User talk:Karmafist

Old Talk Page Skin

This is disgraceful. The way blocks are carelessly made over matters of opinion, or in retaliation. The way people are attacked for disagreeing with the boss about whether or not a newbie is a troll. The way admins are made an example of, not for extraordinary actions, but for being noticed at the wrong time. The way the already controversial clerk office is misrepresenting or editorializing evidence. And the way the ArbCom has become an instrument of punishment. This is disgraceful. I do not think I shall be editing for the forseeable future. - Radiant, 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

• User_talk:Karmafist/POTW Archive
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive1
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive2
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive3
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive4
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive5
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive6
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive7
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive8
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive9
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive10
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive11
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive12
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive13
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive14
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive15
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive16
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive17
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive18
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive19

My Manifesto

Do you know how to change a username?

BananushA, wanting to be BananushkA BananushkA 19:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing yourself

I wish I could vote for you in the elections but I am not a member yet but if I was I would support you totally. Thank you for sending me the message and I hope we can get in touch.This was from Catchacode.

User:Phroziac

Hey there!

I only saw your reaction on my talk page today, must have slipped through with another message or something. I actually already read your manifesto, but dont think its the way to go. Bicameral and stuff, waaaay too much for me. I'd just like to see Jimbo follow his own rules.

Also, I support your RFA and everything, but I was kind of shocked to see your reaction on User:Phroziacs oppose. WTF does her personal gender situation have to do with anything?! The way you call her a "person" is rather insulting. I dont know the beef between you, but on your RFA, she certainly has one of the most civil opposes out there.

Cheers! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Upon rereading, I see you posted it to avoid pronouns. Still it seems kind of silly to me, as she clearly states herself as being a girl on her user page. I know I would be kind of offended if I were her (I certainly wouldnt want my name posted by anybody else but me), but it seems you have talked to her before on IRC, so maybe you know something I dont!

Anyways, might be a point of consideration. If not, sorry for bothering you! Cheers! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-Promotion

Don't worry my friend, it's not permanent, in the end though, nothing is permanent. There will probably be a re-rfa in a few days, but thank you for your support in any case, I'm glad I was able to help you out. Karmafist 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I supported You, but still it might take a few nominations to get You promoted again. -- Eddie, Tuesday February 28 2006 at 17:03

Well, feel free to nominate me again, my friend. Just wait until March 4th ;-) I also think that you're on the verge, i'll nominate you if we can work on a short spiel on why you should be nominated. Give me some good things you've done on here.Karmafist 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have 1400 edits, but I enjoy the improvements I made to Nick Arcade; BMT Brighton Line. I also like the street pages I made, Myrtle Avenue, Ocean Parkway, etc. Let's wait until I get 2000 edits and next month, though. -- Eddie, Tuesday February 28 2006 at 20:56 And if You still want to nominate Me, make sure Your friend NSLE stops assuming bad faith. His votes can and have swayed nominations for better or worse. -- Eddie, Monday March 6 2006 at 04:41

Petitioning newbies

Hi Karmafist,

I read your comments on petitioning new users on your response page to your RfA, and I thought I'd take another try at discussing your position. I think you are making one grand, overarching, general mistake: you're confusing WikiPolitics with how politics work in the real world. The "rights" of newbies to contribute to Wikipedia is not the highest good; the encyclopedia is—I understand that you think the preservation of rights is a prerequisite to the encyclopedia functioning, but there have to be limits to that logic. Also, WikiPolitics should not—must not—become a no-holds-barred environment like real politics is; if you petition newbies to support your views, do you expect your opponents do so also? How much work on the encyclopedia would be wasted in such an effort?

Of course, I suspect that more newbies will like your views than the alternative, since you're basically saying, "Hi, you don't have full rights here, but I'm trying to fix it... care to help?" (And, I think, misleading them by causing them to also prioritize "political" rights over encyclopedia-writing.) The end result of such an action is to create a newbie counterculture (or opposition, or rebellion?) against the current way Wikipedia is run. Wikipedia will not benefit from this state of affairs; we do not need political parties. The fact is, we need most users to work on writing the encyclopedia, not running it, and you seem to be encouraging the opposite.

Anyway, you're welcome to your opinions about the future direction of Wikipedia, and about the appropriateness of petitioning new users. However, actually petitioning new users will, in my opinion, do substantial harm to the encyclopedia. As such, I applaud your moratorium on the practice, and I urge you to continue that moratorium indefinitely. I welcome further discussion on the subject.

