User talk:Haizum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haizum's Sovereign Talk Page

[edit] 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)

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. Haizum

[edit] Unblock request

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Trolling

Hi Haizum, thanks for your message. I wanted to reply to you without undue delay. I have looked at the diffs you provided as well as a few others from the history of your talk page and Gerard's talk page. I don't have time right now to go re-read all the policies, so please take this as a quick reply, not a completely authoritative one. It is my understanding that a user generally has broad latitude to remove any post from their own talk page. The obvious exception would be something like a note putting them on notice about vandalism. This is very different from removing someone else's post on an article talk page, or on a third parties's talk page.
Therefore, I think you would be within your rights to remove Gerard's note from your talk page, and he would likewise be within his rights to remove your note from his talk page.
Neither of you should remove the other's comments from an article or policy talk page unless there is something really egregious about that post. Something truly libelous, for example.
Did this start out with you accussing him of trolling? That is the impresion I get, though I haven't found it in the history. If so, then it is my opinion that saying someone is trolling is not a personal attack. Therefore, in my opinion, his message saying to avoid personal attacks was not really warranted.
Again, I believe you are well within your rights to delete or archive his comments off your own talk page, if you desire.
That is my understanding and my opinion at this time. I can take more time later to look into it further and to point you to precise policy statements if you need me to.
I think you can be pretty confident though, since he deleted your comments off his talk page, that he can't complain if you delete his comments off your talk page. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting that allows linking to images and moving them further down the page. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 10:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a friendly hello

Wow Haizum, you've been quite busy lately. Anyhows, glad that you're still on and trucking along despite all the weird stuff that has apparently been going on with you and your talk page. Anyhows, just wanted to say hi. Later. --LifeStar 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Fascism

An obviously biased (15 year old - literally[1]) admin (Sceptre) reverted my edits that were being warred against (mainly a Disputed tag), then immediately protected the page even though a Protect isn't supposed to be an edorsement of a version.[2] Block first and ask questions later; that's the policy of the Wikipedia Admin? Hey, it's not like I haven't been blocked unfairly before (see above). Haizum 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked for disruption, which was then extended for your continued incivility. Please see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Haizum. You're welcome to return when the block expires and edit productively. Shell ^babelfish 11:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO. I will not accept these fallacies. Citing my past blocks has nothing to do with this. One of those blocks was misunderstanding, the other two were from the same Admin because he didn't like me putting (*) beside his comments on MY talk page. Furthermore, as you can see on the page you just linked, the Admin that blocked me EXTENTED THE BLOCK TO AN ENTIRE WEEK simply because I listed the reasons why he should not have protected the page I was working on (I emailed them to him, and he called it "abusive"). This is blatant Admin abuse. Unfortunately, the logic around here is that if you have ever been blocked before, regardless of the reason, you're no better than a felon. The facts mean nothing anymore. This is fascism. Haizum 20:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

From "Page Protection Policy":

1."These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful."

2."Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism."

3."If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute."

1. You protected a page because of a Dispute tag. 99% of the disputed section was left unchanged, yet you claim I was warring...for ADDING material.

2. You edited the page the way you wanted to see it before you protected it. I will make sure this is burned into your record.

3. You made no attempt to resolve the dispute. You protected the page in its POV form after DELIBERATELY removing the Dispute tag.

You failed. You failed. You failed."

This haD triggered me to lengthen the block to a week. Will (E@) T 11:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) <----Sceptre

[edit] Indefinite Block

Block Log

May I ask which email I sent caused you to make my block indefinite and why? I wasn't even in town this weekend.

Also, I don't think "venom" is cause for an indefinite block...unless of course I was making a personal attack (which you should point out and make transparent to the rest of the Admins).

If I don't receive an explanation, I'll have to refer this question to another Admin, because again, I wasn't even in town this weekend to email you. I'm pretty sure it isn't authorized, or ethical, to retroactively add block time for a past offense, so you're going to have to point out exactly what warranted the highly unusual "indefinite block." Haizum 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

I've lowered it to 8 days. Will (^E_@) T 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You set it to a week after the last email I sent you (the last one you made transparent), then two days later you set it at 8 days. Why was it ever raised to indefinite. Which email caused this. Can you not explain your use of block power? Haizum 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting (nullify by edit) my {{unblock}} tag, I am seeking a consensus decision. You shouldn't be afraid of that if nothing was done wrong. Haizum 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Via email (proof will be provided upon reqest): It was the one sent 8pm BST 04/06/06 calling me fascist -Sceptre

