(User:Lord Kenneth | talk | contributions)
A few pointers from "his lordship".
"I know more about philosophy than you do. Hell, if you knew anything you wouldn't be catholic. - Kenneth 16:48, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
Your type of "NPOV" reeks of Fox New's "fair and balanced" Lord Kenneth 18:18, Jan 24, 2004 (PST)
Your filthy bias shows yet again ... you are a disgusting pig. - Lord Kenneth 00:39, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even understand the fallacies you are accusing me of making. … Are you even sane? - Lord Kenneth 22:39, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
This guy really isn't serious. He's just a religious fanatic out with an agenda. - Lord Kenneth 02:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)"
Jack 10:06, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Awww, Jack, Jack, Jack... you already have a conflict between users page about this, remember, li'l Jack? Or did you forget so suddenly? Many of the above quotes have already been talked about, especially the "disgusting pig" comment, which was in reference to you talking about the boy scounts "cleaning up" after homosexuals and transgenders. I think you're stalking me too much. You're like the little girl who picks on the little boy because she secretly likes him. - Lord Kenneth 14:40, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
[Mirv]: Lord Kenneth is a 16 year old high schooler, so his narrow-minded insistence that his views can be the only possible correct, NPOV version of an article can perhaps be forgiven: he may not have been exposed to a range of thought that would cause him to question his own extreme scientism. Much more serious, however, is his total ignorance of basic good manners, as Jack's selection of quotations above -- to which I could add many more -- shows. I think he could be a valuable contributor iff he could learn to respect the views of those who disagree with him -- which he doesn't: observe his conversations with Gene Ward Smith on the CBU page; to cease making personal attacks, period; and to view articles not as battles to be won, but as collaborations between everyone concerned. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- What is this, some sort of pseudoscience/paranormalist bash-LK party? Like I said, there's already a conflict between users page about this, it's rather obvious that my enemies (that is, those who revert my changes from POV articles to a respectable NPOV article).
- There is no reason to respect any views when those views are represented as fact in the wikipedia when in reality they are conjecture and nothing more than faith. I'll treat them all the same, and that is as non-factual information. I don't care how deeply you hold such beliefs, lies are lies. Jack, Mirv, Gene Ward Smith are all people with anti-scientific worldviews. Also, I wonder how you got the idea that I'm a 16 year old high schooler? That's rather interesting on why you would say such a thing. - Lord Kenneth 14:59, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I note you didn't answer my question re whether you have a high school diploma. Why not? I find it hilarious that you, a person who does not seem possessed of much education, are willing to tell people educated in the sciences that they possess an anti-scientific world-view. Gene Ward Smith 23:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I see he now has a "Wall of Shame" on his user page listing his enemies and their supposed 'misdeeds'. Since I recently told LK to not call other users a troll, I guess I will be on his wall of shame soon too. This is not acceptable behavior. --mav 23:42, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Mav- to use one's user page in such a pro-actively negative way doesn't inspire much confidence with me as to the value of this users contributions- how about changing your user page to a wall of FAME, listing those contributors who actively ADD to the value of wikipedia? To my mind at least you would be enhancing your own standing and not striking me as a negative whinger who finds it easy to enhance his own standing by highlighting the shortcomings of others. Just my fourpennorth, TBH I don't take a huge amount of interest in these ego spats, I've served my time on usenet already. quercus robur 23:58, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Does using admin privledges in an attempt to get someone following proper policy guidelines on a copyright matter reek of "trolling"?
- For your information, the wall of shame is simply a watch list for people who troll topics. You won't appear on it unless you troll an article. - Lord Kenneth 23:52, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
I advocate what I have always advocated (eg. MNH) for people making repeated and unacceptable personal attacks:
- A final warning to stop by the arbitration committee (no need for mediation)
- If the attacks don't stop, banning - decided by the arbitration committee.
- snoyes 23:52, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will have to recuse myself because LK has already pissed me off. Which brings up a valid point: What if a user intentionally trolls arbitrators in order to force each of them to recuse themselves? --mav 00:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Trolling? All I did was report it was a possible violation. I'm not demanding immediate takedown. You're making this a personal issue. I'm just following copyright policy. You snapped at me. If you don't like the policies, Mav, why don't you try to get them changed? Also, I don't like how you can call me a troll when you, earlier, did tell me not to. Such hypocrisy! - Lord Kenneth 00:43, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't call you a troll. I was posing a hypothetical situation to another user exposing a possible weakness of our arbitration procedures. --mav
- Then I stand corrected. I still maintain that this is not a personal issue, and I don't know why you made it one. It's not like you can't take a higher-resolution picture of yourself with your camera, you know... - Lord Kenneth 00:50, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
Certainly LK has offended me. Apparently that makes me part of a large group of people. But I see that I have been "honored" by being place on his "wall of shame", so I suppose I ought to contribute to this discussion.
I find his behavior unacceptable. If there is poll as to whether to ban him, I would be in favor. Or at least put some sort of training wheels on his account. He does not appear to be able to see beyond his own personal viewpoint. He does not seem to understand the concept of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. He is unwilling to learn, unwilling to resolve conflicts, and quick to take offense with everyone. And he violates nearly every Wikiquette guideline there is. What more is there to say? Grizzly 10:13, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It seems I have every person on wikipedia into "fringe" theories (psychic powers, quackery, etc) on my tail. Why can't I have "normal" people bothering me, and not the anti-skeptics? Grizzly, you want to talk NPOV? I invite anyone to check your previous changes to James Randi and the various skepticism posts see who really is violating "NPOV". Of course, your kind tends to get treated well. I fully expect with all the anti-science cranks complaining about my fair edits (removing their bias and lies) I'll be banned. I will make sure, then, to be quite vocal on just how "friendly" wikipedia really is.
- Hm, let's see... Reddi/JDR, Grizzly, JackLynch, Gene Ward Smith, Mirv.... probably soon to be irismeister... you're all in good company, like peas in a pod! - Lord Kenneth 12:36, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- When have I advocated fringe theories or quackery? Do not confuse arguing against you (and you alone -- I did not argue with Tim Starling's or Bryan Derksen's edits to that article) on one issue with advocating something you dislike. Also note that nobody is talking about banning you for your edits, but for your constant hostility, rudeness, and personal attacks. This kind of behavior would be just as unacceptable coming from the people you so viciously oppose, and in fact people have already complained about Irismeister engaging in the same behavior as you -- observe Requests for comment/Irismeister. No-One Jones (talk) 12:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I have seen your previous edits, Mirv. Can you tell us all your opinions on skeptics, science, supernatural powers, or perhaps other things currently unsupported by science? I think it's very likely you have a bias.- Lord Kenneth 20:33, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Also, I have barely been rude-- I have actually been quite nice when dealing with those who consistently revert, delete my work (without discussing it with me, as you did... "garbled paragraph", yeah right...). If you say hostility to mean "hostile to pseudoscience and POV", then yes, I am very hostile. I do not suffer lies very well. As for "personal attacks", there is nothing wrong (in my opinion) with calling someone a troll when they resort to reverting inaccurate and biased articles. If wikipedia has a rule against that, fine, but that does not change the fact that those actions are exactly what could be "described" as trolling. As for "quack" and "pseudoscientist", I sincerely apologize for using those terms in the correct manner. Oh, and calling Jack Lynch a pig is nothing when he insults homosexuals and transgenders-- the reason I called him that in the first place (funny how he likes to leave out that fact). - Lord Kenneth 20:42, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)