Misplaced Pages

User talk:Karwynn: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:47, 1 August 2006 editKarwynn (talk | contribs)1,120 edits setting archive lines← Previous edit Revision as of 22:49, 1 August 2006 edit undoKarwynn (talk | contribs)1,120 edits delete bullshitNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
I have listed stuff to archive in the second to last version of this page before this one. I'll archive as soon as I'm unblocked for a particularly bad faith block. Those wth the best intentions who think they might archive for me are not doing me a favor; I appreciate the thought anyway. It'll be archived as soon as possible, but for now it's gone because it disgusts me. Feel free to look in my history if you really, really, really need something. ] ] 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, no response, except one that was off-topic and baiting. Why am I not surprised? It's little wonder there are less and less unproductive newbies; they're driven out by administrative action, and then administrators are not held accountable. Requests for unblock is "trolling", and suggesting an admin made vandal edits is "harassment". The peons are ordered to "forget" their concerns for the encyclopedia, and as a result abusive editors are free to ruin the encyclopedia by molding controversial articles by their own preference while certain admins waste their time using their priveleges for the sole purpose of preserving those priveleges. Until ] and the principle of accountability are truly followed, Misplaced Pages is doomed to the sort of elitism that ] warned of. ] ] 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Archive: ] Archive: ]
Line 221: Line 221:


I will archive everything below this line as soon as I am unblocked. I cannot make that any more clear. If you are so stupid that you think I'm lying when this is obviously something I can prove in less than 24 hours, please go find something more productive to do. Go write the encyclopedia!!!!! ] ] 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I will archive everything below this line as soon as I am unblocked. I cannot make that any more clear. If you are so stupid that you think I'm lying when this is obviously something I can prove in less than 24 hours, please go find something more productive to do. Go write the encyclopedia!!!!! ] ] 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

== Politics ==

<s>Misplaced Pages is ] a politics chatboard. Please discuss article, not politics. I refer to edit. ] - ] 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)</s>

:Are you kidding me? ] 14:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly he is not kidding anyone, he brought it up for deletion and also wiped out a large portion of the discussion. It has however been restored, and the deletion is still up being polled. ] 14:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the tip-off. I knew he was trouble, having seen his tactics on a long-dead Arbtration I came across, as well as another user's talk page. It's only because I have had so little interaction with him and don't want to judge too quickly that I even ]-ed him, because if this is how he normally operates, that would be "optimistic to the point of foolishness". ]

::Done bun can't be undone. ] 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


== Abuse of 3RR on ] ==

Stop counting down reversions as if you're entitled to three reverts per day. That's gaming the system and can easily lead to a block. --] 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

:What? No, you've got it wrong. I'm counting down in an effort to check myself. I fail to see how making an effort to check yourself could be seen as gaming the system. I'm very absent-minded, and these edit summaries are my way of making sure I don't go over, since my time is several hours off the displayed time and I don't know if this or that reversion was made yesterday or this morning. Please assume good faith. If you thought the "violation" was blatant enough that ] wasn't necessary, why didn't you at least ask me for clarification before admonishing me? ] ] 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

:''This response copied to his talk page''

::It is good that you are trying to check yourself instead of just blindly reverting as much as you want, but I think Cyde did assume an appropriate level of good faith here. There are others who would have just blocked you for edit-warring; this was a heads-up alerting you to what your actions appear to be (regardless of their actual intentions). (])<sup>(])</sup> 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to read up on ] ... citing ] as the main justification in defense of your actions never looks good, and it's actually a pretty weak defense. --] 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that 3RR is not an entitlement, if you're reverting enough that you need to count (in your head or otherwise) then you should probably stop reverting and start using the talk page. If other people refuse to talk, you should invite another party to do further reverting. If you continue to simply revert, even if you stay clear of breaking 3RR, you will almost certainly be blocked for violating the spirit of the policy. --] 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

::I don't care if you think it's a weak defense. Even so, I don't need to AAGF; it's not a policy, and it's obvious that you didn't bother to assume good faith, or you would've at least asked me why I was doing that, so no assumption is warranted. Besides, that wasn't my '''only''' defense; I clearly explained my actions, and you chose to ignore me. I've explained myself adequately, and if you disagree with my explanation and insist that I'm intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages by "gaming the system", please explain why.

