Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:52, 11 September 2006

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)

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. 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. Just be aware that I generally do act in good faith, even if in poor judgement, and comments directed at me under the basis that I am not will probably be ignored, since it's my experience that nothing productive comes out of those discussions. Happy editing! Karwynn

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

Hello Karwynn

Meet me in Spain at sundown— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Will do, haha Karwynn (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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. —ptk★fgs 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for the Tip

I have already saved it on my user page did days ago. I am waiting to see what this group will do and then present my case to an admin for review. I have a really good idea what I need to do but won't do it until I get with an admin.--Supplements 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit

The edit didn't bother me I did that when I first came onboard and after looking around figured it was gonna get wacked. No big deal about him not leaving a note although you are correct it is not agood idea. He may have been testing me to see if I would get sideways and attack his page or something but that is't the case. As far as the picture feel free to delete it. I am over the gastric bypass thing as well. I know what to do to edit it for resubmission but need to wait. I guess sometimes when we get started kinda get carried away.

As for the contact me I misread the way to do that and have now corrected in my preference.--Supplements 18:25, 3 August 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)

Archive what? You've already deleted it from the page, even though you promised you woudln't. If you put a link to the archive on this page, I will not protect the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

History21 is a sock

See this, this, and this. rootology (T) 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your email

I'm not ignoring your email, I'm mulling over a reply. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's good to know, take all the time you need. Karwynn (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreement

Heya,

I wanna say that I think you're probably right about that second source at the Zhang He page - though it translates the parts that Jiuwan didn't translate in his version, the "Xiahou Dun" thing is a little much. I also like how you took out that part about his personality historically vs. DW, because, uh, well, again, you're right. I was nervous about taking things out, though.

Do you think, just on another note, that a "novel" section on Zhang He's page may be appropriate to alleviate some of the editing to the page that happens where people replace information about him from the SGZ/ZZTJ/etc with the SGYY's story? It's true that the novel version isn't even mentioned in his biography which probably makes people who have only read the novel a bit confused.

I'm afraid to make a full-on addition to the page because I have a feeling it may cause an uproar with the previous contributors to the page.

-CTR

Helpme

I'm kinda havin' toruble formatting my userboxes here, I want to make it so the three boxes aren't, lik, together. So that the last two aren't grouped together. Any tips? Thanks. Karwynn (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You could use {{userboxtop}}, list the userboxes you want to use, and finish with {{boxboxbottom}}. That will create a column along the right side of the page you put this on. --JD _{email me} 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the tags I told you about around the userboxes in your sandbox, and I thought you'd want to have a look. Feel free to revert it if you want to. --JD _{email me} 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, not abusing the helpme template here, it's just that JD UK misunderstood my question and he can't be reached for a reply except by email, and I don't want to email-bother him with this. What I mean was to have them ( my useboxes that I'm messing around with) algned horizontally... like say, Haisum's userboxes (although I don't have that many). I explain a little more in my sandbox. Thanks in advance for any assistance, Karwynn (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

People can e-mail-bother me with anything. I'll give it a shot for you. --JD _{email me} 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it now? What you wanted? --JD _{email me} 18:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfection! Thank you very much! Karwynn (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) --JD _{email me} 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I do reply to messages left on my talk page, I just prefer e-mails. --JD _{email me} 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Psst.

1,000th "main" space edit. Thought you'd find that amusing. rootology (T) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mailing

You invite people to send you an e-mail on your user page, but you either don't have an e-mail address registered, you do have one but it isn't authorised or identified or whatever the word is, or you've chosen not to receive e-mails from other users. Either way, you should be able to fix it in your preferences. --JD _{email me} 22:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So it is! Thanks for the catch, I've enabled it now. Karwynn (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sandbox

Sorry, I didn't think it was vandalism, I just wanted to revert something using popups. -- TheGreatLlama 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I was meaning someone else, someone who used vandalproof on an anon. Karwynn (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I sure am a thilly goothe. Geethe are awethomeneth! -- TheGreatLlama 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Godless