My response to this via email: I said the actions that keep me from defending myself publicly are facist. I am entitled to say such a thing. It is not a personal attack. I never said, "you are a facist." You need to make that email public. You can be sure I will once the block lifts...unless you can find more abuse/personal attacks in this email. There aren't any. Haizum 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Call me an insane-disruptive-troll-vandal, but I think an indefinite block for using a label is a bit of a strech. I must also note that the exact email has not been made public. As far as I recall, I called my entire punishment (and inability to publicly defend myself) fascist, which is my opinion, not a personal attack. Haizum 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's soooo tempting. Derex 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizium, you need to calm down. The block has been shortened to 8 days. I will not be shortened futher. I have reviewed your unblock request and decided not to unblock you. I have therefore removed your unblock request. Take a break, cool off and comeback next week. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 04:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is unbelievable!

I can't believe what I'm seeing! Long before I started editing seriously enough to get a username of my own, I had a lot of respect for Wikipedia as an organization with a benevolent, fair administration. Now I'm seeing things, like the permanent blockage of User:PennyGWoods for use of the one-word sentence "Die." (which I quoted on my userpage and was admonished for doing so) And now User:Sandover has managed to manipulate the perhaps overtasked admins into quashing Haizum's contributions by painting himself as a pure victim on the report abuse page. For whatever reason - I'd guess it's due to overtasking rather than intentional abuse - all the admins involved don't seem to be taking the time to look at the context of all this. Haizum says someone "fails", clearly a remark that is relevant to this whole blocking issue, and he gets NPA-blocked for it. He calls the admin policies fascist, and the admin assumes Haizum is calling him fascist, rather than the actions being taken here. It's almost as if the admins are just looking for reasons to shut him up so they don't have to deal with him anymore. That's not what blocking is supposed to be about; if you don't have the time to "investigate" or whatever thoroughly, don't go blocking people! And maybe some of you should go and read the Laura Ingraham talk page and see who's really abusing the edit function there.

You might say that this is none of my business, but I'm becoming more and more interested in admin accountability, and I'm seeing more and more that admins seem to be more oriented toward achieving quiet than justice. Haizum, unless you object, I wanna list you as an example of admin abuse on my user page; it probably won't make a difference, but this is the sort of thing I do to vent off feelings of blatant injustice. If you don't want me to, feel free to edit my user page to delete it. Karwynn 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people should spend more time editing pages rather than even muttering "fascist", "die", or anything of the like, regardless of what it's directed towards. --kizzle 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would if I wasn't blocked. In fact, I usually try to contribute via discussion on the talk page, and a lot of my frustration came from Sandover ignoring my concerns and jumping straight into edits. Haizum 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you're saying people should just gloss over any possible unfairness, because these Users are "wasting time"? People ought to just edit quietly and fall in line, not questioning the edits of others or admin decisions? Besides, there's more than "fascist" and "die" to these blocks; just read the block logs and tlak pages. Are you also too busy to look at the full context? I suppose it's much easier to just address a random part of what's going on. This is exactly what I'm talking about. How convenient that another minor example has cropped in the very section I created... Karwynn 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not an admin, so no, I'm not another example. I'm not familliar enough with why you're blocked, all I'm trying to say is attributing it to "fascism" doesn't exactly help your case. Keep calm and civil in the face of what you perceive to be irrational behavior. Take a breather, come back when your relatively short block expires, and if you get blocked again, hit me up and if I agree with you that it's unfair, I'll try to help your case. Just try to keep civil even if you believe a wrong was committed against you, that's all I ask. --kizzle 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your rationale, Kizzle. Although a warning or 24 hour ban would have been preferable, the situation escalated because, in my opinion, Sandover was for the most part refusing to acknowledge the points I was making. I was also frustrated by the fact that my very small additions/omissions were being completely reverted while I allowed his entire section to remain essentially intact. On top of that, the POV tag that I inserted (for both the anti-gay blurb and Sandover's edits) was being removed again and again without dialog. This was especially annoying because the tag was also intended for content that Sandover had nothing to do with. Even though I initially added the POV tag and explained it, I was in part banned for a 3RR, again, even though no one bothered to explain why it shouldn't be there. At that point, I was pretty comfortable calling the whole incident "fascistic" simply because the editors/Admins were moving along without me while silencing me by force. Haizum 01:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AAARGH!!! It's the same thing AGAIN! My point wasn't that you were and example because you were an admin, you were an example because you just ignored all context and just focused on the words, nnot caring about HOW they were used. ANd now you choose to focus on the fact that you're NOT an admin, so you're NOT an example! ANd nthen what? You suggest a solution to the problem: calm down. Settle down. Take a break. Accept the inevitable, you're making trouble. Just conform and quit making waves. AAAAAAARRRGH!!!!!! Karwynn 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see you're back.