::Basically, regardless of the "strength" of my defense, it's policy to assume good faith on my actions, period; believe me when I say I'm just doing it to check myself '''unless you have reason to believe otherwise''', and if that's the case, please '''explain''', not just state, why. I'm well aware that I'm not "entitled" to 3 reverts - '''nor is ]''', but I notice he hasn't gotten warnings. This reverting on this section has been going on for approximately 24 hours; I believe I have made one original change and 3 reverts total on the subject. I'd understand your objection if this was going ono for weeks or even days, but it's been one day. This pre-emptive warning is unnecessary. There is no problem. If I violate policy, let me know; I'm competent enough to know that 'm "approaching" the point of policy violation, and need not be informed so, as long as I check myself. ] ] 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

==Compiling evidence==

I don't know if this helps much, but there's this on ED ~ ] 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:For better or worse, Misplaced Pages doesn't have jurisdiction over ED users or ED vandals. Besides, that might not even be him :-( All it shows if it is is that he's a hypocrite, but it's not against WP policy to vandalize other wikis, I don't think. ] ] 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::Ah, those arn't edit for ED - It's a list of possible bad edits here on Misplaced Pages that someone put together over there. ~ ] 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, duh. I'm so dumb, I didn't even bother reading it! Whoops. THanks! ] ] 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


== FYI ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64877221

he is trying to recruit an admin sympathetic to Mongo. ] 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

:I'm all over it :-) ] ] 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

::Just delete mention of his IP address, you can still make your "case" without tying him to personal details not readily available to Wikipedians. --] 17:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

::: ] ] 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry I don't pay attention to your user sub-pages, I got blasted last time I looked at one. I think it's better to continue your good-faith attempt and err on the side of safety and assume it is his IP until confirmed. --] 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Respectfully, I think it's more of a good-faith assumption to say it's NOT his IP, since the IP in question has made vandal edits. ] ] 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

== Blocked ==

unblock|complied already

: Already unblocked. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked for "trolling", after the blocking editor ] asked me to take down an IP address, which I did. Now he's taking the matter to ], where, once blocked, I cannot contribute (correct me if I'm wrong). This is obviously a little unfair. Please help. I will be gone for a couple of hours, don't expect a reply.

===To Tony:===

I have removed the IP on the mindset that this will be resolved quickly. Please do so if you expect me to leave it off temporarily. I have been looking for an answer to for some time. If the answer is no/unconfirmed, the IP goes back up. If the answer is yes, the issue is moot, and I'll have the evidence confirmation I'm looking for.{{unsigned|Karwynn}}

::You don't have any evidence to speak of, just because he vandalized one page while not logged in, doesn't make it terribly important, at this point it seems that you're just trying to close off the issue entirely by responding with tit for tat trollery, and making your supposed position completely undefendable--] 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Wrong, sir. I have posted in response to all these ridiculous witchhunting tactics with a single diff link . It has gone completely unnoticed. ] ] 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

: Please stop attempting to fish for the IP numbers of editors who have not been credibly accused of wrongdoing. If there is a serious problem of abuse, take it through the correct channels. I'm unblocking you on the assumption that you will cease these fishing expeditions. --] 17:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

::: Not a bad assumption, considering '''I complied with your request in the first place.''' THat's not an assumption, that's proof. It was not a fishing expedition. ] or give a reason why you won't in the future. ] ] 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

===Please Note===

Let's not kid around. Please note that the real reason I was unblocked is because I was blocked for not complying with a "remove this content" request, but in fact I '''had''' removed it. This is not a "well, I'll give him another chance" unblock, it's a 'shouldn't have been blocked in the first place" unblock. Meaning I was never "trolling", as the deletion log says, in the first place. ] ] 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello ],

You are here to help write the encyclopedia, right? Then find an article to work on or some other useful task. Both short term and long term Misplaced Pages user are judged by their contributions to writing the 'pedia. The best way to prove to your doubter that you are a solid contributor is to make sound edits. If you need help or suggestions, you can contact me on my user page. Take care, ] ] 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:I appreciate the suggestion. I need a cool down, and it took the first non-competitive editor I've been messaged by in days to show me that. ] ] 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

==you asked==
] 06:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==Harassing MONGO==
Despite a reprieve and very clear warnings that you were well over the line on harassing MONGO, you come up with . I'm blocking you for 24 hours this time to give you a chance to take a long walk and get him out of your system. --] 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

