User talk:RucasHost/Archive 3

Please refrain from removing entire lengthy sections of articles, that actually contain references, without at least discussing your proposed actions first, like you did in the case of the article on Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King.Deconstructhis 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 unrelated references for a huge section alleging an important political figure was a racist? Neither of the sources supporting the bizzarre allegation...

Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for dirt you have on former politicians. Things have to be verified. --RucasHost 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (copied from discussion page of Mackenzie King article) I've once again replaced an entire referenced section of the William Lyon Mackenzie King article that was removed by editor RucasHost. RucasHost appears to be unwilling to engage in discussion regarding this matter here on the articles "talk" page, despite the large amount of referenced material he is choosing to delete, the fact that most of the material is referenced, and considering that the subjects contained in the section have already been discussed and arrived at through consensus in the past. If there are objections to claims in this section, I would like to ask him to discuss his issues with the material here on the talk page before removing a relatively large part of the material contained in the article, providing counter references would be a good start. This Prime Minister was a fairly controversial figure in Canadian history,many of the facts of his life may appear startling to some at first glance, but dismissing negative allegations concerning him as "slander" without knowing the historical background supporting them is shaky ground to say the least. I'm hoping for support from other editors in this regard. I will attempt to provide other references for this section later in the week.Deconstructhis 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (copied from discussion page for William Lyon MacKenzie King article) Once again reverted deletion of an entire referenced section of this article by editor RucasHost, who despite the fact that most of the section is specifically referenced with footnotes leading to reputably published sources:

^ Knowles, Valerie. Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-1997, (Toronto: Dundurn, 1997)

^ Ferguson, Will. Bastards and Boneheads: Canada's Glorious Leaders Past and Present, (Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 1999) pg. 168.

^ Sunahara, Ann Gomer. The Politics of Racism: The Uprooting of Japanese Canadians During the Second World War, (Toronto: Lorimer, 1981) pg. 23.

continues to insist that the entire section is "unreferenced" and constitutes, in his words, "slander". This editor appears unwilling to discuss this issue on the talk page for the article itself or proceed in a reasonable manner, such as placing citation requests for the specific material he disputes in the body of the article. I will place a second stage vandalism warning on this editors "user" page and continue to hope that he will proceed in a more reasonable fashion.Deconstructhis 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from William Lyon Mackenzie King. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted.Thank you.Deconstructhis 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You're the one who is adding unreferenced controversial information, accusing him of being a "racist". Please see my message on the discussion page. --RucasHost 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (copied from talk page of William Lyon Mackenzie King article)

Please be aware that I was not personally involved in posting any of the material that appears in the section that you continue to delete, apart from placing the qualifier "alleged" in the title of the section itself. The allegations of "racism" applied to Mackenzie King *are* in fact supported by the references provided by the original poster(s) if you take the time to actually look them up and if you study the discussion section of this article you will see that this information was arrived at through consensus, in some cases, several years ago. My objection in our disagreement has to do with your editing practices, that despite the fact that the material does contain referenced footnotes for the bulk of the section, you choose to simply delete the entire section instead of challenging it in a manner keeping with Wikipedia policy. I am willing to discuss any of this in a reasonable fashion on the appropriate discussion page, but I am not willing to simply standby and watch referenced materials deleted from an article simply because a given editor appears to disagree with it for personal reasons. I have requested the opinion of an administrator in this regard and I'm quite happy to await another opinion. Thank you Deconstructhis 03:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your motives and good sense at William Lyon Mackenzie King, but question your method. Removing it once was bold, but continuing was probably going too far (not that I haven't myself). All that being said, if you need support in the future on a similar issue, you likely find me there to help you. Just give a shout. --Kevin Murray 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it! Deleting the section right now is not going to work. But if citaitons aren't provided to replace the fact tags, this can all be removed. Discuss now rather than delete. You have support. --Kevin Murray 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RucasHost,

Before editing the Transhumanism article again, you should 1) be aware of the suggested guidelines on the Talk:Transhumanism page regarding claims for and against transhumanism or external links and see also sections; and 2) take the time to click on and read the references (linked to by a number) at the end of the sentences you believed to be unsourced before questioning their factuality.

More specifically, please refrain from using as reference the wild accusations of a conspiracy theory for the claim that a minority of transhumanists have merged their transhumanist beliefs with Satanism(!). You would need to use as reference the writings of a prominent transhumanist thinker or an academic critic of transhumanism who explicitly argues that a minority of transhumanists have merged their transhumanist beliefs with some particular religious belief system.

Thanking you for your cooperation. --Loremaster 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William Lyon Mackenzie King. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing the article again. You may want to read up on Most recent common ancestor first, to understand the difference between (unqualified) MRCA and mt-MRCA (mitochondrial MRCA). As for your removal of the citation-needed template: I hate the citation myself, but it must remain there until the location issue is sorted out. Notice that I rewrote most the article and added extensive inline references here, so I hate the citation template as much as you. I just haven't had time to look into the issue. Removing the citation template does not help the article become better. Fred Hsu 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the tip. --RucasHost 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for trying anyway. I am sure it was well-intentioned. Remind me to look into this issue again in a few weeks, if I forget :) Fred Hsu 03:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding conspiracy theory information to the 9/11 article. Timneu22 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with adding a well referenced statement from the BBC to the appropriate section of the 9/11 article. --RucasHost 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is when it has been repeatedly and consistently refuted. Or does your perception of time stop in mid-September? --Golbez 02:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable sources to back this up? --RucasHost 02:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Planned Parenthood for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. [1]. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to say I love how you have contributed. Thanks! Karonaway (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on KKKramer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. meshach (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, KKKramer, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about the do's and dont's of creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Brianga (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This unjustified erasure could be considered vandalism. There may be facts that do not please you (same for me and everybody else) but removing them like this is no solution. Cheers, RCS (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intention wasn't to vandalize. It's just that the information is rather irrelevant. It would make more sense to have that on article about the painting, rather than an article about a building which is allegedly based on the painting. --RucasHost (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because the architects acknowledged that they were inspired by Roman amphitheatres, and the most famous Roman amphitheatre happens to be the Colosseum. So quoting people making the connection between the Tower of Babel as painted by Brueghel, the Colosseum and the Louise Weiss building is, really, not so illogical. Cheers, RCS (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I misread your title change — I read "opposing" as an adjective, when you meant it as a verb. We might need to consider that it's confusing, in that case... --Haemo (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RucasHost, concerning the edit to the David Suzuki article in which you removed the protection tag and restored material under discussion on the talk page: I've reverted the edit and would encourage you to participate in the discussion. I must add that Kurykh's placement of the protection tag in no way meets Wikipedia's definition of vandalism - nor, for that matter, does the removal of the material under discussion (whether by myself or others). Victoriagirl (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]