SCZenz 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to bring your petition to the attention of users who have experience with the encyclopedia and/or are involved in WikiPolitics. The village pump and mailing list are the best ones that I can think of off the top of my head. If you've exhausted those options, and don't have enough critical mass, I still don't think recruiting new users is the right approach. You need experienced users to agree to make big changes, partially because they have the perspective to judge what changes would work and what won't, but also as a practical matter in that they're needed to implement such changes. (Actually, some of what your manifesto says contradicts m:Wikimedia Foundation, and can only be implemented by forking the project.)

All I can really say is that I genuinely believe that petitioning new users on political issues is harmful and disruptive to Wikipedia. In my view, it crosses the line into inappropriate behavior, and it would appear that I'm not the only one who thinks so. I fear that you and I are not going to agree on this, and that this will push us into a very principled, but ugly, conflict. Perhaps all I can ask is whether you think such a conflict will help you get what you want. -- SCZenz 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect you too, in particular in how you stick to your convictions, but I think you're setting yourself up to die on the wrong hill. It doesn't appear to me you have broad support among Wikipedia users for your full agenda. The only option I can see within the system is to try to scale back your reforms to what's really important and can get broad support. (But if the core of what you want is to get rid of Jimbo as an authority who can cut through red tape, then you won't get broad support and it wouldn't matter even if you did—so I certainly hope that's not the case.) Or here's another option: don't give up on your principles, but don't persue them so agressively, at least not in regard to newbies. -- SCZenz 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'd better ask what you think is wrong with Jimbo's authority as it stands. I find his authority makes things run much smoother here, and I have also observed that (although he makes mistakes) he is sometimes willing to reverse his decisions upon polite request. It seems to me, although my review of the incident may not be comprehensive, that the problem you ran into with Jimbo arose in part because you went straight to reversing him rather than explaining your reasoning. -- SCZenz 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to respond to the contention that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with involving newbies in wikipolitics. In the real world, new immigrants don't involve themselves in politics overnight. Why should it be any different here? It takes time to acclimatise to the culture, and how things are done. There are a lot of misconceptions newbies tend to have about Wikipedia when they first join, and it's inappropriate to encourage them to involve themselves in wikipolitics without first familiarising themselves with the wiki. I also agree with everything SCZenz has said. Johnleemk | Talk 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I saw your note on Eddie's talk page. We don't normally disagree on much, and with the fullest respect to both you and Eddie, I doubt he's ready yet. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:21 UTC (2006-03-1)

New question in RfA

I left you a question in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2. It's probably buried among the rest of the responses and everything, but I'm interested in your opinion on this: 5. What have you learned from the userbox fiasco and the wheel warring that followed? What has the Wikipedia community learned from this? What would you do in the future if you disagreed with one of Jimbo's decisions, or another admin's decisions?

--Elkman - ^(talk) 04:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent votes

Hi Karmafist. I would like to add a few words of support for you in relation to your desysop. It was incredibly unfortunate that this occurred, as from what I saw, you barely even got involved. (Isn't it interesting that the ArbCom almost unanimously seconded all of Jimbo's decisions?) Anyway, I truly hope your RfA succeeds, which I have supported. It may have slipped away, but rest assured that there are users out there who still believe in you as an editor.

Also, I was the Esperanza election staff member who invalidated Mathwiz2020's votes, resulting in JoanneB getting the position. I am seriously sorry for that, and would agree with what Mathwiz said on my talk page. However, the original election rules did state that users registered after the 12th of Feb would not be permitted to vote in the elections. I apologise for this, and it certainly adds to the general consensus that you have been "under the cosh" in Wikipedia over the last few weeks.

Please don't leave. While ArbCom and opposition to your RfA may have a problem with "controversial" Wikipedians, I think that you are a great editor who truly tries to bring about change for the better in the encyclopaedia. A glance at the top of your RfA would tell you that there are a lot of people out there who think the same. Just don't feel pressured to leave by a stupid event such as this one. haz _(user talk)^e 09:40, 1 March 2006

Esperanza Elections

Hey Karmafist! I wish to say thanks for your vote at the Esperanza elections.

I've made my way into the Advisory Committee, so if you ever need any help or have any queries about the stuff we do (you will already know I suspect! ;)), please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks again, KnowledgeOfSelf 09:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request for help, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you Karmafist for the welcome. Very nice from you. --Rayfield 16:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversation curtailed

It's unfortunate you left the channel so abruptly, as I was still in the midst of writing to at the time. Regards, El_C 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second what El_C said. You're a great asset to the project. I'm glad you can still find the things that brought you here and brought you to love this place. Wikipedia is lucky to have you around. But also remember that this is a hobby, and it's supposed to be fun. Try to find the stuff that's fun and hold onto it. Guettarda 20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

your message

Hey.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I know you've addressed concerns related to mine elsewhere, so I won't ask you to rehash unless you'd like to, but I will do you the courtesy of briefly summarizing my position.