I saw some of your edits here. It amuses me, and boggles my mind, that in that article, a bunch of now-discredited arguments and examples in FAVOR of evolution (piltdown man, peppered moth, etc.) have now become "longstanding creationist arguments AGAINST evolution." (The point is that A, and B, and C, and D were once seen to be evidence of evolution, and now they've been discredited.) Weeks ago I tried to straighten that out, but the tide of rigorous scientific defenders of evolution was too much to handle. Keep up the good work. Lou Sander 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Check out the discussion if you haven't already, it's a good thing to establish a precedent consensus for. Karwynn (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like how you guys are patting each other on the back for flagrant violations of NPOV by inserting your religious agendas into scientific articles. --Cyde Weys 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAT are you talking about. What edit of mine are you referencing? Karwynn (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Snide, nonsensical comment removed. No incivility or wild accusations here please. Karwynn (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring mostly to Lou Sander. I don't see how you can justify removing my legitimate criticism as a "personal Attack". There's too much POV anti-science going around. --Cyde Weys 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought that since you were not bothering to say what edits you were talking about, it was just a drive-by shot. However, if you say "patting each other on the back", that means both of us. The edit you reverted was disputed, and to accuse us/me of intentionally inserting a religious POV is not cool. I do apologize for rushing into a {{RPA}} though. Karwynn (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, sorry, maybe I'm just lumping you guys in with Ed Poor. I'm still having problems decoding Lou Sander's statement though ... is he really a science-denier? --Cyde Weys 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I've interacted with him in the past, he can be a little confusing.  :-) Gets real caught up on censorship of swearing sometimes. Karwynn (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn! Do I really do that? ;-) --Uncle Ed 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant Lou Sander, haha. Karwynn (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Help in "decoding": This isn't very hard. There are certain examples that were for a long time ("longstanding") used by the scientific community as illustrations of the validity of the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection. For example, these include Galapagos finches, the peppered moth, Piltdown man, Archaeoraptor, Haeckel's drawings, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Many of these illustrations have now been shown to be incorrect (those in the above examples among them); some (for example Piltdown man) have been shown to have been fraudulent. The book Godless uses them to demonstrate the less-than-rigorous, less-than-honest nature of the scientific community in question, and to further illustrate its important thesis that those who hold to the above-referenced theory do so, in large part, in the nature of adherents to a religion.

IMHO it is improper to cite these examples as "longstanding creationist arguments AGAINST evolution." More important than my opinion, of course, is that citing them as such casts a revealing light on the mindsets of those whose beliefs include the belief in the integrity and rigor of the "scientific community" that works to advance Darwin's theory. Lou Sander 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not involved in those articles, but none of those pro-creation references are appropriate to Godless. Karwynn (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages articles are referenced only to provide access to material cited extensively in chapters 8 & 9 of Godless. The characterization of them as "longstanding creationist arguments" appears in the Misplaced Pages article on Godless. Interested parties can follow the links and decide for themselves--it's one of the beauties of Misplaced Pages. Anyone who wants to believe they are "pro creation" arguments can continue to do so, of course. There's no compulsion in religion. Lou Sander 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Love

Based on your edits, and your style of writing, you sound like youre an attractive girl. Please post a picture of yourself to confirm this theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike xawn (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with uploading a pic of myself to this wiki, but here's a link to a glamour shot I recently took: Karwynn (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well-played Karwynn...well-played; a simple no would have sufficed...You did not need to go and raise my hopes of glancing at your real-life beauty, only to have them shattered when I realized it was all an elaborate prank...sigh

You don't think I'm beautiful?!?! *sob* Karwynn (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember BB Hibou? He's back, in POG form.

Board of Trustees discussion

"If someone would direct me to discussion/voting or whatever goes on for the Board of Trustees elections (if they aren't already finished) for my own reading purposes, I'd greatly appreciate it."

Good question. Here is where I asked it: Meta:Talk:Election FAQ 2006#Candidacy discussions?

AnonEMouse 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Things here are fine how things by you. I don't mind, my view isn't really about the policy she was trying to enforce (I do believe she should enforce it) my issue is with her recent conduct in enforcing it. I believe that she has not conducted herself as I think a SYSOP should but can learn from the RfC and be better because of it. Æon 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good. That's exactly my thoughts - that she made mistakes and should avoid those in the future, not so much that there needs to be a lynchin'. Thanks alot for the clarification. Karwynn (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob! I'm allways willing to discuss edits and comments. I have endorsed your statement which is what I feel the spirit of the RfC has trying to touch on. Æon 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not really a comprehensive summary, but everything else has been covered, mainly by you. Karwynn (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Everyone else I feel is to wraped up in the policy issue to figure out that it is a uncivility and consensus issue. She WAS corect to enforce the policy but incorrect to resort to those meens. Æon 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

I like the poem too, but it's unfortunately a copyvio to keep it there. I don't think anyone would object to a short quote of say 2-4 lines, attributed to the author. Tyrenius 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn.  :-( I'll just nuke it. Karwynn (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When they won't discuss their reverts

Hi, sorry to barge in. But you have to watch out for the 3-revert rule.

