User talk:Karmafist - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyde (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 18 March 2006 (→Those edit summaries: Whoops bad block template, here's a personalized one.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:29, 18 March 2006 by Cyde (talk | contribs) (→Those edit summaries: Whoops bad block template, here's a personalized one.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Old Talk Page Skin

My Manifesto

Works for me

Your new welcome message with the signature link works for me; thanks. Now about those WP:POINT edit summaries of yours... ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, ditto; I don't care to bug anyone about what's in his signature. Karmafist, you intend to switch away from the old method, to this new method, on a permanent basis? If so, I really don't think the ArbCom case is necessary.-- SCZenz 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Karmafist/Workshop#Motion_to_drop_the_case. I hope we can reach mutually-agreeable solutions by easier methods in the future. -- SCZenz 21:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious

This may be one of the funniest edit summaries I've ever seen.Gator (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit : I LOL-ed too. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

For one of the funniest edit summaries I've **ever** seen, I award you the surreal barnstar

--Gator (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Public Office

I wish you the best in your campaign. I just ran for public office in my town council as the darkhorse candidate and pulled off an upset victory. I wish you the same fortune.Gator (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Boston, Lincolnshire — {{minor}}

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Misplaced Pages:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please help save the number 3055

Hi, Please help save the number 3055 by voting at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/3055 (number). Without this number, 3054 would be followed directly by 3056, and we all know that would be wrong! --BostonMA 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit summaries

Please stop assuming bad faith. There is no cabal. Cheers, Alphax 05:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to assume. There is a cabal, whether you believe it or not. Karmafist 05:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of this? Assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. Alphax 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am living evidence. Have a nice night. Karmafist 05:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the rules does not give you permission to be a dick. Alphax 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet other people have this permission? Karmafist 05:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. --Sockenpuppe 05:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell's comment

That was not very nice. The issue of your signature is obviously going to come up at some point; why not discuss it now? I was about to reply to Gmaxwell with this comment:

You may be right, but it's not that common-sensical. Many users (example) have their Wikiphilosophies on their user page, which is linked to by their signature. Thus, the Wikipedian who welcomes a new user will most likely have an influence on that user, whether they try to recruit the person or not. So I think you should explain why Karmafist's signature is different, and needs to be changed. TheJabberwock 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

but had an edit conflict with you. In my opinion, you should restore the original comment, append mine to it, and respond civilly. TheJabberwock 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Sure, you're right. Bullies just piss me off. Here's the comment, and i'll put a civil response to it.

If you're going to link to your manifesto in your sig, fine. But if you do so you should not continue welcoming new users. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. I like welcoming people. Have a nice night. Karmafist 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, Karmafist, just kindly stop welcoming users, but if you do, please use a sig that does not include the eassy. While it is good you are doing something that I do not see myself doing in a while, it is not a good thing to get users involved with Wikipolitik on their first welcome or first messages. That is what we are facing now is a lot of people who come to Misplaced Pages, edit, then get into politics, then they usually are the ones getting sent to the ArbCom. We have enough problems on the Wiki, please do not add to it. User:Zscout370 06:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What part of "too bad" is so hard to understand? I'm trying to solve the problems of Misplaced Pages. Feel free to disagree, i'm fighting for your right to do so without being arbitrarily punished by some random bully. Karmafist 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don’t see where the punishment is being handed out, or who the random bully is. The messages in your welcome edits have been met with significant disapproval by the community. I’d make the same request as others have on this page and ask that you please stop, linking to your thoughts on the current state of Misplaced Pages is one thing but making an assertion that it needs saving isn’t very helpful. Especially to new users that don’t have the background to make informed judgments about that assertion. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a living example of the many punishments being handed out, and the random bullies are numerous and growing. Please read my FAQs page before saying things like that again. I compromised, but I will not quit until there is equity and opportunity for all Wikipedians, regardless of their name. And as for "consensus"(which is another thing i'm fighting for, a real definition of what "consensus" actually is), well, if there was ever a consensus against consensus, I wouldn't listen. Doesn't the cabal always say that Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy? Karmafist 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

