Archive 1

Thanks for helping out with this vandal; however, please don't skip over {{test3}} when warning vandals. I've removed your addition and replaced it with that template. Thanks! Kurt Weber 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no wait for sufficient vandalism to pile up if it's clear where things are going, I usually sort of seat-of-the-pants it in judging which warnings are necessary. Anyway, I've blocked them now so they shouldn't be any more trouble for today. --fvw* 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I'm not going to start a fight over that because it's relatively inconsequential. However, I would like to know what particular vandalism of his your "last warning" was in reference to. Judging from the edit history of his talk page and his contribution history, his last vandalism occurred at the same time as you giving him the last warning. If we are to assume good faith (which I interpret to mean, among other things, "give the other guy the benefit of the doubt"), then we have to assume that he did not receive his last warning until AFTER his last contribution. Thus, I have to wonder, why did you bother saying "This is your last warning; if you vandalize again you will be blocked" and then go ahead and block him BEFORE he actually committed any more vandalism? Kurt Weber 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See:

His talk page history

His contribution log

Hmm, that is odd. I could have sworn that... Well, apparantly not. My bad. --fvw* 18:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi. if you are the same user as m:user:kmweber, thought I'd let you know I left you a lil lil message. word. dzzno^logic2 18:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added User instruments tags for the euphonium, but you didn't add the appropriate categories. (Wish it were easier, but hopefully my templates help.) I've done so. Ddawson 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks! Kurt Weber 20:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I read your explanation of your "extreme inclusionism". To me, it seems like it'd be impossible to apply verifiability or NPOV to certain articles you'd want to include, such as Escalator Productivity. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I can't understand why you would think that; I fail to see how it could ever conceivably logically follow from my position. Perhaps you should expound a bit more on your reasoning so I can understand just what it is I'm arguing against :D Kurt Weber 21:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A topic like Escalator Productivity isn't going to have any sources that discuss it, so verifiability would be a challenge. If someone comes along and disputes who "invented" it, for example, there won't be a way to resolve that dispute. Friday (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a theory to exist, all that has to be done is for it to be enunciated. Even if the initial statement of the theory occurs on Wikipedia, it has been stated and thus it exists--and is deserving of an article, by my criteria. The originator of the theory may then be unverifiable and should not be included (or it should be given along the lines of something like "It is believed, though not proven, that this theory was developed by Jim Bob Joe Jack the Forty-Second"), but the theory itself is not. Kurt Weber 21:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the root disagreement is that I (and, presumably, most Wikipedians) don't see much value in an article in which none of the facts can be verified. There are other wikis who's purpose is to be "any information about anything", but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To me, the goal of being factual and neutral neccessarily excludes certain topics about which no facts can be determined. Friday (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, though--you're building a strawman. You don't have to know who originated a theory to know what it says and what it deals with, do you? And the theory doesn't even have to be true--no one objects to the inclusion of an article on, say, Lamarckism. Furthermore, I never said "any bullshit anyone may invent is appropriate", simply that anything that actually exists is a worthy subject for inclusion. And by being stated, a theory comes into existence--it need not be true, it need not be widely accepted or even known, but it is a bona fide theory that is indeed in existence, and so deserves coverage. Kurt Weber 18:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to verifiability. An idea I invented yesterday isn't verifiable. Maybe it deserves coverage, but with no verifiable facts about it, I don't see how it could be covered. My socks exist, but they're not verifiable. One could look at my feet and see them, but this would be original research. Friday (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing wrong with original research, policy to the contrary notwithstanding. As for verifiability of ideas, all that needs to be done is for it to be put out there, and whoop--it exists, and its existence and contents are verifiable. Kurt Weber 12:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to ask you to please refrain from comments such as those you put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shasha bread Co.Inc in the future since that one broke multiple portions of WP:NOT as well as WP:CIVIL(taunting),and WP:EQT(talk to the subject, not the person, or in this case people). If you'd like to talk about your philosophies, please do so on your user space as long as it is fairly civil, and if you'd like to try and gain consensus for them, please go to Wikipedia:How to create policy.
Thanks. Karmafist 23:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]