User talk:Lordkazan

In general, one should not remove warnings from talk pages, as sanctions only come after a certain number of warnings, depending on the egregiousness of the violation. If someone is known to remove warnings from talk pages, it may considered grounds for blocking and page protection (see {{wr4}} ). There are other sysops who may disagree, but currently, editors have been blocked and their talk pages protected from editing if they remove warnings (usually recidivists) for "disruption" as it interferes with the administrative duties of protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism. Just a word to the wise. You may instead wish to archive everything on your page, instead of deleting it, and leave a link to the archive on the talk page. This way, the record is there without having to do a history search, but your talk page remains 99.44% clear .-- Avi 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uncalled for

Your enemy now and forever is a disgusting sentiment. What has Jake done to you?! If you have issues with your parents, wikipedia is NOT the place for you to get therapy; seek professional help. Regardless, either revert that attack, or you will be blocked. -- Avi 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what you DEMAND but only in protest of your behavior.

He asked for the commentary on his page. Stating that someone is my enemy is not a disgusting sentiment. What is a disgusting sentiment is his pov-pushing, data-blocking he engages in under the guises of removing supposed vandalism. While I may disagree with studies that support circumcision, I don't advocate censoring them, merely posting the criticism of them. He censors information that disagrees with him and claims that he's reverting vandalism when he removes information that disagrees with him.

His issues with his decision to voluntarily be circumcised are issues he needs to deal with himself, not by poisoning the information on wikipedia to propagate the victimization of minors.

Furthermore your "seek professional help" comment is argumentum ad hominem in vioaltion of the wikipedia policy on personal attacks and I will not tolerate it from an adminsitrator has been abusive to me all day and demanding that I remove simple statements of being his enemy. Feeling victimized by having your genitals altered is not a mental disorder and cannot be characterized as such by any medical professional as there is an actual issue of mutilation involved. Consult a pyschological dictionary before attempting to state that someone has a mental issue - out of the three of us I can gaurantee I am the sane one as I HAVE undergoen and entire barrage of intelligence and mental health testing when I was a minor (long before I found out the effects of circ)

I expect an apology from you, and you to enforce wikipedia rules on him to stop him from censoring information he disagrees with or I'm going straight to Jimbo Wales Lordkazan 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks my statement does NOT constitute a personal attack and in making your demand you have just abused your administrator powers. I will not tolerate this as you have been a partisan force in the debate in Talk:circumcision and have not enforced wikipedia policy on user jakew as he has been engaged in censoring information he considers dissenting Lordkazan 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood me. My point was wikipedia is no substitute for therapy. If you wish to work out any issues you should do so in the proper channels. I did not mean to imply that I thought you needed help; rather that if this was your method (based on your long statement on Jake's page) it was improper. I apologize if you interpreted it differently. -- Avi 19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any possible way for it to be interpreted then how I interpreted it. Furthermore as far as I can tell the statement doesn't constitute a personal attack according to wikipedia policy - either in letter or in spirit. Stating that I am his enemy as he has been censoring information on wikipedia to further an agenda isn't a disgusting sentiment. I am anti-circ, I've statement why very clearly, but all I'ved asked to go into the content page is BALANCED information - criticism of studies to show both sides of the story, and counter-studies. Both have been blocked, some of it by hiding behind the OR policy, part of it just by flat out ignoring the published criticism or reposting other things as if they invalidate the criticism when they do not. Lordkazan 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust your expectations Lordkazan