'''UNBLOCK TEMPLATE IGNORED OF COURSE'''

This is now the third time I've been blocked for "harassment and trolling." This is no longer a failure to assume good faith. This is a blatant misinterpretation of a comment. I asked why MONGO would not leave the IP address' contributions up as a show of good faith, asking the very fair question of why he would want to delete its contribs if it's not even related to him, and and BAM, I get blocked. This is quite obviously not harassment, but rather a question about a baseless and very fishy deletion proposition. I don't even know where to begin to contest this block, it is so lacking in merit that there's nothing for me to build on! I request to be unblocked and have Tony Sidaway get someone else to block me in the future for any offense not involving simple and obvious vandalism. It is clear that Sidaway's wish that I drop my suggestion that MONGO has been acting improperly is conflicting with his use of the block. ] ] 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

:Additionally, see this Same story here. He did not block him for poor judgement in that comment. He blocked him for alleged '''deliberate trollery.''' This is entirely inappropriate, considering the lengths both Hardvice and I have gone to show that our actions are in good faith, even if we are wrong. Tony Sidaway is not allowing anyone to question MONGO's judgement, despite having very concrete reasons to do so, which most have made abundantly clear, even if they were ignored by Tony. Tony Sidaway is not fit to be blocking people for these reasons and ought to recuse himself and let someone else review these blocks. Maybe someone who is willing to follow ] should take a look at this. ] ] 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

::Wow, no response, except one that was off-topic and baiting. Why am I not surprised? It's little wonder there are less and less unproductive newbies; they're driven out by administrative action, and then administrators are not held accountable. Requests for unblock is "trolling", and suggesting an admin made vandal edits is "harassment". The peons are ordered to "forget" their concerns for the encyclopedia, and as a result abusive editors are free to ruin the encyclopedia by molding controversial articles by their own preference while certain admins waste their time using their priveleges for the sole purpose of preserving those priveleges. Until ] and the principle of accountability are truly followed, Misplaced Pages is doomed to the sort of elitism that ] warned of. ] ] 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==Past "harassment"==

::Since Tony may argue that since I was harassing before, I must be harassing now (non-sequiter, but I'll go on), I'll chronicle the events of my last harassment block here as well.

***
*** (I explain this in edit summaries)
***, '''not MONGO'''; we revert back and forth.
***I get blocked for harassment, because I '''knew''' (not even "shouold have known, I actually knew) that MONGO didn't want the section on the page. THis is in spite of the fact that MONGO's last edit to the ssection had NOT been to remove it, but to rename it.

::Basically, this block was a mistake too, so don't even cite it as a reason for this one. ] ] 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret that I am compelled to cut off all contact to and from MONGO until an uninvolved admin clears me from this ridiculous harassment diatribe. My deletions of his comments will be reverted if this happens. If my judgement is right, MONGO is not to be allowed to comment on my talk page about my good faith as long as I am blocked for reciprocating. In the event my judgement here is wrong, this is done to protect MONGO from ], a ] ] ] 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

== LO-FREAKIN-L ==


Please note the absence of any personal information here. ] ] 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==Email enabled==

It's back on now, I didn't realise I'd switched it off. ~ <b>IICATSII</b> ] 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
: Hi, I didn't get the second email. If you could resend it then it'd be appreciated. Thanks. ~ <b>IICATSII</b> ] 08:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Stop the nonsense ==

I'm done with your nonsense...now extending into the hipocrite Rfc. If you don't stop your trolling nonsense, I will block you. This is your only warning.--] 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:Can you provide some examples? I may be able to more effectively stop the nonsense if you provide some diffs. ] ] 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::Are there any any specific edits you had in mind when you gave me this warning? ] ] 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours due to your reposting of indefinitely blocked editors comments that were nothing but egregious personal attacks on two editors. --] 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

== Questionable block ==


:::Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
:::You were blocked by MONGO for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
:::reposting blocked editors comments that were personal attacks
:::Your IP address is 68.59.61.191.