Hey. Just wanted to let you know I agree with 99.99% of what you say and I even like the way you say it. Unfortunately, wiki has rules against rubbing people's faces in their own bias/pov. We need you around to counter the liberal bias and you can't do that if you don't "play by the rules", so please do. Lawyer2b 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin problems plus re:Thanks

No problem, 'm glad to see that you're back. People who are combatting Wikibias need all the help they can get, although there's not terribly much that can be done about it. Take a look at this: User_talk:BigDaddy777#The_Wikipedia_That_Was. That's the section of his talk page that was declared "the nail on the coffin" in the arbitration.

And better yet, this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777

Found this off a link from that kizzle guy's userPage. Make no mistake about it, this guy wasn't banned for the stuff they said he was, it was just for being out of line and persstent attempts to eliminate bias in political figures' articles. There were admins all over his user talk page, shamelessly calling him a troll, labeling his defenses as badgering, and even blatantly calling him stupid. My point? I can't even find the words to describe the lack of freedom of thought around here. I've been scouting for banned accounts (other than obvious vandals), and I'm getting really angry about all the people who were banned for not being Monty Python addicts who sit and drink weak tea with their pinkies in the air. THere are some serious, serious problems in the admin population as well as the way arbitrations are done. The accused don't even really get a chance to defend themselves. look at the way the "evidence" is presented in that arbitration: it's full of editorializing and commentary. "And then, the nail in the cofffin:" "This is what really crossed the line". YOu can tell just by looking at ANY of these arbitrations that all the users involved have no regard for the rules that are supposedly being broken; they've all just got a personal stake in who's being banned.

What I really wanted to say was that I've poked around Sceptre's (Will's) User page and am deeply disturbed... he says outright that he'll penalize some infractions of the same rule (personal attacks) based on the sensitive nature of the attack. Plus, he says point-blank that if anyone attacks him, they'll get blocked on the spot. That's not really the way it's supposed to be dealt with. And the way he handled the Laura Ingraham thing - from removing the POV tag, to restoring a version he preferred before protecting it, to protecting it in the first place - was highly inappropriate. So was the way he banned you. Take a look at this reference for indefinete blocks (aka bans): WP:BAN#Decision_to_ban He can't just ban you without some sort of consensus or something, but he did anyway. This guy's gotta go, and if I try to bring up a complaint, they'll tell me to shut up because it's none of my business. But if you were to complain to someone, I'd definitely do what I could (which I don't think would be much unfortunately). If you're not going to though, let me know and I'll find someone to complain to. These kind of edtors are a major hindrance to free editing and countering bias. Karwynn 16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Make no mistake about it, this guy wasn't banned for the stuff they said he was, it was just for being out of line and persstent attempts to eliminate bias in political figures' articles. There were admins all over his user talk page, shamelessly calling him a troll, labeling his defenses as badgering, and even blatantly calling him stupid. My point? I can't even find the words to describe the lack of freedom of thought around here

Please. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Did you see the second link with the evidence I provided against BigDaddy? There are rules (NOT guidelines) of conduct and civility around here. BigDaddy was not banned for expressing an alternative viewpoint, he was banned for consistently attacking his co-editors and engaging in a plethora of ad hominem attacks rather than relying on the merits of his arguments. If you believe certain articles are biased, then please engage with your co-editors in a civil manner and present arguments using sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, and you'll be fine. As long as you focus on the content and not the editor, and do so in a polite and civil manner, I think you'll find your co-editors to be more than willing to listen to your viewpoint. --kizzle 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may put in my $.02. First, please take into consideration that, per Sceptre's (Will's) User page, he's only 15 years old. Second, as much as I adore Hazium, he was acting uncivilly. He's comments were pretty funny and mostly on the mark, but they were snide and overall obnoxious i.e. uncivil; and you can get banned for doing that as much as he did. Lawyer2b 01:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Regarding the bigdaddy incident, he had the same problem. He was smart and was accurate a lot, but he the waaaaaaaay he went about things was uncivil. Does that mean that people didn't want to get rid of him simply due to his political beliefs? No, of course some did. But if you know the rules and still violate them...and then find them used as an excuse to get you banned you are still to blame. Was that $.04? ;-) Lawyer2b 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

