Jump to content

User talk:Kmaguir1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kmaguir1 (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 14 August 2006 (→Unblock). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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]

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)[reply]

Still waiting for a response.--Anthony Krupp 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, ok. Sorry, didn't realize you were silent because you were blocked.--Anthony Krupp 20:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This Kmaguir1 (block log | autoblocks | unblock | [[Special:Contributions/Template:Kmaguir1|contribs]]) has asked to be unblocked.

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'. [2]. [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 wikipedia. 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: [3]. 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).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kmaguir1&oldid=69628547"