I was blocked for a deleted outside view by a user. This occured said user was blocked indefinitely. MONGO, the blocking admin, made no mention of the fact until much later (see ] in the history). I was then blocked for reposting the removal of an outside view with no warning, unless you count ], which was an ambiguous and intimidating warning given to me '''before''' I reposted the comments. The only other place the matter was remotely discussed is ], where once again I get no warning or indication that reposting a removed outside view is against policy. In fact, I still fail to see how this is against policy, and MONGO has declined to provide a reason is his blocking summary. On top of all that, MONGO and I are currently involved on opposite sides of a dispute in an RfC, so it seems highly inappropriate that he would block me rather than taking the matter to the ANI or something. I think this warrants an unblock, or at least a temporary one and a discussion at ANI with me participating. ] ] 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I am unable to email the user who blocked me because ] has labeled me a :harassing troll and I don't want to risk further trouble. ] ] 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed the matter with the blocking admin (below) and have asked him to clarify where and why my edits have been the "trolling" and "nonsense" he warned me about, as well as the evidence refuting my insistence that my action that I was blocked for was in good faith. At this point, he stopped dscussing it and completely ignored me. It's clear that MONOG was not happy with my edits, but if he can't even come up with a reason why they are against policy and why he perceives them to be deliberate trollery and harassment, I should not be blocked for it, as I have no way of knowing what to "improve". ] ] 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:I removed the personal attacks made by this editor and you then reposted them...all this was after I had already warned you about your trolling on that page.--] 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::I'm still unclear on that, which I mentioned on this unblock request; could you elaborate a little on the above heading please? Thanks, ] ] 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Also, since I didn't agree that it was a personal attack, reinserting it would be in good faith, right? I mean, it may not seem so because I didn't clarify that I didn't think it was attack material, but that's because I wasn't really given a chance to speak before I was blocked. Perhaps a little discussion might have prevented this problem? ] ] 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::::No. What's there to elaborate on? You were asked to stop your nonsense which I also see as disruptive and instead, you chose to repost harassing comments which insulted opposing parties on the Rfc and which I had removed. This is now your fourth block.--] 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for your answer, but what I meant was this: What was the "nonsense" you were referrng to in the first place? Could you provide some diffs or something in the RfC that demonstrate trolling per ]? '''Other than''' my reposting of PaleColor's material, which occured '''after''' your original warning? What edits was I warned for in the first place? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I just really don't know what you are talking about. ] ] 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, and as I said before, I didn't really think the removed outside view was harassment or attack material, so even if I disagreed with you, I was acting in good faith, don't you think? You didn't really answer me, you just kind of ] Is there any chance you could explain '''why''' you thought my reversion was hostile trolling rather than differing opinion? ] ] 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No answer. Am I to take that to mean that you cannot specify what edits you consider trolling? Perhaps you have rethought the matter? Surely such a strongly put accusation of trolling has explicit evidence. Look at the top of my talk page; I cannot modify my behavior if don't know what I am doing wrong. COuld you please specfy a few edits? ] ] 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Stop playing games...you are fully aware of your actions and I'm not going to post the diffs here so that you can further waste my time.--] 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I'm not fully aware of why you deem my edits to be in bad faith, otherwise why would I be asking? I've asked several times, can you please specify which edits are "nonsense" and deliberate trolling that you warned me for, and tell me '''why ''' you disagree with my assertion that I was acting in bad faith for the blocked offense, despite my clear statement saying that the act, while possibly in poor judgement, was done in good faith, without intent to harass or attack? The evidence must be pretty clear and readily available if the action merited blocking without even a warning about specifically reposting the "personal attack". Had you brought it up on my talk page, I would have certainly relented.] ] 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

==Bad faith==
In order to document your bad faith behavior, all I have to do is to point to your contributions. ]|] 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:Can you give an example, as well as an explanation as to '''why''' it is intentional bad faith behavior? If there are so many, that is hardly much to ask. Otherwise, I will remove your comment as a circular attack statement. ] ] 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


::Repeated stalking of MONGO, attempting to "out" him via an IP address, repeated attacks aimed at him, repeated attempts to generate an RfC against him. What more do you want? And if you remove my comments, I will protect your page from editing. ]|] 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Very well. I'll archive them instead. ] ] 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Very well. I'll archive them instead. ] ] 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::As far as your frivolous comments go:

****What stalking? Which articles? Please be more specific.

****I repeatedly asked for clarification on that IP thing (which I didn't even originally post). I got nothing but flames. That was based on ignorance, not malice.

****Repeated attacks? Again, where?

****I didn't file the RFC, I only protested it's deletion. Certainly not a acrime, other uninvolved editors agreed with me.

