User talk:Kmaguir1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Kmaguir1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message! :D Happy Editing! Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help My Talk Page New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

I want to seek an arbcom ruling. -Kmaguir1 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's odd

Why does a user named Kevin Maguire have his name above a photograph of Jimmy Wales? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha... because I don't know how to change the picture yet, but I wanted to use the format of his webpage. -Kmaguir1 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you resolve this immediately to avoid an unfortunate misunderstanding. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image. If you want to place your own image there, then "place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions," per instructions given to you. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Philosophers

Hi! I saw that you added Category:Philosophers to Van Til, Edwards, etc. I deleted them because those pages are already members of Category:Calvinist philosophers, which is a subcategory of Category:Philosophers. There can be exceptions for putting a page in a category and its subcat (see WP:SUBCAT), but I would argue these do not qualify. Please let me know if you disagree. --Flex 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree, along the lines of the secondary categorization rule firstly, but I would have other objections citing exceptions as well. The first thing people would like to think of when they hear any of the names added is "philosopher", not "Calvinist philosopher". Edwards in particular is cited by Jaegwon Kim in PHYSICALISM as coming up with an important step in conceiving of mental cognition. That had nothing to do with the fact he was a Calvinist. First of all, I didn't check to see which you deleted, and which categories they were in. I don't believe Edwards was in any category having to do with philosophy, so I'll add him back on if you took him off, as that's a clear omission. And yes, I think that the affect and scope of all of the work of the men I mentioned justifies them being placed in "philosophers", not "Calvinist philosophers" alone, in that their affect in philosophy is not seen only among Calvinists, but instead the broader range of philosophical discourse, as WE would like to think of it, the WE being a huge challenge. But we can debate the other ones without me adding them back, provided the debate is expedient and is resolved fairly quickly. -Kmaguir1 00:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs).

Keep in mind that if you decide to violate policy a second time, you will be blocked for a longer period (I think the admin was too generous about the initial violation, but it is his decision). After a few times, your blocks typically escalate to months rather than hours. Perhaps spreading vitriol to some other article would be a better plan (or even just allowing encyclopedic content would be better still). LotLE×talk 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have been blocked, and don't think I'm not watching closely. If you think I'll break THAT rule again, you've got another thing comin', girl. I didn't even know about the rule until you posted it on here, and then I was blocked after doing nothing except adding an NPOV tag. -Kmaguir1 07:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on August 6 2006 (UTC) to Judith Butler

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters needs to be blocked under the 3-RR rule for the following edits to the "Judith Butler" page:

0148, 6 August 2006

2159, 5 August 2006

2146, 5 August 2006

1100, 5 August 2006

Thank you for reviewing this. I will be submitting it on the 3-RR page as well. -Kmaguir1 16:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my talk page

It was because of your actions on the Butler page that I felt someone should review your edits. As you see, I left many of your edits alone, by which you may conclude that I had no problem with them. If I inadvertently removed something sourced, my apologies: please revert. You claim on my talk page that "[t]he problem is that you don't question the morals of the philosophers you study." Please explain how in the world you could possibly know whether that is true, or else retract the claim. I would encourage you in the future not to assume things about users, as you just did about me. By the way, I agree with you about people reading the verifiable truth. Wikipedia is big enough for all of us. OK? --Anthony Krupp 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response.--Anthony Krupp 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You have tried to be diplomatic, and for this I do not fault you. Please refer to the Butler talk page, where, when I am unblocked in about thirty minutes or whatever, I will post my response to the whole ball of wax. -Kmaguir1 17:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry, didn't realize you were silent because you were blocked.--Anthony Krupp 20:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people don't realize that--it's pretty painful. Especially since, just objectively, the 3rr rule was not broken. -Kmaguir1 20:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. LotLE×talk 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another?

I think we have an additional Kmaguir1 (talk · contribs) sockpuppet: MindMoves (talk · contribs). This new user made a few edits (that look reasonable enough) to Edward Armitage, then within a few hours of registering made one of the changes Kmaguir1 had been pushing on Judith Butler. LotLE×talk 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you people really have some paranoid delusions. I guess everyone who makes edits to all pages you wrap yourselves around as a blanket at night--each and every single one, they're sockpuppets. I have half a mind to write a scathing expose of this stalinpedia for my local rags and hope it gets picked up on AP. That having been said, never heard of a 'Hermitage' guy before, and you know what, I have half a mind to go and call up all 50 of my friends, tell them to get on all at 7:37 pm tomorrow, and see them ALL support ME on every talk page I've been editing at. Block 'em all like you did Truthseekers, Mindmoves, whoever you want--block every IP in the Memphis area, for that matter--you've already through truthseekers' unjustified block gotten thousands of students. The ivory (or should I say Juche, tower) y'all are operating from, it would be exposed by another with two grains of sense in a real community. What we have here is not community, but paralysis thinly disguised. You will end up eventually blocking yourselves out from the world. And the world already doesn't give a damn.-Kmaguir1 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RFCU

Salut Kmaguir. J'ai dû prendre la caisse suspectée de marionnette de chaussette à RFCU, par accords non résolus entre toi et [le] Truthseekers. Au revior, Iolakana|^T 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

J'ai créé la page de RFCU; vous pouvez le voir au Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kmaguir1.