You said, "If discussion does not resume above, I'm going to keep reverting." Please make sure you don't revert any article more than 3 times in any one 24-hour period, or the FeloniousMonk clique will report you for a 3RR violation and get you blocked from editing! :-(

I've seen them do this to several contributors who are "new" to the Evolution-related articles. --Uncle Ed 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't. 've reverted just once today, I've been sticking to 1RR lately, but since he's being menacing about "enforcing polcy", I'm not gonna touch it. Thanks though. Karwynn (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall

I really appreciate your going to bat, but I think it would be best to keep it really civil and up and up. Cyde was one of the most vehement against this initially, and is now working to improve the idea. rootology (T) 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I just wish he'd stop writing me off lke that. Oh well. Karwynn (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America and your comments, you are a woman aren't you? I can tell by the way you write. Women tend to be more diplomatic then the more agressive other half. Travb (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? HA, I know dozens of editors that would be greatly offended by you calling me non-aggressive. I'm a man actually (well, boy - 19 yrs old). What made you bring it up? Karwynn (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended, but I do apologize for inadvertently calling you "young missy" on a talk page earlier. I somehow made the assumption you were an (assertive) female as well. -- nae'blis 17:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a compliment really. If you are secure in your masculinity you shouldn't be offended and you will take it as compliment. I think women are the better of the two sexes. More forgiving and kind. There would be less wars if their were more women leaders. People think that I am a woman all the time on the phone, and many people have thought that I was gay because I am kind and a nice guy in real life. So please don't be offended. Sorry for the gaff. Travb (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Faggotstein

A: I have never heard of this guy you claim I'm impersonating. B: This block is total bullshit and you will remove it immediately. --Faggotstein

Can't, I'm not an administrator. Karwynn (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your snide comments on my talk page

Have been talking in circles, you mean? FM and JZ have said all there is to say. You have ignored their rationale and continue to revert to a less accurate version. Are you saying that if I add "listen to JZ and FM" on the talk page you will suddenly see the light? What is the point of adding snide comments here anyway? Guettarda 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "ignored" - I answered there comments on the article's talk page, but was being bold and went ahead and reverted anyway. In fact, I was on 1RR until they stopped discussion and started threatening to block. And as far as adding "listen to JZ and FM", I'm not really sure what you mena by that. Same with the snideness - this is the comment I left on your talk page soliciting your opinion. I'm sorry you took that to be snide, that certainly was not my intention. When people leave comments on your talk page asking for your input in discussion after knowing you don't agree with them, it might be safe to assume good faith and take it as an invitation to come to an agreement. Karwynn (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

