of fairness in discourse on your part? please stay away from my contributions untill you've overcome these comprimises to your credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 ( talk • contribs) .
just wanted to say I've been here for a while and only recently starting noticing your extremely civil, helpful, and articule comments on the talk pages... its good to have you on board the political pages, as they can always use more level-headed people :) -- kizzle 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from this type of removal of helpful info. Thanks. Netscott 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: If you wish to comment on any material here, please add a comment to my main talk page, not here. Thanks, Kasreyn 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your post here, I request that you remain civil. I further request that you post here the exact words and the diff that you claim were a threat by the newbie. I also suggest that you assume good faith [1], which at this point I am making an effort to maintain myself. Doright 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts). -- CTSWyneken 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
T oquote you: "Wikipedia isn't here to put down anyone's particular "truth". If FSM makes you happy, great for you. But in creating FSM, Bobby Henderson intended it as a parody. The fact that you have chosen to take it seriously, or that some people you have known have chosen to take it seriously, is irrelevant to what FSM was intended for. If enough people took FSM seriously as a religion - and if we had a reliable, outside source on that number - then those who take FSM seriously could indeed be noted, though of course the parody's original purpose would still be notable and included. Kasreyn 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC) "
I chose not to bring this in the discussion board as it is leaving the area of the FSM and going someplace else. Anyway, what would you consider an reliable outside source? A list of signutures mailed to you? Perhaps people puting down FSM on the religion part of a survey. The national surveys are every how many years? Anyway I just wnated to know what you would consider a reliable outside source. I am just curious not attacking, you just curious. -- Codemartin 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I just saw your webpage. I also voted for Kerry because the alternative was worse. And we now know how bad 'worse' really is. The other articles I edit are the Wiki Law iProject (I am an attorney) and various political articles. As to the BI article -- yes, it is not balanced yet. There was an edit war, and a consensus agreed to 'freeze' it, while editing off-line (look at the off line articles). And the consensus was to discuss it first, and get input, before changing the off-line article. The reason there are some duplications is that eventually the article will be split into two articles.
The problem with the BI article is that initially it read like an advertisement for breast implants. I have a scientific (as well as a law) background, and I had silicone breast implants that ruptured. They were not removed for five years, and I became deathly ill. Yet there are plastic surgeons who insist that even rupture is not harmful. That is flatly untrue. I now work with women who have been harmed by breast implants - silicone and saline. Another plastic surgeon who has agreed to help editing also believes that someday the dangers will be proven, but right now the environment is very political -- and a ton of money has gone into 'proving' implants safe. So far, the only editor to help 'balance' it has been an outrageously POV plastic surgeon that refuses to admit any problems with implants. On other articles, he had also linked to his own personal website (which is forbidden on Wiki articles.) So please be patient, and take the time to read the history here. MollyBloom 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kasreyn, thank you for your kind comments. It was hard to lose that battle, because I sincerely believed that it was too hard on Luther. I was really upset, but I am at peace now. I think that it has made me a better person. I should have remembered the one lesson that I have learned in life, and that is "never feel threatened by anyone else if they think differently than you do." Much of the time our own private universes come crashing down on us if we notice that people think differently. People do think differently than I do, and it is not going to hurt me or destroy my universe. If it does destroy "my universe", then my universe is too small! We should embrace and celebrate diversity in our world! With kindest regards, -- Drboisclair 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope.. i sort of try to keep under their radar. They're not hard to find, though.. I just can't remember any. But yeah, this is insanely annoying. Dan 03:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kasreyn! Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Yes, I was affected by silicone implants. Shortening - omitting personal info. Thanks for indulging me in this.