Veuillez ne pas commenter la page, au lieu de cela commentez au-dessous de mon commentaire la page de WP:SSP. Merci, Iolakana|^T 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

On l'a établi que vous vous êtes engagé dans sockpuppetry par l'évidence présentée ici : Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1, et vous êtes donc bloqué pour la période de dix jours. Vous êtes bienvenu pour apporter des contributions utiles après que le bloc expire.

Iolakana|^T 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We've had jossi look at it, already. Neither are socks, you are unjustified in blocking Truthseekers, but I am glad you blocked Son for his own comments. I don't see how you could block Truthseekers! If the determinination is 'possible', what the heck is the justification for doing it? Do I make judgments about the possibility of the guilt of someone of a rule violation, and then go forth from the 'possibility'? Is that how it works on wikipedia? Innocent until proven that it's possible to be guilty? The problem is again, you have not a single shred of evidence, not even so much as good reason to believe, that Truthseekers is a sock or a meat, or that Son is a sock or a meat--but you should block the latter anyway. How can I be Son, when the account was created before mine was created (according to Lulu) ?? I mean, it's all lunacy. But the justification for the block on 'Truthseekers' with 'possible' is just the most far-fetched thing on Earth. You're trying to run an encyclopedia, not Iran. And now, just as I was writing this, you block me, again, I guess, from "possibility". You just have no respect for the truth, and you don't have a shred of evidence. I want an appeal. Tell me how I appeal this unrighteous decision. The "possible" determination, and then ten days? I mean, are y'all insane? -Kmaguir1 16:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Si vous avez "etabli", comment est-ce qu'on etabli par une "possibilité"? Ce n'est pas possible.-Kmaguir1 16:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And on truthseekers, how can you block indefinitely someone who did nothing wrong? Does he get a new account now? How is he supposed to contribute on wikipedia?-Kmaguir1 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I want you to block ME indefinitely, and either remove the block on truthseekers, or give him a 10 day block like I have now--he did nothing wrong, and if someone has to pay the price for extreme injustices perpetrated by Wikipedians, I'd rather it be me. I would agree to an indefinite block of myself to get truthseekers either no block, or a 10 day block.-Kmaguir1 17:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to block you indefinitely, but when you create abusive sockpuppets as such we need to prevent you from continuing doing so. We do have evidence to state that you are sockpuppets, here: see where it says "possible"? That means that there is a possibilty that you are Truthseekers. Iolakana|^T 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

But you cannot make a determination based on "possibility" and be justified--it certainly isn't, on the indicator "likely", nor confirmed. It is in fact a lie--I am not, for the billionth time, Truthseekers. He is my friend, introduced to wikipedia, very new, and I would rather take an indefinite block than have him have one. So I would want you, please, I request of you, I almost beg of you--give me an indefinite block, and allow truthseekers the 10 days, or less. Thank you. -Kmaguir1 18:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

are you responding to my "possible" problem, and my request to be banned indefinitely so that truthseekers can banned for 10 days, or less?-Kmaguir1 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

FWIW. It appears that Kmaguir1 obtained the Sonofhealfdane sockpuppet via some sort of fraternity acquaintance. I had initially thought it odd that there were a couple edits to a single page from that account back in December (i.e. before this latest wave of disruption). But on the sockpuppet report form, Kmaguir1 (maybe under the Truthseekers account, I forget) went into a long and unprovoked discourse about how fraternities might share an IP address, so therefore it wasn't his sockpuppet. Without being able to say the exact sequence, it seems pretty clear that young Mr. Maguire in some manner contacted some acquaintances to try to locate a registered, but little used account, that he could use for his purposes. LotLE×talk 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That is false. I said that if the IP were the same (Son's and mine), which I highly doubted, that it could be someone on wireless access. I have no checked whether the IPs were the same or not, but I would be almost certain they are not. I am not son--I amended his changes to the Foucault page, and argued with him on the talk page! I mean, what do you need? And for a "possible" determination, not a "likely" or a "confirmed", you block a user, truthseekers, who has done NOTHING wrong? It doesn't seem clear, it doesn't seem evident, it doesn't even seem possible--but how in the world can someone justify blocking someone for a "possible" determination--are you a grand jury? If so, then you can't impose a single penalty. But you have. So you're a petit jury that has grand jury standards, which is basically the definition of tyranny. -Kmaguir1 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is maybe a little off topic, but I think its really creepy & bizarre when you refer to the sockpuppet as "son"--Agnaramasi 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that the most substantative comment you could come up with?-Kmaguir1 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone advise me on the appeals process, please.-Kmaguir1 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