General comment to the populus: Why is it considered so inflammatory and combative to ask for a little discussion regarding disputed portions of articles? Every time lately I've asked for more discussion and cooperation as an alternative to edit warring I get... well, basically I get the above. An assumption of sarcasm and snideness (is it that hard to believe an editor is willing to hash things out properly?!), coupled with a "just do what we say and shut up about it!" comment. Sheesh, if Wikipedians need anything at all, it's a sense of "I might be wrong sometimes". Karwynn (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter, in her book Godless, talks about the irrational and combative responses of what she calls "Darwiniacs." It's good reading, and it sheds a lot of light on what she calls their "religion." Example, from page 246: The single greatest victory of the Darwiniacs is in the realm of rhetoric, not science. They have persuaded the slumbering masses that anyone who questions the theory of evolution must do so out of religious fervor. I claim not to be one of the "sleeping masses," but I know their work when I see it. Lou Sander 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the primary movement against evolution (today) is intelligent design, which is advocated by a Christian think tank called the Discovery Institute, ascribing religious beliefs to those who counter evolution is an entirely logical assumption. Intelligent design falls apart if one does not imply a deity or other religious super-entity. If you are referring to another challenge to evolution that does not involve intelligent design or creationism, then we can discuss such matters. Unfortunately, the most prominent anti-evolution forces that are present in the public discourse today do indeed stem from religious beliefs, as intelligent design and creationism are both non-falsifiable assertions, and therefore cannot be tested using the scientific method. As for "irrational and combative responses," Coulter should know. She's an expert. --kizzle 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you come to my talk page just to bash one of my favorite authors and gripe about creationism? Karwynn (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just politely adding my 2 cents. Would you like to address the specific points in my argument or resort to dismissing my entire post as a "gripe"? --kizzle 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't feel that approaching an article with the attitude towards Coulter as a combative and irrational person is going to be very beneficial. Besides, all of this is moot - the conflict is whether these sources apply to COulter's book, not whether or not they are reliable. I'm sure they are. But to include them against COulter is an original synthesis of material. If no one else has propped up those sources against COulter's book, don't use them. It's not our job to go fishing for sources to contradict anyone who holds a general idea contrary to that article. It should include only COulter-specific sources. Karwynn (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat in agreement. I don't think that a descriptive rebuttal against ID should be included on everybody's page who believes in it, especially considering Coulter isn't really even part of the movement, but as long as we wiki-link to ID and the debate pages within, people can choose to follow up on whether Coulter's views have widespread scientific acceptance. My comment was directed towards Lou's endorsement of Coulter's point about "Darwiniacs" and more specifically how and why I believed he and Coulter were incorrect. --kizzle 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment from RyanFreisling

reposted from Karwynn's user page

WP:BEANS. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming no bureaucrats go insane, I don't think it's a problem :-) Karwynn (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to move the reply, you should move the comment as well. Putting it here obfuscates the meaning of my comment. I've put a link above to the 'joke' you posted. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry about that, I should've thought of that. Karwynn (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Comment

Thanks for fixing it and for letting me know . Cheers, Tewfik 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Karwynn (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

userbox

Steal away, I stole one of yours if you dind't notice. ;) rootology (T) 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So you did! I hadn't noticed. I don't even remember where I got that. Karwynn (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Sorry for your being pulled into this, but you're named as an involved party. It'shere. rootology (T) 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the adding by myself of sockpuppet comments, that was purely because MONGO had previously removed all the entries by that account, seemingly because they were from a sockpuppet. Hence when I decided that they had no other reason for their removal, I added the notices to keep Mongo happy and hopefully prevent their removal again by way of a compromise. LinaMishima 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments weren't questioning your motivation, I was just pointing out the irrelevance of it. Karwynn (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much, but I wanted to make sure we were all clear on what was happening. And good call on that ;) LinaMishima 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore All Rules

I spotted your comment on the Ignore All Rules page.

I think you got very close to hitting the nail on the head. Would it surprise you if ignore all rules (together with Be Bold) was the key tool people used for finding which guidelines needed changing or creating, when we first started out?

Some people still use the same process today:

First you find something is going on. Then you take the guidelines as advice, think really hard, and solve the problem as best you can.

If you discover that your solution does better than how the guidelines had it written down before, you write down your own advice on the appropriate guideline pages as well.

Have you ever tried this procedure yourself?

Kim Bruning 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone takes down the info again

Someguy555 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw. They don't care though. They really don't. ED's been in the news a good deal lately, actually, for various online scandals documented on it. But they're not interested in notability, verifiability, or encyclopedic content at all regarding ED. All they care about is self-promotion for Misplaced Pages and reputation for individual editors. Of course, this is no news to some people, even if I definitely don't endorse the way they expressed it. Anyway, I'm done trying to make major contributions to Misplaced Pages as "the sum of all human knowledge" and as an encydlopedia. I've said my piece and if no one chooses to learn from it, it's no longer going to be my concern. I'll be editing only articles I look up that are so bad they disgust me, and occassional minor edits here and there. I've been driven out of any boldness and discussion by elitist idiots who mistake this for a clique and mistake adminship for a title/position to be defended instead of to be used to better Misplaced Pages, so I'll just work on things and give way on all conflicts. If they want their troublesome, cliquey, reputation-obsessed Misplaced Pages socialites enough to disrupt Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages editors this much, I'm not gonna let it be any skin off my back. If Misplaced Pages still sucks and is used as a tool of deciding which things/ideas/concepts are worth knowing about, at least I did what I could to change it, so my conscience is clear. As far as you folks who have lost all perspective on what we do here:

Karwynn (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - definitely Karwynn (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)