PS. Did you see my user page? Do you like my comment about our Resident? MollyBloom 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
As to info about BI...I can send you a ton of information on them. Is there somewhere I can send it? MollyBloom 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is noted in several places and it is not a fixed number. In some areas it seems that consensus is reached at 80%. When you have 60+ votes on a CfD that is a lot of votes. For me, a consensus is something more that a few votes difference. Adding the 3 listify to the deletes is 28 and dropping the 3 new/anon votes from the keep gives you 31 not really a consensus. As to the criteria, that is something that should be decided on the discussion page for the category. Finally a result of no consensus in fact results in a keep since the category is not being deleted. Vegaswikian 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats par for the course for IsaacBrock. He has a history of removing dissenting opinions from his talk page and using passive agressive language in talk replies to people. I'm continuing to keep an eye on him. Syrthiss 11:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well most tools do require Windows to run. However, if you have Windows you have IE, and can use VandalProof. VandalProof just requires you to have IE, you can continue to use Firefox for your regular Wikipedia browsing. Prodego talk 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, sorry. mr_happyhour
Hi Kasreyn, I have spent the last two nights re-writing and re-structuring the ADHD article. Please take a minute (or three) and read over it and tell me what you think. Please, post your response on the ADHD talk page. *Kat* 06:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume you saw my remarks on Puck's discussion site? ave a great weekend! Rsm99833 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why you always appear in my bussiness? Please stop persecuting me. please
i beg you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.184.167.20 ( talk • contribs) .
I saw your comments on the U.S. Civil War on the GWB talk page and thought to take you up on your offer of discussions elsewhere. I am not into ad hominem’s and such, I prefer to offer well-reasoned analyses and participate in discussions on the merits of the topics themselves, so here goes:
My apologies for length, but you hit on a topic that I am very interested in. Take care, -- Easter Monkey 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kasreyn. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't think I was attacking you personally; I'm on "your side" in this debate, as I think anon's should be able to edit (most times, most places); I just hate seeing emotional pleas in place of actual facts and numbers. I know nobody probably has the accurate numbers I want; see also "most vandalism is reverted in five minutes or less" claim; I just got back from a meeting and reverted three 30+ minute old vandalisms on fairly mainstream topics. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Me and James go way back, we're just playful in our edit summaries. I know it was mispelled, I don't think he's a POV pusher, I doubt he thinks I'm a troll, we just mess around with each other... it's all in good fun :) -- kizzle 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, thanks for your note, it's no problem. You're actually not the first editor to be, at best, confused by some apparent incivility between kizzle and me. If either he or I were a responsible adult, we'd knock off the horseplay and settle down to the serious work of building an encylopedia. Hell hasn't yet frozen over, though. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to have an outside opinion on the changes I made there today. Full justification is on the talk page. When you get there, you'll see why. -- CTSWyneken 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Saw your comment a few days ago, unfortunately, my day job struck again...thanks for noticing, your quote page inspired me to revisit some of mine, and that was before you had posted your note to me. -- Easter Monkey 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
La frase es "grande vocabulario", mi amigo! Expreciónes de grandeza siempre son invertido.
Pero, no te preocupes, porque su español probablemente no es tan malo como mío por lo general. :) Fearwig 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource is indeed a member of the foundation. Wikisource serves a repository of sorts, it is not a source ala WP:RS per se, but when documents of known validity are availiable there, some editors prefer to link to those since they tend to be more stable.
Since the original document I cite in this instance, the Kitzmiller ruling, is uploaded there [2] and a link there is provide to the original court document [3] at the court's website, it's an acceptable use of wikisource. Hope that answers your question sufficiently; if not let me know. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
my comments were deleted from a talk page. this is an unpresedented act of stifling of open discourse at wikipedia and probably constitutes an abuse of whatever authority you possess. but aside from that i also found the hypocrisy astounding, as i was accused of making a "personal attack" in the midst of a section suggesting that what ann coulter wears and whether she's a transsexual should be added to an encyclopedia article. does this seem to demonstrate a lack of self-awareness or valuing of fairness in discourse on your part? please stay away from my contributions untill you've overcome these comprimises to your credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 ( talk • contribs) .
just wanted to say I've been here for a while and only recently starting noticing your extremely civil, helpful, and articule comments on the talk pages... its good to have you on board the political pages, as they can always use more level-headed people :) -- kizzle 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from this type of removal of helpful info. Thanks. Netscott 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)