{help me} The appeals process is just to email the blocking admin or use {unblock} (which you have already done)--Commander Keane 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz

As I stated on the Leibniz talk page, I thought your introduction of a section on metaphysics was a good idea and a needed addition to the article, but that there were several problems with the paragraph you wrote, namely: (1) pre-established harmony is for Leibniz a fact, an explanation of why mental and physical states seem to affect each other. It is not an end of man, at least in nothing I've read by Leibniz. If I'm wrong, please bring a quote from Leibniz to show that. (2) Calling him a deist also doesn't fit his writings about Jesus Christ in the Abrege (his summary of Theodicy), nor does it fit what he writes about conception possibly being a miracle. (3) God did not create the world as perfect, but rather as optimal. Best of all possible worlds, remember? (What Leibniz text were you reading that led you to write 'perfect'?) If you can reply to these questions, then we can revise that paragraph for inclusion.--Anthony Krupp 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You respond to me about truthseekers in the email I sent you, and I'll respond to you about Leibniz.-Kmaguir1 17:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I helped your friend via email and talk page, and he thanked me on my own talk page. Do you have an answer to my Leibniz-related questions, or no?--Anthony Krupp 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just asked an admin, who told me that you are allowed to blank messages on your Talk page when they pertain to articles. (This vs. blanking warnings and such.) So I was wrong about that; if you want to blank the Leibniz material, you're free to do that. I haven't read my email, so didn't realize you've written. That said, I prefer to keep wikipedia discussions on wikipedia. --Anthony Krupp 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should hold the opinion, because you believe (wrongly) that Truthseekers is a meatpuppet, that he should not be banned permanently. And as you have seen, I request that I get blocked permanently, so that he can have the 10 days. -Kmaguir1 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kmaguir1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Below

Decline reason:

dThe edit patterns and the checkuser both suggest it was "possible" you were sockpuppeting. This isn't conclusive, but the facts stack up badly against you - especially the edit pattern. I will ask, withour prejudice, the blocking admin about the length of time you have been blocked for, but I have no hesitation that a block was appropriate considering the evidence. That block could even have been permanent, so 10 days all told isn't too bad. However, I will ask. --➨ ЯEDVERS 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

But sir, the evidence proved POSSIBILITY according to checkuser. Does evidence of possibility of something justify a 10 day block? Is that Wikipedia policy, because again, I think that's not just shady, it ruins the encyclopedia by claiming possibility as enough to take probative action. If that IS Wikipedia policy, y'all might want to see the inherent contradiction between a policy like that an entry like [[2]]. Because this frankly does seem unconsidered, accountable to the members of a "politburo" or the like, and not to objective standards of right and wrong--I mean, to Wikipedia's credit, they do say that they're not after objective truth, so you really can always fall back on that in rejecting my claims. But I mean, Truthseekers and I, we've edited at the same time, we have distinctive speech patterns, and we have some degree of consensus in the community which disagrees with us that he is not a sockpuppet.