Wiki does not aim for fair, it is a process through which those in positions of authority (the ability to waste inordinate amounts of time) foist their POV on others. Dissenting opinions are rarely included in this place. RapidlyOxidizingMaterial 23:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Secondly, in my judgement, Jake has been behaving within the guidelines, whearas you have commentary regarding how you believe published information is wrong, such as I find this policy to be utter bullocks…, Given the history of this research all being as reliable as cold fusion claims, I still don't believe them - there are pretty clear methodological flaws in it…, and "non-theraputic" includes "ritual and religious" whether the AMA would like to admit it or not to name some, are in my opinion, indications that you find wikipedia policy and guidelines as an impediment, as opposed to the requirements. Talk pages sometimes get heated, but we MUST edit within the guidelines. For example, I believe Jake has a point when he said of all the 40 or 50 observational studies, why that one? and suggested that reviews of many papers are better. One can ALWAYS cherry pick a source. However, that does not mean to say that the paper in question will not get entered, rather, that it requires discussion. You should understand are entering into an article that has been under much controversy for months, if not longer, and which has been subject to much POV pushing, from both sides. We will all be better off if we can discuss the issues reasonably. -- Avi 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a wikipedia policy is protecting bad studies from getting their criticisms posted right along side them on wikipedia then wikipedia policy is harming wikipedia. Wikipedia's information should be NONBIASED - and in this case the original research policy is impeeding that. Jake has a pretty clear history of censoring information that disagrees with him, and you're enabling him. Furthermore he's pretty clearly shown that he considers that study absolutely written in stone "truth from god" and won't hear the criticisms no matter how valid. I go up to with study with skepticism due to the history of studies on the field, and I find serious flaws with this study. I see circumcision as genital mutilation BECAUSE of the total lack of data that gives a medical reason for it to be performed - even this study, if it's 100% correct, doesn't change that as condoms easily do a much better job. I pulled that source because it's current - that's the only reason i'm citing that source - if I wanted to go dig I could find more - however the wikipedia page completely lacks ANY SERIOUS MENTION of the dissenting studies - that is an NPOV violation! Lordkazan 20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think isolating and focusing your approach would help. I see three basic types of circumcision:

Medically necessary
Religious/Ritualistically necessary
Elective

If you want to bring reliable sourced and studies regarding any one or more of these, then they have to support each separate case. Most major medical organizations agree that there exist some circumstances that warrant circumcision, albeit they may be rare. Also, most organizations are unwilling to render decisions about religious matters, and when they are discussing "routine" they mean the last, totally elective, category. I don't think anyone will argue that no one recommends that any longer.

Now, if yo have papers that state specifically that they think it is criminal to have religious circumcision (even Sweden allows it, under many restrictions), by all means list them.

Also, there is the concept of proportional representation (see WP:NPOV). If the BMA, AMA, CMAJ, etc. all say one thing, and one paper says another the former should get more weight, regardless of thesis, because it represents more established and notable sources. That does not mean to say no mention should be made, but that the article has to be balanced with the preponderance of reliable and verifiable sources. -- Avi 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there are MANY reliable sources that all those organizations cite that go against circumcision. furthermore this "proportional representation" thing just makes wikipedia a tool of the establishment even if it's wrong - and 2 and 3 are both reprehensible - religion is not a valid grounds to foist your medical opinions onto your children under the law in the USA as desmontrated by the fact that people who don't believe in medical attention of any kind go to jail for not giving their children the medical care they need - Circumcision is the only situation in which healthy tissue is removed from a child on parents preference. All other proceedures that remove or alter heathy tissue are illegal to perform on minors. BTW Points 2%3 are ILLEGAL in Finland! http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rules+circumcision+of+four-year-old+boy+illegal/1135220958830

Proportional representation is being used as a bludgeon to toe the establishment line of "cut up boys genitals" when the scientific evidence shows no good reason to do so - the establishment position is strongly supported by the existing wikipedia article Lordkazan 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint

I've removed your complaint from User talk:Jimbo Wales [1]. Please make an effort to resolve your dispute in the normal way. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but who are you to be removing content from other people's talk pages? Lordkazan 13:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

For example, see here. Jakew 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone on what authority they are removing content from people's talk pages DOES NOT constitute a personal attack. Perhaps you should read up on the wikipedia rules and stop attempting to use them to push your POV - This is YOUR final warning. Next time you abuse wikipedia rules in any manner (including posting bogus warnings on my page) i will go to the arbitration board and request your immediately and irrevocable ban Lordkazan 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a "mindless zealot" is a personal attack. It is not an abuse of Wikipedia rules to tell you so, but if you want to request arbitration, go ahead. It would probably be unwise from your perspective to draw the arbitrators' attention to your behaviour, but the choice is yours. Jakew 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise buddy, I may be HONEST in my opinion about you, however you have been censorsing wikipedia articles to intentionally violate the NPOV rule by dogging the other two primary rules and outright refusing to allow content to go into pages and vandalizing them stating that you are removing vandalism. If it comes down between someone making statements about a censorist, and the censorist I'd be the arbitration committed would give me a 1 week suspension and you a lifetime one. Furthermore the fact that you're dogging my edits makes me believe you're stalking me - you're not an adminsitrator, following users around is not your job. Lordkazan 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no interest in stalking you, but as it happens, Tony Sidaway's user talk page is on my watchlist, and so I happened to see your comment.