You have good ideas, but your execution is lacking. I don't think you should have been desysopped for following your conscience and doing what you believed to be best. I do think that the encyclopedia benefits from having you as a contributor. But your advocacy of sockpuppeting by banned users, and other related strategies, is/are extremely divisive, and a backhand to the community's ability to govern itself.

Your arguments are double-edged, Karmafist. The encyclopedia is what's important here. I'm proud to be able to contribute to something that will outlast me, and have value after I'm just a footnote. This concept is more important than any one contributor. But this also means that political evangelism, no matter how well-intentioned, isn't appropriate if it's interfering with the furtherance of this goal.

I think many people can't see your more reasonable positions in the glare of your extremes. This won't always be the case. Have faith, and have patience.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to interact in realtime, my contact info is on my userpage and on Wikipedia:Instant_Messaging_Wikipedians. If you reply, please reply on my user_talk page; I most likely will check back here, but not in a timely fashion. Thanks!

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Slanderous Userbox?

Are you aware that someone has attempted to add a presumably slanderous user box to your page? Bmearns 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The following text appears at the top of your user page:

[[Template:{{userbox|id=pedo|info=OMG!!! This user has been attracted to underage females while not underage himself! This user should be banned!}}]]

Bmearns 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. For your own sake, I just want to point out that it may not be clear to others (as it was not clear to myself) that you put that there for that reason. If it were me (I?), I might add a brief line of explanation in addition to the link. But that's just me. Goodluck with your cause. Bmearns 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that'd do it. Bmearns 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Elections

Hi Karmafist, thank you for voting for me in the Esperanza elections! Regards, JoanneB 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiny Question

Do you always immediately delete reasonable comments from your talk page if they are critical of you, or is this the first time? I look forward with alacrity to your new, open and democratic vision of wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you saw it wrongly. It was merely a frank assessment of your character. You need to calm down mate. Badgerpatrol 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

1,000,000

Happy 1,000,000 articles!

Happy 1,000,000 article milestone! --MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about Mediation Cabal

Hi Karmafist. I see that you just removed your category template for Mediation Cabal with an edit summary of "Wiki Organizational Memberships - screw that". I'm curious whether you have had a bad experience with the Mediation Cabal, or exactly what prompted the removal and the edit summary. --BostonMA 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 Town Meeting Season in Merrimack, New Hampshire

Not my intent. I feel, however, that the subject is non-notable, and can't be expanded beyond a basic voter's guide (and, after the election, a news article reporting the results). Ral315 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've explained to you before, you CANNOT have a copyrighted picture outside the main namespace. It's tantamount to copyright infringement, and could get the foundation in legal trouble. Call me Scrooge if you like, but policy is there for a reason- in this case, to avoid lawsuits. Ral315 (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something, there isn't source information about this image therefore how do we know its copyrighteD? Mike _{(T C)} 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by your comments in the AfD, just annoyed. Whatever your issues with Ral315, he wasn't wrong to nom it for deletion. Have you ever seen an entry for a town meeting season in an encyclopedia? Or even for the largest cities in the world? Could you imagine if there were one for every season for every town in the world? I've no doubt that there's a place on the web for the town meeting season of Merrimack, just not on WP. I'd recommend a geocities page, but the town website (while it leaves something to be desired) does seem to cover the information already. Something like a wiki for a town could be a neat way to get people more involved in local politics, although issues of privacy violations, libel, censorship, etc. could become a lot more difficult if it were a local government in charge. Schizombie 11:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. As I wrote above, the town's website is nothing special; I don't see a problem with a "people's version", just color me puzzled as to why you wouldn't create a website for that rather than try to use WP. I mentioned geocities (I use it myself), but there are other free website hosts that are easy to use, or you might try creating free forums like through ezboard. Schizombie 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments always escalate in typing

Hey Karma,

As far as I'm concerned, its not a big deal, especially as she herself said its okay to leave it on. Adn personally, I find that arguing over the boards/msn/emails always tends to escalate needlessly. I realise you probably meant no harm, but in writing nobody can see your face and try to assess how you mean it. Only the text itself conveys the message, and thats usually too little information to really judge its worth. I hope you know what I mean.

But you must admit you have a knack to get into all sorts of trouble! :-)

Small question: why do you want to become an admin anyway?

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Karma,

Sad to see you're considering to leave. You know there is a great deal to do in the Pedia without getting into politics dont you? Remember how enjoyable it is to edit an article into beauty? ;-)

Hell, if you ask me, there are too many good editors seduced by entering Wikipolitics in the first place, often getting a burnout rather soon. Me, I prefer to keep out of it (for now). Sometimes I read stuff which makes me cringe. When given the choice to post an angry reply, I usually go off to create a new stub.