I ask you again, as I see (I think) there has been no decision on the Truthseekers unblock request, to please fulfill that request, and if I have to take a lifetime banning over it, so that he can be unblocked (or even so that he can just get a 10 day block), I am willing to do that. -Kmaguir1 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Request reason: "I have been accused of perpretrating two sockpuppets, Truthseekers, and Sonofhealfdane. These accusations are prima facie false. Firstly, no determination has been made as to the confirmation, or the likelihood, of such sockpuppets. I would refer you to checkuser, which stated in fact that a sockpuppet was merely 'possible'. [3]. [User: Lulu of the Lotus Eaters]] reads this "possible" as 'possibly a meatpuppet, possibly a sockpuppet', which is ludicrous--I read it as 'possible Kmaguir1 is really Truthseekers, possible he's not'. My first question is this: how can a 'possible determination' lead to a permanent block of my friend, and a 10 day block for myself? Is this a petit jury or a grand jury standard? Oh, it's a petit jury that uses grand jury standards, which is basically the definition of tyranny. Secondly, and more important that firstly, User:Truthseekers is a real human being, and you have no justification for blocking him at all. Evidence on the sockpuppetry page is minimal, not strong, if by 'evidence' you mean things like 'yeah, the Foucault page got edited after I would have had to have violated the 3RR rule--that's certanly relevant, but it's not evidence of any sort, because again, it doesn't prove sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or anything. Furthermore, some of the users I have engaged in debate with have claimed that User:Truthseekers was in fact a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet User:Anthony Krupp, in which case, why would you ban him for life? And of course, apart from this, he's neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet in that he edited of his own free will. I then got accused of operating another account, [User: SonofHealfDane] despite the fact that I argued viciously with his homophobia and disgusting contentions, as well as reverted his edits to the main Michel Foucault page in order to satisfy a previous edit agreement we had made through consensus: see here to see my revert of SonofHealfDane's work: [4]. In summary, I am guiltless, have not been proved or even suspected to have been otherwise, and I request an immediate unblocking of Truthseekers' first--he has done nothing wrong in the slightest. Then, I would request a block of me, but as I have stated on my user talk page--I would rather take a permanent block than have him have it."

Blocked editor: Please paste the contents of the block infobox (Kmaguir1) below to help administrators locate your block in the logs. Administrators should not unblock without attempting to discuss with the blocking administrator (see the blocking policy).

{{unblock| }}

Unblock 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kmaguir1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reviewed

Decline reason:

Using sockpuppets to gain a consensus in articles and or to avoid 3RR is a no-no.--MONGO 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

But sir, the evidence proved POSSIBILITY according to checkuser. Does evidence of possibility of something justify a 10 day block? Is that Wikipedia policy, because again, I think that's not just shady, it ruins the encyclopedia by claiming possibility as enough to take probative action. If that IS Wikipedia policy, y'all might want to see the inherent contradiction between a policy like that an entry like [[5]]. Because this frankly does seem unconsidered, accountable to the members of a "politburo" or the like, and not to objective standards of right and wrong--I mean, to Wikipedia's credit, they do say that they're not after objective truth, so you really can always fall back on that in rejecting my claims. But I mean, Truthseekers and I, we've edited at the same time, we have distinctive speech patterns, and we have some degree of consensus in the community which disagrees with us that he is not a sockpuppet.

Arbcom

I want to seek an arbcom ruling on the narrow nature of determination of possibility of "sockpuppets" who are not sockpuppets, and in that line, blocking real people indefinitely on merely a matter of possibiity, and not "likelihood" or "confirmation". -Kmaguir1 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand the question, but the {{helpme}} tag is for basic editing help. --pgk^(talk) 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You could try the unblock mailing list? --pgk^(talk) 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to seek an arbcom ruling--how do I find someone to help me do that while I'm blocked? This does count as "basic editing help" in that sense.-Kmaguir1 08:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AE might help. Try there. SynergeticMaggot 08:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Vindication

Vindication has been found in that Truthseekers, the real live person, is back online and editing. I take this as vindication of the false, unjustified, imprudent, totalitarian, degradatory charge that he was a sockpuppet. May he edit long and edit well. And may all of y'all go to he-Kmaguir1's restaurant, Tuesday night happy hour from 6-7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs).

• "Malicious" is a personal attack and is incivil. I advise you withdraw such inflamatory language immediately. Also, if it did turn out, very unlikely, that you two are not the same person, then the other guy is certainly a meatpuppet. Using meatpuppets to circumvent the 3RR and other rules is considered to be exactly the same as sockpuppeting and is treated the same. ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To say that a charge is "malicious" is not a personal attack in the slightest, and I take strong exception to the claim that it is. As it is, I have been the only one who has avoided personal attacks in this--Agna called me a drunk, etc. But I've found administrators on here tend to block for whatever reason comes into their heads, or should I say, as has been fashioned by the judgments we have at hand, "possible" reason. Kant would love that. It vindicates me as well that he is contributing in other areas, in that he is not a meatpuppet, is not under my control now, nor ever was. It vindicates him in that he is no longer considered a meatpuppet. Notice that I have accepted my 10 day block with aplomb throughout its duration, and of course, have not resorted to either sock or meatpuppets, nor will I. -Kmaguir1 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a suggestion that evidently helped your friend. He began his wikipedia life as a meatpuppet, as it is here defined, but he now has the chance to prove his is his own person. Your damnation of us all to hell is both juvenile and unchristian. Leave that to God.--Anthony Krupp 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't damn anyone to hell--God does that. I merely suggested that some might fancy time there, as there are some who fancy the idea of time in heaven.-Kmaguir1 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

w/e--Anthony Krupp 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Recent Judith Butler Edit

