User talk:Corax

User talk:Corax/archive
User talk:Corax/archive2

Bleh

Thanks, Corax, I've taken care of it (for now). · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Do you seriously believe that the organisations you have added to the pedophile category are "pedophile organisations"? If so, you haven't read their programmes. If not, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point about the category - it may well be overly vague in its remit, but this disruption is not permitted on Wikipedia. Warofdreams talk 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What I believe or what my opinion is doesn't really matter (see WP:NPOV).

The difference it makes is as to whether you are adding the category mistakenly, or in bad faith.

What matters is the criteria set down on the category page. Adhering to it is not making anymore of a point than is inserting a relevant and documented fact into an article.

If you think the criteria is so overly broad that it includes organizations which do not belong, change the criteria -- don't blame me.

It is a little more complex than that. As Wikipedia:Categorization states,

"If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? If the answer...is no, then the category is probably inappropriate." I hope you will agree that this precisely describes your use of categorisation for these articles. Warofdreams talk 00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Revealing the private information of others is frowned upon at wikipedia. Do not do it again or you will blocked. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the written policy on this? Or are you just blocking me arbitrarily? Corax 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Corax, you've been temporarily blocked from editing for posting another user's personal information. Please note that if you do this again, the block will be indefinite. You're welcome to e-mail me to discuss this using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss this here. Where is the policy on personal information -- especially when that personal information is all but openly stated on the editor's user page? Corax 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy is, don't play silly games with other peoples personal info, if you want to be unblocked William M. Connolley 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, where is this policy stated? Or are you just making it up on the spur of the moment? Corax 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the following excerpt from Wikipedia's harassment policy:

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor or not.

If this doesn't clear things up, nothing does. 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Posting personal details

• Users who post personal details about other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. .

This is the second time this user has posted personal info. -Will Beback 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are lying. Corax 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you indicating any remorse or acknowledgement of error. Do you realize that what you did is a major violation of Wikipedia policies? -Will Beback 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that now. When notified that it was against policy, I reverted the text to re-include the non-offensive material that was deleted, then reverted out the personal information. Then was I blocked. Go figure. Corax 22:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are they claiming you outed? Does the person care? Is the person anonymous on Wikipedia? Hermitian 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan. I have no idea if she cares. And she is semi-anonymous. Corax 23:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like admins are just gaming Wikipedia because they don't like the NAMBLA article. They need to TELL THE WIKITRUTH :) Hermitian 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but nothing new there. As you said before: when it comes to math and science, Wikipedia is an awesome resource; but when it comes to social science and politics, Wikipedia has the accuracy of Oprah. For example, we've spent -- what? -- three months now trying to convince these people that NAMBLA is a gay/LGBT organization, a fact that they have protested vehemently. At the same time, the article about LGBT rights drops the name Jeremy Bentham (the famous utilitarian philosopher) as an early proponent of gay rights. But wait -- a quick glance at Bentham's famed essay shows that he wasn't talking about adult men screwing adult men. No! He was talking about Greek pederasty or what is today known as ephebophilia. So on the one hand, we have gays wrapping themselves in the clothes of pederasty to suit their political agenda, while on the other hand they have fought tooth-and-nail to distance themselves from a traditionally pederasty organization like NAMBLA. Amazing. Then they wonder why the American public isn't going to give them gay marriage? They can see through the charade, obviously. Corax 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)