BigDaddy was certainly out of line, but when you see people GLOATING about him being banned, you know it wasn't just about the rules. If someone, for example, was gloating about it by including it near the top of their userpage almost a year after the fact, it's no longer about upholding the rules. It's about personal triumph and victory over the other person. No one in that situation was being civil; they were all acting like jerks to the same extent from what I read, yet only one got any punishment. And I still insist that editorializing the evidence presented before the accused even is able to put in his input is grossly unfair. And the point about his political beliefs was that his persistence was seen as trolling, and I guarantee it wouldn't have been if it had been the other way around. in fact, it takes two (or more) to edit war, but funny... I didn't see anyone else being called stupid or a troll.

However, the original point of this was to suggest a complaint about User:Sceptre and talk about general admin unfairness, not bring up old (though important) trash. If anyone wants to further admonish me about BigDaddy777, as they're welcome to do so, please take it to my talk page; I'm sure Haizum doesn't want me cluttering up his board. If I'm missing something about that incident (entirely possible, since it happened so long ago), I'd rather be corrected than be wrong, so don't hesitate. Karwynn 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Continued at your talk page. --kizzle 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, thanks guys. Haizum 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Ingraham

The disputes are being renewed! If your still interested in the direction of this article, your input is welcome!  :-) Karwynn 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Añoranza

I _tried_ to make it clear that I didn't have a problem with the text finally being reverted to what it was on June 16th, I would just like to NOT see the edit wars over military operation code names (which I also see are used very inconsistently - German operation names from World War II are used as article titles, but not American ones from that era onward, for the most part, but I'll leave that up to military buffs to debate and decide) turn up on completely unrelated pages. And I didn't want to see this particular little skirmish, on a page for the Capitol Steps of all people, escalate into a larger edit war. --JohnDBuell 06:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is up with Sandover

Hey, it is Karwynn, and I cannot type apostrophes or tildaes, so I will not be using contractions or signing this.

Just wondering what came of the Adminship regarding Sandover.

Waaaa? He's up for adminship? Christ on a bike. Haizum 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA no I meant your reporting of him to the admins. Geez, sorry to scare you like that. Karwynn 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just found out: YOur complaint was automatically archived before getting a response. I re-posted it, assuming I had your blessing. if you want it dropped, you can wipe it off though. Karwynn 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative notice board

Hi Haizum. Thanks for your offer of help. Please join the deletion review atWikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board and invite anyone else you think might be interested in having the notice board. --Facto 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Thanks for the pinch :) ←ΣcoPhreek  _OIF 07:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the advice. ← ΣcoPhreek _OIF 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On another topic

How about this as a compromise? ← ΣcoPhreek _OIF 14:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place Your Bets

I feel I have implemented too much logic and critical thinking on the Haditha killings talk page, therefore I expect to be blocked by an admin that either doesn't agree, or who was completely shot down by bolts of logic.

Bets will be accepted upon a timestamp.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Good luck. Haizum 02:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bear community/Your continued attitude on Wikipedia

Hi there. I recently read your comments on the talk page of the Bear Community article, and I was very disturbed by your behaviour and comments there. Firstly, I was extremely put off by the fact that you were commenting on a topic about which you clearly know nothing. In point of fact you obviously didn't even read the article, which refutes your suggestion that "The term "bear" doesn't mean anything in the context of the gay community." That is, quite literally, a statemnt of ignorance. If the references provided in the text of the article weren't adequate enough for you, you are welcome to visit pages such as bear411.com or bearwww.com, with thousands of members each, and you can converse with them to further educate yourself on the bear community and what it means.

Clearly you and I have idealogical differences, but what concerns me is your seeming need to treat others poorly here on Wikipedia. Besides talking about things you don't understand as if you do, you lash out at other Wikipedians because you think they're stupid, or because you disagree with them. It appears you have been called out on this before, but based on your comments at Bear community, it seems like nothing has changed.

I would like to hear your explanation for why you said the things you said at that article, and why you lashed out at the other Wikipedians in the way that you did. Everyone deserves a chance to explain themselves, and I myself have even lost my temper with other users, though I am quick to admit it and apologize. You seem like, overall, a constructive user, but you can't simply visit articles about topics you dislike or don't understand and make an assertion that they are vanity entries or that they should be merged. This is destructive, and is causes disruption.