I want to state my unequivocal laughter at the community's response to MindMoves, the alleged sockpuppet of me, alleged merely because he/she added back a section of the Butler page which I wanted to add back. In the recent edit history of the page itself, Mindmoves now claims, despite the original edit to add the badly written sentence back onto the page, that "The whole 'bad writing' controversy detracts from JB's very real contributions as a scholar and is better seen as a distraction." What a difference a day, or the equivalent of Lavrentiy Beria, makes (I'm not speaking of any person, so that's not a personal attack). In fact, objectively, the evidence for MindMoves being my sockpuppet is much stronger than the evidence for Truthseekers being so or certainly that disrupter SonofHealfDane: Mindmoves made the edits on the BUTLER page, where I myself had the penchant for reverting in a manner that bended, in the slightest bit, consensus. On the Foucault page, all I did was go to a consensus version of the article, three times, whereas on Butler, I was more bold, as Wikipedia advises me to be, over a longer period of time--I wonder just how long that period of time could be. I certainly won't disrupt the page when I get back. But I can't speak for Mindmoves--maybe he/she will change his/her mind again. -Kmaguir1 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The community's response? Do you mean one person?--Anthony Krupp 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock 3

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kmaguir1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Sorry, you're up to the same behavior that got you blocked before. Please ride out the block and stop disrupting Wikipedia when you return. --Shell ^babelfish 23:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock 4

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kmaguir1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Your block expires today anyway. Kusma (討論) 09:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock 5

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kmaguir1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Should be OK now.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My unblock never came off--as soon as I tried to edit my user page, I was autoblocked? What's up with that... it was supposed to expire already by now. -Kmaguir1 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll look into it. Rich Farmbrough 21:42 23 August 2006 (GMT).

1. Someone else used the IP and got autoblocked. Rich Farmbrough 21:51 23 August 2006 (GMT).

Should be OK now. Let us know if not. Rich Farmbrough 21:54 23 August 2006 (GMT).

Wikipedia_talk:Academic_and_artistic_biographies

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've moved your long comment on this essay to the talk page (above). Cheers, Sam Clark 09:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine--but maybe there should be a project page for what I wrote, in someway, to complete with Lulu's standards, which I think are most unhelpful. -Kmaguir1 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Danny Yee

You used the wrong tag when you nominated the article for deletion- you should have used {{afdx}}. Anyway, the nomination is fixed now. You can go here for the discussion. --Wafulz 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oxford, Mississippi

Sounds like a nice town. LotLE×talk 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's to die for. So much better than Memphis--you know, where I am.-Kmaguir1 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of {prod}

Your recent spate of tagging articles with {prod} that clearly do not qualify for that is very disruptive. The first several were obviously chosen because editors who had opposed your prior editing behavior had worked on them. Some of the more recent ones are unclear as to motive. But in no case that I've seen has this tag been even plausible: some of them seem plausible for an AfD nomination; that is the proper procedure when an article has even a prima facie case for notability. Abusing AfD is bad behavior as well, but it is not outrageous for cases where a minimally coherent argument can be made for deletion (please make that argument, don't simply nominate).

Btw. Should you engage in sockpuppetry again, you will certainly be blocked for a longer period than the rather brief first time. Skating on thin ice isn't always such a good idea. LotLE×talk 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Put the sock-puppetry tag down if you suspect something--it's what you did the last time without proof. Do it again without it.-Kmaguir1 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Scholar and scientific research

On the AfD for Cascade correlation algorithm, you state that it only has 427 google hits, based on the comment made on the talk page. However this comment not only refers to, but also links to [6], the scientific paper search tool. This is quite different to google, only listing scientific papers, not websites. For a matter of serious science, 427 results is very good. Also, the pdf file on the article was of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Although this was the wrong source to cite (the correct one being the published journal article itself), it is among the best sources an article can have. LinaMishima 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All I have to go on is what's presented on the page, and then I research outside of it, see no books, no notability of any sort--and it just seems unencyclopedic... it belongs in a journal, not on an encyclopedia.-Kmaguir1 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Off color comment

Per this 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. Ryūlóng 06:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

On ignoring consensus

As you know, you have been inserting this same text on a daily basis to bell hooks:

"Hooks has been a subject of ire for her leftist beliefs. She gave a commencement speech in 2002 at Southwestern University (TX), during which she suggested that the students would have been better off not having attended college, and their parents not having sent them there. She has written: 'Blacks who lack a proper killing rage ... are merely victims.' She also wrote an essay about a sociology professor who dreams about murdering an anonymous Caucasian on an airplane."