I'm sorry that you have such a mistaken belief about my actions, including the sustained belief that I refer to vandalism in spite of the fact that I have already explained that I do no such thing. Regardless of your beliefs, you must not make personal attacks. There are no excuses. It's as simple as that. If you do, you're likely to find yourself blocked. Jakew 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken belief? excuse me i'll go back and find reverts by you and start pointing out of diffs if i have to. furthermore one look at your user page and the warnings on it shows that you've been involved in a fair bit of vandalism and there are 10s if not over 100 editors on wikipedia who have independantly accused you of intentionally violating the NPOV rule and vandalizing pages. There is no excuse for your censorship, and if you continue you are likely to find yourself blocked. Now get off my talk page. Lordkazan 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

You've received a number of personal attack warnings before. Now I see this on your user page: "You crawl back down your little hole and eat shit and die". There are absolutely no circumstances under which such language is acceptable. Period.

Normally I'd block someone for a week for that sort of behavior. Since this was in response to your user page being vandalized, and since I can understand why that upsets you, I have only blocked you for a day. If I see similar sentiments from you in the future — with or without profanity — you should expect the next block to be much, much longer.

Regards, Nandesuka 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking sections of my user page constitutes vandalism, you could instead of simply asked me to remove the one sentance. Lordkazan 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not vandalism; the entire paragraph was tainted. You are free, obviously, to rewrite it in a way that does not constitute a personal attack. Nandesuka 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal 67.72.98.87

Eric Robert Rudolph and it's talk page are not the only things this user has vandalized from the looks of his contrib page. Please review his edit history for any other vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordkazan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed sorry. -- Netsnipe ► 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok - i'm also posting a link to his contribs on his user talk page where a bunch of people are congregating Lordkazan 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Simply for not giving up, and good work. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! thanks :D

Eric Robert Rudolph

Whoa dude, i was removing vandalism made by another user your blocked. Lordkazan 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! You edit conflicted me before I could remove the misplaced block notice. Sorry. -- Netsnipe ► 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User Tags

Of course. First of all, visit the page Wikipedia:Userboxes. If you're not satisfied with the resluts, go to the template page of a user box that looks the most like the one you want ( e.g. Template:user CVU3-en for {{user CVU3-en}} ) and see how it's made through the Edit The Page option. Once there, copy it to your user page and change what you want (use the Show Preview option a lot). Ripping off parts of other people's work is how I learned : ). --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, a two-fer

Thanks for your helpful note. I`m pleased to know that your complete lack of understanding of the religious significance of circumcision and the pride you take in your unwillingness to learn have not gotten in the way of you publishing strong views on the subject. You are a bigot.Dasondas 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the significance, that doesn't mean I have to accept it or approve of it, nor does it mean I have to allow it to be performed on others without their consent. Your repeated personal attacks have been reported Lordkazan 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descent: FreeSpace

Hi, please see Talk:Descent: FreeSpace#link removal for why public distribution of FS2 is still illegal. --Kjoonlee 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The things you mentioned are not very relevant; WP:C says we shouldn't do it. --Kjoonlee 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is de jure illegal. --Kjoonlee 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Derek_Smart

Regarding your entry, would you consider re-editting it to cool down the tone? Someone is bound to issue the entry a WP:CIV warning as it stands. Thanks. -- Tomlouie | talk 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya, no argument from me. I think it's clear that facts and cooler heads are on your side. Thanks for taking it down a notch. Cheers. -- Tomlouie | talk 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]