****What more do I want? The trolling my talk page, bad faith blocks, incivility and lack of AGF to stop. This would be obvious if you had actually read my contribs.

FInally, I do not take kindly to threats of out of policy talk page lockage. Cutting off someone's venues of discussion is not wiki. YOur hostility is not welcome here. GO ahead and have the last word, and I'll be done, and it'll be archived. ] ] 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


::::Don't dig the hole deeper...ride out your block and then start editing as if you are here to do something other than waste people's time. This isn't a playground.--] 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::MONGO, glad you're back. Can you please reply to my questions above? ] ] 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::I've given you the best advice I can...now time to abide by it.--] 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Acknowledged, but respectfully, I must insist that I am not the troll you believe I am. I now deeply regret my good faith edit to your talk page, which seems to have convinced you that I'm out to get you. Perhaps you'll hear me out on the matter? ] ] 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Zoe, if you're still around, can you please check your email? Thanks, ] ] 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:49, 1 August 2006

I have listed stuff to archive in the second to last version of this page before this one. I'll archive as soon as I'm unblocked for a particularly bad faith block. Those wth the best intentions who think they might archive for me are not doing me a favor; I appreciate the thought anyway. It'll be archived as soon as possible, but for now it's gone because it disgusts me. Feel free to look in my history if you really, really, really need something. Karwynn (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive: User_Talk:Karwynn/Fun

Replying: I reply wherever I feel like it. Sometimes here, sometimes at your talk page, sometimes both. Sometimes I even copy concerns to an appropriate article in or whatever, indicate that I copied it from my talk page, and reply there. If you want to reply to a specific place, let me know. I'm pretty flexible.

Archiving: I archive in bits and pieces, and will normally add to my archive rather than create new ones. At the risk of sounding self-important, I'll say that if and when my talk page and/or archives becomes significantly long and/or confusing, feel free to ask me for help in finding a conversation.

Happy editing, Psycho Master (Karwynn) Template:User What You Say


If you're in doubt of messaging me about something: I'm a pretty open person, and don't mind being messaged about things I consider frivolous or stupid (as long as you don't mind me sayng so). I welcome criticism, complaints, and especially, frankness - I'm much better at improving based on correcting my faults than improving by finding new ways to be better. When in doubt, give it a shot. Karwynn



Any more non-WP:AGF questions from people who continue to ignore my comments to the contrary will be reverted on sight. To disagree with my good faith is one thing, but to completely ignore everything I say will not fly. Karwynn (talk)


Remember (20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

FFR

Beware

re: No worries

Hi Karwynn, it was good working with you on the Forbidden City section. Hope to see you around more on that and similar pages :D --Sumple (Talk) 05:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Denise Richards discussion

Regarding the comment you left on my talk page: I think the opposite is the case. It is Denise Richards that should be given benefit of the doubt. I tolerate other people's opinions, but I do not tolerate intolerance. Denying Denise Richards the right to perceive herself as a Christian is bigotry, in my opinion. I'm not assuming that Christians are wackos in general, but I do think that Phatcat68 has exhibited a very intolerant, narrow view of who may call themselves a Christian and who may not. --Yogi de 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending his edits or his rationale or him at all; my point is in your explanation of why you changed his edits, you talked a lot about Phatcat68 and his faith and his narrow-mindedness and his bigotry. It just seems a little inapproprate as a reason to edit, not to mention not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, your discussion directly said that the reason you reverted his edits or whatever is because of how narrow-minded he is, not because of anything to actually do with Denise Richards. But honestly, I don't even know why I brought it up, t's old, old, OLD news and it was just pissing me off at the time, but now it seems stupid. Plus, I came off as way more bossy than I intended to on your page. Whatever, I'll shut up :-P
Maybe I should've replied on your page, but for some reason I've been blocked from editing any pages but my own userpage and talk page :-( I don't know why, at first I thought maybe someone hacked my password and went on a vandalism rampage, but I checked my contribs and there was nothing... I guess I'll just have to wait for the block to expire. Karwynn 14:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Strikethrough