Since the content of sentence #2 is already represented on the page (in a version I think you authored and I revised, and others have since found to be NPOV), why do you add this redundant sentence?

Sentences #3 and #4 could, I think, be developed into an interesting relevant paragraph, one that I would support including in the article. But you've been ignoring my suggestion to write such a paragraph. I have tried to work with you, and with your text, such as at Judith Butler, where you will recall that instead of deleting your Nussbaum criticism, as others did, I revised it and then insisted on its inclusion in the article. Guess what? It's still there. The article is better, and more balanced, for your and my involvement there.

If you want to improve articles, please try to work with other editors rather than inserting the same seed for a paragraph over and over. You won't get blocked for the 3RR the way you're doing things now, certainly, but you could get into trouble for ignoring consensus. It would be a waste of a lot of peoples' time.

So: do you think you are able to develop your sentences #3 and #4 into a paragraph?--Anthony Krupp 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am always willing to try to work to make a solution that works. You said you thought of me as satan, and so, asking satan's help to edit, it just seems like a weird request. But since you desire to, I will open this to a wider discussion. Sentence #1 is fine. Sentence #2 is not exactly redundant with the one higher on the page. I don't think its placement higher up on the page is particularly helpful, especially since it addresses, although biased because it covers a controversy and then says why it might not be so controversial, issues that are controversial, and thus would be better placed in that paragraph. Thus, I've left the minor possible redundancy in my edits, but note I still have modified that 2nd sentence to make it look less redundant the past few edits. So I would suggest deletion of the material higher up on the page, and insertion of it in the controversy section--it really makes no sense it being up in the main text--it's a historical happening, not a discussion of her works or of her thoughts in general. And no, sentence 3 and 4 cannot stand alone; that would look silly. So if you want my advice, I'd delete the upper stuff, which was added later anyway and I think is unhelpful. For example, the upper stuff doesn't say anything about telling the kids' parents that they would have been better off not sending them to Southwestern, which is key. I would be happy with either the minor redundancy OR the deletion of the upper stuff. Do you have any other solutions in mind? Because csloat and Lulu seem like they're not interested in solution (read below), and so, I doubt they would keep anything that insults their god, no matter how much consensus there is. -Kmaguir1 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Telling other users about their "god" is not helpful. Please engage in the discussion on the bell hooks talk page, and please actually address the arguments that have been made against the passage you insist on inserting over and over again. You are not doing so above; you are just arguing against the passages that were inserted to try to keep what little relevant information existed in your tendentious edit.--csloat 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's not taking a position. You will not accept sentence 3 or 4 anywhere in a bell hooks article, no matter what. And there's no reasonable possibility of a fork, so I suggest you are the one being unreasonable.-Kmaguir1 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sentences 3 and 4 are in violation of WP policies, as I have explained. They come from disputed sources whose only goal is character assault, as I have explained. And they are allegedly summaries of something hooks said, so the easy solution to all of this is for you to read hooks and find the passages you think are notable, and cite her directly, rather than her political enemies, on what she allegedly said. As I have explained, ad infinitum.--csloat 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't cite it from her works, because if I were to do that, it would no longer be Horowitz and others thinking it is controversial, it would be 'me' reading her works and myself taking from that, that it was controversial. And that doesn't belong on Wikipedia--that is, my idea of controversial. But Horowitz' idea, that does.-Kmaguir1 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if you have things to say about Horowitz, there is already a page for that. His opinion of hooks is not notable, but if it were, a sentence such as "Horowitz believes hooks is a racist" is far preferable to "hooks wrote an essay saying ____". The latter is what you are doing, and then you're sourcing the claim from Horowitz. That does not explain horowitz's criticism; it falsely attributes a comment to hooks that is actually Horowitz's interpretation of hooks.--csloat 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you see, there is one tiny flaw in that plan: she actually said and wrote those things.-Kmaguir1 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that settles it then, no? Just grab the book or article by hooks where she actually said and wrote those things, quote it in context, and cite your quote properly. Problem solved! If you cannot be bothered to actually read the author you claim to be quoting, you have no business making such claims.