I eagerly await what will surely be a polite, even-tempered and well thought out response to my inquiry. With thanks... Pacian 03:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pacian, you had the audacity to confront me on my talk page about a topic that I gave up on weeks if not months ago, then after I then reiterate my stance with a little sarcasm you try to open an RFC on me? Any veteran Wikipedian will suggest you grow some thicker skin. It's also a bit melodramatic to repeatedly cite my "ideology" when logic takes the place of political affiliation in my world. How did you come to that conclusion? Simply because I challenged the veracity of a gay-related article, all of a sudden I'm a neocon-bible-thumper? I'm afraid that makes you more POV (and violating WP:AGF) than it makes me "fiercely conservative." Oh, so you were going by my user boxes? Right? Oh, well I'm afraid it clearly says "this user is politically moderate." Since there isn't any evidence for the statement "Haizum has some fiercely conservative beliefs," I must conclude that it was conceived from your own POV, and is therefore a personal attack. Reading further, I don't appreciate your suggestion that I be banned, which may be a violation of policy in itelf. Oh, and if it wasn't clear the first time...I don't want to talk about the "Bear" community, unless of course we are talking about real bears. Haizum 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked

As you pointed so well, your refusal to assume good faith and incivility have earned you a 48h block. Have a nice week. Circeus 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable, this is a politically motivated, retroactive block. It either involves the completely harmless comments above, or a harmless debate that I left peacefully weeks ago. I'm contesting this, and I will follow through with peer review regarding your actions when the block is lifted. Haizum 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it involves mostly the comment you aim at kizzle on User:Pacian's talk page and (indeed) the incivil and bad-faith assuming comments at Haditha killings. You have a long block history that just recently was "resolved". Harrassing an admin outside wikipedia is not encourageing background. Circeus 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, blatantly retroactive and politically motivated (you have failed to rebut). Kizzle and I have spirited debates all the time, and nothing I directed at kizzle on Pacian's talk page was a personal attack. I was just suprised to see him instantaneously comment on the same page that I was commenting on. As for the Haditha page, many users expressed their POV stance by their own admission, not to mention the fact that I made those statements...what...how long ago? I should add 'trolling for violations' to the list. You could probably go back to the week I registered and find something to subjectively block me for. Haizum 06:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my 48hr block was "mainly" for kizzle, do you have my user contributions bookmarked or something? What's the deal? Haizum 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC). It's impossible to justify that block especially when one knows my relationship with kizzle. Haizum 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

On this one point I will agree with Haizum, if you're blocking him for what he said to me then by all means unblock him, as that was not a personal attack (maybe a bit paranoid, but nothing even close to a blockable offense). Maybe there are other reasons to block him, but don't block him based upon a simple question asking if I was stalking his contrib list. --kizzle 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kizzle. So now it looks like I was blocked for responding to a comment left on my talk page regarding a debate that I left peacefully weeks ago without any lasting influence. How many times will Pacian call me 'ignorant' before anyone notices? Haizum 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that you are a bit intolerant at least by trivializing what seems to be (and I've never even heard of them until today) a legitimate sub-group of gay people, and making sarcastic comments that you could start your own group. However, that's just my opinion, but the block IMHO is totally unwarranted. If the block is because of me, then I want the equivalent of not pressing charges. --kizzle 06:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatevver your common history, haizum clearly assumed bad faith on your part when you were being civil and making a perfectly legitimate comment. His otehr comments on the talk are not exactly civil or assuming good faith either. Circeus 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree, I was commenting on a user's talk page about a subject I had never participated in before, thus Haizum's initial feeling that I was stalking him was justified. After I explained that I had been led there by the discussion on his userpage, he simply continued dialog. Nothing about any of these events assumed bad faith on my part or deserves a block, let alone a 48-hour block. --kizzle 06:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing was started on my talk page with the following...

a topic about which you clearly know nothing -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That is, quite literally, a statemnt of ignorance. -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

to further educate yourself -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

your seeming need to treat others poorly here on Wikipedia -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to unblock Haizum based on several reasons. kizzle's comments above. A seemingly harsh 48 hours. We don't block as punishment. Some of the reasons given are fairly weak. But if any incivility takes place going forward, the block will be reinstated. Any problems with this? Let's all just play nice. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

you the man, LV. --kizzle 06:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll keep a low profile for the rest of the night. Haizum 06:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmn, it appears I'm still blocked. Is there a lag? Haizum 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably an autoblock. Lemme check. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a good idea. Let me know if there is still an autoblock or anything. Remember, a little civility can go a long way. And I'm not just talking to Haizum here. We are all part of a community, and the fighting harms more than those directly involved. Let's all just get back to writing an encyclopedia. Thanks. Night. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Haizum".