Just so you know, to do a strikethrough, use the <s> and </s> tags like you would in HTML. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks. Karwynn 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I can't thank you enough for your support. Misplaced Pages is a lonely place sometimes. It looks as if I have been unblocked, probably in part, if not in whole, because of your actions. See you in the trenches Karwynn. Haizum 22:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this. Sandover, I'm relatively new on WP, and even I know you're way out of order. Calling people insane, saying that he's accusing of actually saying those things? Find me the moron that actually thought you said those exact words and didn't realize this was Hazium being satirical. He's using sarcasm for the purpose of 'MAKING A POINT', not to attack you, and you KNOW THAT ALREADY. And now you're saying you and your admin are threatening to ban him if he doesn't accept your sources as credible?! There's no way I'm gonna put up with that crap. I'm going to continue to push for a fair assessment of the validity of your resources, the reliability of which have been excellently demonstrated by the (somewhat overenthusiastic) Hazium. And I don't care if the admins around here automatically believe whoever speaks up first, I'm going to continue to edit this article fairly despite your bad-faith complaints of incivility. And as far as edit warring goes, you are doing nothing better than Hazium.
Once you are ready to resume legitimate debate, one in which you do not have your self-bestowed final say, on the credibility of these sources, post here and I'll take it up, since Hazium's been unfairly blocked. Karwynn 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I think I have a huge crush on you now (facetious). Haizum 01:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Advise

Haizum 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Job well done.

Just wanted to say I thought your most recent edit was very well done. Lawyer2b 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this: "Logan voiced that that Laura Ingraham had no validity in criticizing other journalists for not going to Iraq when she had not gone herself, only to find that Ingraham had in fact been to Iraq for nearly a week." is what we call "da bomb!". Lawyer2b 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Blazin' Haizum 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hrmm, I think what we should be going for is neutrality. That wording has a hint of spin in it. Watching the video, Logan doesn't seem taken aback, rather she repeats "one week" twice with disdain. So, one could spin it that way too. The best way to do it is to make simple statements without leading connecting words. For example, simply omit "only to find that". This avoids the (mistaken) implication that Logan backpedaled, while also noting the correction. Brillig20 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, she repeats "eight days" twice, but I still see your point. I actually considered putting something about her haughtiness or something in there, but didn't because I thought (and still think) it would be POV-critical of her - after all, it would further expose her as the arrogant eltist reporter she is. As for your concerns, I think you have the right intentions, but I don't agree with your conclusion. "Only to find that", to me, implies that a person says or does something on a pretense, and then finds that that pretense was wrong. Logan's "she could come to Iraq" statement was based on the pretense that Ingraham hadn't been, and then she found out that she had. (You might say she already knew that and decided to overlook it to make Ingraham look bad, which would hardly surprise me, but unless a source says otherwise I'd go with that video which makes it look like she was clueless.) Basically, what I'm saying is if what I wrote makes Logan look lke an idiot to you, it's only because it was a particularly idiotic performance. Karwynn 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

question re: Dynasty Warriors page

Do we really need the info on what weapon each character uses on the main series page? IMO, it's a little unwieldy, and why I split off the original listing into List of Dynasty Warriors characters. However, what you put on is much more concise than what was there originally, so I don't have a problem with it staying there, really. UOSSReiska 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Edriss 562/Visser One

Your expansion was excellent. --Lkjhgfdsa 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Is there some shortcut to reverting? Long story why, but I think I just found out I'm doing it a hard way. I've been going to history, clicking to view an older version that I want to revert to, clicking "edit this page", and clicking save page. Is there some other way or shortcut?

Thanks for the help, Karwynn 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For normal users, that is really the only way (see Help:Reverting). There are several tools available, such as one called Popups, but you have to install them yourself and they're a "use at your own risk" sort of thing. :) Administrators do get a rollback feature to make reverting quicker. -Dawson 16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

answer about deletion processes

I left my answer at the discussion thread so that others could read it, too.--Kchase02 T 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ingraham