--csloat 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I don't have to read a book by Donald Trump to comment on him. You want special treatment for academics. Lulu has written an essay saying as much as that. And that's not wiki policy. And I reject it.-Kmaguir1 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment all you want. But if you put in unsubstantiated assertions about what Donald Trump allegedly said and source them to Noam Chomsky, you can bet someone there would raise a stink too. This isn't about whether the person is an academic (although I agree there are certain issues with academic writing that are not present with other types of writing). Again, if you really think it is important to put in here that hooks said something in particular, why are you so resistant to actually looking it up in hooks? It doesn't make any sense.--csloat 23:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Two quick things: first, if you want to actually discuss hooks, let's do so there. Second, since I don't want you to misunderstand: I do not think of you as Satan, capital S, proper name, which is a late Judaic/Christian concept. In a conversation with someone else, I compared you to a satan, that is, an earlier Judaic concept... you can read about it on the article Satan, it's really very interesting, and people are often surprised when they learn about this, at least the 18-22 yearolds I teach. You've read the book of Job, I take it? That's the concept I'm talking about: a figure like a prosecuting attorney who works for God. Unpleasant at times, negative in his initial effect, but doing the work of God ultimately. And in one literary case, against his will. Ok, enough history of religion. Just wanted to clarify the context, so that you don't misunderstand. You may or may not admit whether you do, but in the hope that one can communicate with you, I have written this.--Anthony Krupp 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on the administrator's page. I took Intro to Judaism, I'm aware of the Jewish and liberal theological attempt to make a huge difference here, and attempt to read inconsistencies, instead of trying to see them together, as they of course must be from a traditionally Christian perspective. Regardless of your historical craziness, to compare someone to Satan, with all the modern and current baggage that term attaches, regardless of the religious tradition or of the original meaning of the word, is entirely inappropriate and constitutes a personal attack--that's why I warned you. Just because 'fag' also means a cigarette, doesn't mean I can call a wikipedian that name and expect not to be called out for a personal attack. You can't compare someone to Satan, no matter how you want to finagle it.-Kmaguir1 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kmaquir1 in that calling someone satan is inflammatory. Your intention may have been to use it in reference to an alternate view of the adversarial character in the book of Job, but, as per the illustration Kmaquir1 uses, that doesn't mean he'll take it that way. As for Kmaquir1 and the issue of the information being excluded or included on the bell hooks page. Anthony Krupp has consistantly tried to work with you towards the inclusion of the material you set forth, and you strongly object to his suggestions in the same consistant manner. I suggest that you take his criticisms in good faith and work towards the inclusion of the material, which he seems to agree is important enough to include. Remember that a wise man accepts correction, and it is a fool who rejects it. If he has a criticism of your sources, give him reason to believe otherwise and if you can't, move on in a constructive manner, it's not the end of the world -Shazbot85^Talk 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Shazbot85. I can concede that it is inflammatory to call someone a satan. (Please use the indefinite article in any future reference to this conversation.) I do balk at the christocentric claim that this is an "alternate view." In the book of Job, it is the view of that character. (Unless I'm wrong, the Christian view of Satan is that he is God's enemy, and has been in Hell since his fall. No? But in Job, the satan entered into heaven, along with the sons of light. Because he works for God.) My only defense of my comment is that (1) I wasn't talking to Kmaguir1, and more to the point (2) the paragraph in which I said this was meant to state that there is a larger picture, and despite arguments among individual editors, the overall effect is a general improvement of wikipedia. As well as (3) being legitimately fed up with Kmaguir1. But I agree that there are better avenues to express that feeling.--Anthony Krupp 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the RFC, you have chosen to abandon obtaining consensus.-Kmaguir1 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really.--Anthony Krupp 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to get me blocked for no reason. That's unacceptable to me.-Kmaguir1 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting a comment (see title of article) to either teach you something or else get you blocked, and for several reasons. Read them there. It's acceptable to me.--Anthony Krupp 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence you pursued arbitration or any of the other myriad of options that were before you.-Kmaguir1 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the nonsense on WP biographies