Your IP address is 69.143.42.26. Haizum 06:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright... give 'er a go now. I found the autoblock. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Haizum 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you haven't necessarily participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past but I wanted to get the opinion of a conservative, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR, Pre-Emptive Call for Assistance

I see you have had difficulty with Rattboy in the past. He reverted an edit of mine in NPR, regarding the Criticisms 2003 poll. It was unsourced, a deficiency I have zealously remedied, but in his comments, he called my original edit "unsupported dogma." If he happens to revert my current edits even after multiple credible sources have been laid out for perusal, that would indicate a clearly ideological approach to his edits, and would appreciate it if you would assist in such an event.

MSTCrow 10:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help, a bunch of users are attempting to delete the edits from the article for ideological reasons, and have evinced open hostility to the facts of the matter.

MSTCrow 23:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My sources: Weekly Standard CNS AIM Washington Times CNS

Diff: [3]

Case: Users are removing information pertinent to the 2003 survey that was argued to prove NPR listeners knew the most about Iraq. As they were later proven wrong, full disclosure is required in the criticisms section.

MSTCrow 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Say what you want about me, Mr. Crow, but please spell my name right.--RattBoy 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIME

(Re: Bias on Talk:Time (magazine)) Yes, because this cover is so ultra-left-leaning it's hard to understand. 67.181.63.245 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you had to go all the way back to 2002 to find one that isn't. Haizum 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you find some people unlikable? do you hate some people?

you are a member of the republican party, so i think it is a safe bet you answered yes to the first question and possibly even the second.

but you are also interested in philosophy and are a great wikipedian so you are very intelligent and open minded.

I'm a 24 yr old Australian but that says very little about me. i wanted to ask you (if you can) to please read about the life of Nelson Mandella. I hope that you do...

Thank you for your time.Anon-o-man 07:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I find some people unlikable has nothing to do with my political affiliation. I guess you'd have to be a leftist to be critical of yourself for disliking terrorists, rapists, and murderers. Haizum 08:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

eh, he meant well, just a bit of misguided blind disdain against republicans. --kizzle 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again

Le sigh. Sandover decided to wait awhile and then redo the same disputed edits he refused to discuss. SInce you were involved before, I figured... yeah. Karwynn (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Please get a clue

So, what if I get misdemeanour drug possession charges I cant own a gun? I better purchase my firearms now!

And heres your lesson of the day.--Arm 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note Re:

""So, you'd have to be a junkie to the point where you get caught, or an alcoholic to the point where you get caught to become a Prohibited Person. Frankly I don't want either owning firearms. ""

Do you really trust the government, in all its bureaucratic wisdom, to be able to determine who gets firearms and who doesnt? And I dont even care about guns. --Arm 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We find ourselves in agreement. Haizum 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta

Please stop instigating and adding unhelpful comments. Your personal opinion of the movie and liberals aside, how does adding those comments help you? Apparently, your talk page shows various cases of trolling and personal attacks and it seems sometimes that you just don't care. Please try to remain objective. Gdo01 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry; I must have been thrown off by the agenda driven timing of this November featured article and the slurry of anti-Bush, anti-American comments. I'll be sure to keep my mouth shut and let the status quo remain unchallenged - as you wish Hr. Gdo01 Haizum 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And attacking a movie is the best way to change the status quo? If you want to change the world, there are tons of better ways than attacking a movie's article on Wikipedia. Also its Herr not Heir. Gdo01 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The VietCong flea bit many times and was able to win. Haizum 04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Question: I guess you probably also have a problem with a Canadian socialist from the 30's and a Polish medal being the featured articles on the day before and the day of the midterm elections? Gdo01 04:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From the 30s? You need not attach a date to 'Canadian socialist,' as if modernity makes a difference. Haizum 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

...but I'm sure both articles will be as biased as the horde permits. Haizum 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are a nice person,Gdo01. (Am I wrong?) I'd rather not battle with you in this moment. I'll retire for the evening. Haizum 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)