Thanks for the heads up. I have reviewed and endorsed your disputed points. I have also EXPLICITLY asked for an explaination if your corrections are reverted (Sandover). He has continued to ignore concerns/points on the talk page and made changed completely unilaterally. Maybe see WP:DISRUPT "Gaming the System". I believe it is also policy (or heavily guidelined) for editors to "Talk" the dispute out, he has made litte effort to do so, preferring to harp on his issues with me. And of course, when I expressed his own position for him, he screamed bloody murder (but he didn't even try to clarify his position, probably because I'm accurate). See you in the trenches. Haizum 02:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandover has already begun reverting your edits without explaination, contrary to my endorsement as a 3rd party, and contrary to my implied and explicit requests for dialog on the Discussion page. Ingraham's trip may not have been 8 days, and although Sandover's reference for this is from Ingraham's page, the information is taken from what is implied through her picture gallery; it is not an explicit account of exactly how many days she was there. Sandover seems to think that because it's coming from lauraingraham.com that it must be true. Although he may be correct, the reference is certainly not clear enough for anyone that would be...oh say...using Misplaced Pages AS A REFERENCE! Haizum 05:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You may or may not want to comment on this: Haizum 08:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
(post removed) Haizum 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(no header)

karwynn is trying to destroy me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BB Hibou (talkcontribs) 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Actually, Karwynn, thanks for helping to clean up his vandalism. I added a {{test3}} warning to him for vandalism he's done, repeatedly today, to the Jorge Larrionda article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reposting my complaint. Where is you know who's RfA, do you know? Haizum 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't an RfA, just a misunderstanding. Probably for the best :-) Karwynn 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Tarver Article

I made some edits on the Tarver article. I'm sure you'll find something worth changing, and perhaps you'll find my edits worthy of a wiki-ban again...thanks

Gay boy

It's politeness, not censoring, to refrain from quoting epithets such as (uunlked language deleted by Karwynn (talk)with original poster's consent) etc. It's impoliteness, as well as arguably POV-pushing, to include them in quotes from people we're writing about. Lou Sander 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't censored. The words must be left in for accuracy. And it's not POV-pushing if it's a fact that someone said something. Don't be non-sensical. --Cyde↔Weys 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you maybe not insult other editors on my talk page? It makes me look bad, I think. And in any case, it makes me enjoy my talk page less :-( He's just stating his opinion. I hardly think that's non-sensical. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The event actually happened, so why are you accusing me of vandalism for including it in the article? Also please have the courage to sign your posts.--Wakefencer

Because it's clearly disputed, and you originally provided no explanation. Plus, you removed a quote block, also unexplained, so it looked like trolling/vandalism to me. That, and you're other edit to Wkipedia which I copied the URL from in my edit summary was a vandalism edit. Refrain from insulting my "courage" in the future. Obviously, if I don't sign a post it's forgetfulness, since I rarely, rarely put an unsigned comment. Also, I'm not a moron, I know it can be looked up in the history, so in order to try and be sneaky by not signing a post, I'd have to be both a coward and a moron. Surely you agree that that is not the case? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not dispute the fact that my earlier post was vandalism, but my second "test" was not. Whether or not it is disputed, it was a Good Faith edit. I admit I do not like Ann Coulter, but the second edit did not include any information that a number of different sources didn't cover.--Wakefencer

Don't worry about me Karwynn, I can take care of myself. Thanks for being so concerned about me getting myself banned, and I'm flattered that you check in on my talk page.--Wakefencer 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK! Good to know you've seen the light! Happy editing! Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Re: Accusation

I'm not certain what you're referring to. I suspect you may have misread one of my comments, because such was not my intention. Mind quoting what I said that you feel is an accusation? Kasreyn 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I Choo-Choo-Choose You

Karwynn, you seem to be a very nice girl, someone who wields their intelligence to defend the proletariat wikipedian like myself. I applaud you; may Ganesh shower you with gifts and blessings.

Talk page slurs

Hey, would you have any objection to me removing the examples of swear words and slurs you provided me with on my talk page here? They're... aesthetically deficient :-( And I didn't want to remove them without your permission. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Lou_Sander"

I certainly don't mind, and I agree that they are aesthetically deficient. I think you should remove them, and I applaud you for doing it. If you need any help in cleaning them up, I'll be honored to provide it myself.
You may remember that I advocated removing the aesthetically deficient "gay boy" slur from the Ann Coulter article, but linking to it openly where it was quoted. Nobody seemed to agree with me on that, though. (They like to talk about censorship, and I take them at their word, but my innermost thoughts are that they don't mind puttin' a little hurt on Miss Ann.) You're a person, I'm a person, and Ann Coulter is a person. None of us like to see aesthetically deficient slurs on our Misplaced Pages pages. I'm sorry if mine offended you. Lou Sander 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I just re-read your talk page, and I see that you mentioned my naughty words before. Sorry, but I didn't see it at the time. Thanks again for getting more directly in touch with me. Lou Sander 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah, that wasn't meant for you. No problem! Psycho Master (Karwynn) 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


The Owl Will Land At Dawn

The legacy of BB shall not be forgotten, nor shall those who have done harm to him.