Please cut it out, Maguire. It has been explained over and over to you in talk why your additions to the bell hooks page are not welcome there and are in violation of wikipedia policies. Acceptable solutions have been recommended (the most obvious one being, actually read hooks yourself and find the quotes you think should be in the article rather than quoting the summaries of authors whose whole point is character assassination). Do not continue adding the disputed passage to the article. Thanks.--csloat 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Conduct RfC

This is to inform you of a Request for Comment on your conduct. The page is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. You are not to alter anything in section 1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6); the place for you to make comments is in section 2 ("Response"). You may also invite other users to provide an "outside view," in section 3. There is also a section 4 for discussion.--Anthony Krupp 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tonight at the library

Tonight at the library I will, although I think it extremely unnecessary and wasteful, try to find sources on Bell Hooks FROM BELL HOOKS, and then insert back in when I find the proper sources. I doubt my library here will have both--but I bet I can get lucky and find one.-Kmaguir1 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think it is "unnecessary and wasteful" to read books by academics, what is it you think is useful or necessary about adding alleged quotes and summaries to encyclopedia entries about academics??--csloat 00:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bell Hooks

I'll try to take a look at this later in the day. I know who Bell Hooks is, but I can't say I'm real familiar with the material; still, I may be able to do something for you. Brianyoumans 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeBarra Mayo

Kindly do not make disparaging comments about living people as you did in the above AfD. Read WP:BLP. We're not interested who you you think is and isn't "foxy", and it certainly has no place in a deletion discussion. Tyrenius 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove warnings like this on your user page. It is considered vandalism. Tyrenius 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I woukd suggest you read the policy of Biographies of living people. I have refactored some comments you made recently. Please refrain to add such comments in the future. Also, deleting an image from a page, because you don't like it, it is not approptiate and may be considered as vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the image itself--it's rather well-taken, etc. It's one picture, and one picture too many for an article of the lack of importance like this one--one that just obtained 5 or 6 delete votes, and is generally about his work as a programmer, and where his photo wouldn't help his recognizability or anything, just adds to the perception that he is more notable than he could ever be possibly.-Kmaguir1 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, as you well know, there were exactly four delete votes (IP anons don't count on AfDs, even if they aren't quite so mysteriously popping in for a first-edit vote). Against that, there were 14 keeps, several "strong" or "speedy". I was disappointed that three other editors failed to see the notability but as AfDs go, that is a pretty definitive keep. AfD's aren't by majority or super-majority vote, but when it's so overwhelming it says something. And as you also have seen, I am certain, I put together a small list of analogous bios with pics at User talk:Bhouston#Huh?!; several of them of similar notability as Yee (other of greater notability)... but again, as you know, having an image is not a "measure of notability" but simply a way of making articles better. Or to say nothing of the actual Wikipedia:The perfect article description that I copied to Talk:Danny Yee for you. There is simply no remaining cover for this to be called anything other than vandalism. LotLE×talk 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to rope me into a fight I'm not going to have--not gonna die on that hill. The Yee picture stays. Also, take note of my new user page--although we report things subjectively, I'm more dapper than he.-Kmaguir1 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... I'm happy to grant you dapper. And I'm even happier that you've said you'll stop picture deletion.

I don't find the picture valuable because of Yee's great beauty (nor ugliness), he's just a regular-looking 30-something guy. But it's nice when reading a bio to see which regular looking person the subject is. Actually, I did a Google image search when touching up the bio. It looks like he used to wear a beard (I think it was younger than the current picture, though I could be wrong)... I sort of liked that look better. But I emailed Yee to ask about a picture released as GFDL, and he uploaded the one I used. It's sometimes even more of a problem finding images for extremely famous people than it is for minorly notable ones: the fomer tend to have all the pictures of them protected by unfree copyrights, and the Wikimedia Foundation is definitely trying hard to scale back on Fair Use claims (which are, in fact, often poorly supported). If Pat Robertson puts his picture on his website, it's probably (c) 700 Club, or the like. And if an AP photo of him runs on a website, it's either (C) AP, or possibly (C) Freelance photographer. In none of those cases are we free to use the images. With someone like Yee whom I can actually email to ask permission, usually one can get a self-taken photo that the subject is happy to upload. LotLE×talk 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dapper" is certainly better than "Jimbo Wales," as whom you portrayed yourself for 20 days (this diff: [7]) until I removed his photo. --Anthony Krupp 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal cognitivism

Anecdotal cognitivism looks to be an article begging to be AFD'd: no refs, six unique google scholar hits for "Anecdotal cognitivism" and "Anecdotal cognitivist" combined. Either Google are doing their usual bad job of finding references to esoteric theories, or this is a definite smerge candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

New favorite eatery

• The Waffle House is the epitome of all things southern, you must love it...or leave. Shazbot85^Talk 06:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Kentucky doesn't count, and Virginia does. Shazbot85^Talk 06:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Please note that per the GFDL, the edit history of an merged article needs to be retained. Therefore, merge and delete cannot be combined. The easiest way to retain it is to redirect (which also makes finding the new location for the material easier for readers. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Growth and change

Time you grew up and changed your ways, son. A philosopher is not a celebrity. --81.103.144.114 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Son? Who is this?-Kmaguir1

Guildford, huh? Like Surrey? How nice of someone from England to drop in on me.-Kmaguir1 18:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

baked-pulled beans and pork

"like putting baked beans and pulled pork together to make baked-pulled beans and pork." Hilarious... I am going to steal this. I may even write a wiki-essay about this. MPS 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

February 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Millsaps College,. Removal of valid, sourced content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Do not remove sourced and valid content from articles on Wikipedia. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Millsaps College, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)