When you always speak of your involvement here in terms of "fighting" is there any wonder that you're having trouble? It is really unfair to the new users to start drawing them into your drama before they've had a chance to acclimate on their own. Welcoming should be a warm and neutral engagement, free from controversy. If you can't even put on the pretense of neutrality then you shouldn't be welcoming. Your incivility is striking, have you completely forgotten how to work with others instead of against them? --Gmaxwell 07:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider your comments on incivility to be praise from Caesar, so thank you for the compliment. As for the comment in regards to collaboration, I suggest you give it a shot in this case, if the aborted Arbcom case against me showed anything, it's that i'm more than willing to compromise, if people give me one, but I will never betray my beliefs in response to ochlocratic pressure. Once the things on my manifesto, fairly simple requests really(equity, clarity, etc.), are met, i'll be more than happy to change the signature. Until then, welcoming is the perfect forum since these newbies are the most vulnerable to the contreversy you speak of, the Joeyramoney affair showed us that nobody is safe from that toxic atmosphere and it must be changed one way or another.Karmafist 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, reading your FAQ page and not agreeing with it is not the same as not reading it. I'm just asking you to respect the significant disapproval your actions have been met with for the reasons I stated. I didn't say anything about consensus, nor did I equate it with Democracy. I have no problem with you fighting for anything you feel is important. It's the way you are conducting the fight is what so many people are objecting to. I also don't think you are being bullied, multiple editors expressing their objections to certain actions, even in a formal setting is not bulling. You yourself told us to feel free to disagree, right? Rx StrangeLove 07:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I can respect your right to disagree if you can respect mine. If the things on the manifesto happen, then i'll stop, unless of course, an opinion that goes against that of Jimbo's is enough to remove you from this project, because all people disagree with each other at some point. Karmafist 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forking off the thread above, here is my reply to TheJabberwock: When an editor welcomes users he isn't just acting on his own, he's acting as a representative of Misplaced Pages. The welcome isn't just personal comment... it's as close to a direct message from Misplaced Pages to the user as anyone will ever get. As such there is a special responsibility taken by those performing welcomes, a responsibility to represent Misplaced Pages fairly and to not confuse the new user over what is official and what is personal. If you can show me someone else whos linked their non-consensus Misplaced Pages agenda to official sounding text like "Save Misplaced Pages", then I'll ask them to stop as well. I think Karmafist is pretty clear above when he says I'm trying to solve the problems of Misplaced Pages. that at least he thinks the save wikipedia link is furthering his goals. --Gmaxwell 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC) As for the comment in regards to collaboration, I suggest you give it a shot in this case, if the aborted Arbcom case against me showed anything, it's that i'm more than willing to compromise, if people give me one, but I will never betray my beliefs in response to ochlocratic pressure. Once the things on my manifesto, fairly simple requests really(equity, clarity, etc.), are met, i'll be more than happy to change the signature. Until then, welcoming is the perfect forum since these newbies are the most vulnerable to the contreversy you speak of, the Joeyramoney affair showed us that nobody is safe from that toxic atmosphere and it must be changed one way or another.Karmafist 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider this comment to be an insult against the intelligence of newbies, and part of the problem I see and i'm trying to help fix here. The line between "official" and "personal" has been so blurred that it no longer exists, if you are in a certain group, the two are interchangable at will and those people can use the word "consensus" to try and dissaude anyone who has an opinion contrary to their own. Karmafist 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blured? ah. Please don't claim things are so confusing when they are not. There are a great many things which are clearly acceptable to virtually everyone as a part of the welcome process, and then there are your actions which are widely opposed. I'm not asking you to only expose new users to my prefered contraversy, I've asked you to expose them to no contraversy at all. Do you not see the difference? I don't claim that the new users are lacking in intelligence and I can't see why you'd make that claim... What my concern is that you're drafting them into your army before they've had a chance to learn how the Wiki works on their own. You're abusing your privledge of editing, and I've simply asked you to back off a bit. I haven't demanded that you discontinue with your agenda, or anything of the sort... So please discontinue the hostility towards me, it is hurtful and non-productive. --Gmaxwell 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Those edit summaries

Karmafist, your edit summaries on your latest welcomes have been just plain rude. They're not constructive criticism; they're just obnoxious one-liners. It appears to me that you are trying to push the rest of us, game the system, and see how far you can go before you get blocked. I thought you wanted to have constructive dialogue, if anyone would listen; well, I have news for you: we've been listening to you, but you haven't been listening to us.

Trolling is not the way to save Misplaced Pages, and I find it personally very disappointing that after I assumed good faith and tried to get your arbitration case closed, you immediately resumed your old tricks. Do you understand the difference between constructive dialogue and what you're doing? Is there some way I can explain it better? Or are you just using me (and everyone else) to score "political" points? -- SCZenz 17:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your continuing disruption despite ongoing arbitration. See WP:ANI for specific actions of yours that were unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)