Do you see what I meant?

You reverted my edit in less than a minute. :) ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's because much of the stuff in there is cited! Read the article and click the links, tell me if they don't verify the content. Karwynn (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


What´s so Civil about War, anyway?

I always suspected you were a conservative shill, a hack excuse of a wikipedian with a sinister republican agenda set in motion. Support the troops all you want, they have done nothing wrong other than being born in the wrong period of their nations´ history. The war will fail, the seeds that were planted will never blossom and your empire will crumble. George Walker Texas Ranger Bush had an opportunity, an opportunity unlike any man in the past century to instil peace in a fucked up world. Instead, he did what would hopefully create hegemony, unipolarity in a world dying for a multi-polar force...and you were right there behind him....pusssss

Are you quite sure? The assumption that I voted for Bush based on my support of the troops is interesting. Is this to say that no liberal would support the troops, no matter what the circumstances? Karwynn (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


if you have a minute

I'm hitting a couple people I've interacted with in the past with this note, looking for input. Could I persuade you to take a cruising pass at it, or at least leave me a note of your thoughts on, my project? Timeline of Internet conflicts.

For what its worth, my notes on what I envision the growth of that page as/scope is on the talk page. Basically a factual chronology of the online conflicts that shape the internet and its growth, ala how someone may do a break down of real world physical wars (which I actually would like to do after as a project if it hasn't been). Anywho, let me know what you think if you get a chance.

PS: You have email. rootology 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you write that article? I thought I saw somehow that you did. It's really cool, maybe even cool enough to turn into an actual project page. Anyway, sure, I'll take a look, but I can't promise anything, I'm no expert on the subject :-( I'd love to be involved in an article like that. Karwynn (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

sure. Shannon 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHA HOly crap, that was quite a laugh, I just got it! Karwynn (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Born on a Train

Karwynn, dear innocent Karwynn...I wish this never would have happened, our chance meeting in the Barcelona metro... I pursued, you withdrew; you pursued, I withdrew...making love in mountains of Monsterrat was magic, but you've cleft my heart in Twain... your beauty is deceptive, you are like a Milk Dud; heavenly on the outside, poison on the inside...Im sorry, Im not very good at expressing myself...perhaps what Im trying to say can be summed up in the words of a timeless song...

It was the heat of the moment, showing me what your heart's made of, heat of the moment shown in your eyes...I never meant to be so bad to you, one thing I said that I would never do, one look from you and I should fall from grace, and that would wipe the smile right from my face...

How bizarre, I actually wanna live in Barcelona when I grow up. Or get older, since now that I'm an "adult" I'm not allowed to say "When I grow up". Karwynn (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

question about Jersey Devil's RfA

Hi, I saw the comment you made with your weak support vote and left a question there; I wanted to make sure I understood what the issue was. It's not a challenge -- just a clarifying question. Thanks, --A. B. 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, even if it was a challenge. Most unfortunately, I've been blocked in poor judgement for questioning the judgement of an administrator. What a shame. Karwynn (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No rush -- sorry about the present situation. --A. B. 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Pic for deletion

How do you nominate a picture for deletion? This looks fake to me. Karwynn (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:IFD --pgk 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Forbidden City and He Fei Castle

Hehe. It was good material though. Get it published and we'll add it back in! --Sumple (Talk) 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that!  :-) Karwynn (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

uncited material

since you told me i could ask for help on wiki-matters, im going to take you up on that offer. I weas wondering how long i should leave up something that seems totally non-sensical Ghost Stories (Chantal Kreviazuk album) the part about there being no guitars when there obviously is if you listen to it. Should I take it down now, or wait for more people to discuss it? And if you could answer on my talk page that'd be great, thanks surrup

Interesting

Just saw it linked elsewhere, figured I'd pass it on.
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed_decision#Keeping_notes. rootology 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes

Amazing -- sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. —ptkfgs 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Stuff to Archive

I will archive everything below this line as soon as I am unblocked. I cannot make that any more clear. If you are so stupid that you think I'm lying when this is obviously something I can prove in less than 24 hours, please go find something more productive to do. Go write the encyclopedia!!!!! Karwynn (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)