To be quite honest, I already regret having gone as far as I have in this case. It just saps energy making talk posts explaining yourself, whereas creating an article or copy-editing stuff (one of my fav things to do) can be so rewarding.

Dont forget to put your energy where it does you most good. The Wiki isnt bound to be changing anytime soon.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair warning

Fair warning: WP:AN/I#User:Karmafist petitioning new users again. For what it's, I'm sorry about this; we can always hope the other admins tell me I'm overreacting. -- SCZenz 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are, SCZenz. Now, Karmafist, I apologise for my bluntness. You have my full respect, and have had for a long time. I am starting to lose some respect for you, but you'll always be one of those I look up to. I'm not pleased that you've had to revert to your old ways, and I do agree, to an extent, it is disruption. The newbies are here to (more often than not perhaps write vanity articles) build an encyclopedia. I'm sure they get more than enough politics IRL. I have no intention of ever blocking you, I'd hate to do that, but if it has to be done, mate, I will do it. Please note that I'm not ranting at you, like I said, you've been one of those I've looked up to (hell, you co-nominated me for adminship!), and I'd hate to do this, so please, find some other way. I beg you. Please reconsider, mate. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:08 UTC (2006-03-03)

Karmafist, I recall you think giving frank warnings is a good thing to do, so I thought you'd appreciate one more. When you keep saying "give me another option," what you seem to me to be saying is: "either let me petition newbies, or find some other way I can work towards getting my way." You're not allowing for the possibility of simply not being able to get your way, and maybe that's what forcing you down this road. Nobody is trying to censor your opinion, people are trying to keep you from using a mode of communication in which you implicitly represent Wikipedia to present a one-sided and potentially-damaging view of the site. If you keep going the way you are, people will keep responding, and things will escalate. If your goal is to martyr yourself, you've found a way; if not, I recommend again that you find a less confrontational approach. You can tell yourself I've joined the cabal if it makes you feel better, but I do hope you don't get kicked off the site, and I hope you don't leave either. -- SCZenz 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist, I believe that your inappropriate welcome messages are causing irreparable damage since they generally cannot be reverted before they are read by the person being welcomed. I believe that the community is in agreement that welcome messages are an inappropriate place to engage in Wiki-politics. This has been pointed out to you before yet you persist. If you wish to engage in wiki-politics, may I suggest the mailing list, the Village Pump, IRC, and the meta as more appropriate venues. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Please read, someday, it will become a book User:Wikizach/My Story! WikieZach| talk 02:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Argh!

You blanked your userpage, are you leaving us? Please say you arent...Cheers Banez 11:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand, even though I don't agree with everything you say, I can still respect you and your descision. Hope to see you back soon... Banez 12:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy consistency

Hi Karmafist. It seems like one of your fundamental issues is policy consistency; that is, you don't want admins to be able to block for things that aren't well-defined and judgement-free. Am I right about that, at least approximately? Assuming I am, can I ask how you expect things would work? For example, you remember User:Pigsonthewing I'm sure; he was severely uncivil, but because civility is not easy to define precisely it was very difficult to point to exactly what he was doing wrong. You dealt with it, at one point, by blocking him. It wasn't justified by policy, but at the end of the day he was severely censured by ArbCom as doing something wrong. My point is, it seems to me even you believe that administrator discretion is needed sometimes—or am I misunderstanding? -- SCZenz 21:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose to make WP:CIVIL consistent and judgement-free? It is a judgement call whether someone is being uncivil, and another judgement call whether they're being uncivil enough to warrant administrative action. That's why Pigsonthewing went to ArbCom eventually. -- SCZenz 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I gotta admit, your analogy has me kind of confused. If anything, it seems to support the notion that Wikipedia policy is actually what we do, not what the policy pages say... and if that's true, then common sense and administrative consensus are what governs enforcement. (And I thought you didn't like that at all...?) See, I think I misunderstand completely. -- SCZenz 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you! Hi Karmafist, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your style of welcoming people

Hi, thanks for, a few days ago, responding to concerns expressed by many and shared by me, that your style of welcoming was inappropriate. At that time you stopped, and I hoped that this would be permanent, but I see that you have now resumed.

Let me make clear to you, so that you don't misunderstand, why I think this particular style of welcoming is inappropriate.

Part of your text is as follows:

Part 1:

Also, if you could, please sign my petition

Part 2:

If you'd like to know what's going on in regards to the internal workings of Wikipedia from an experienced user, here's an insight into the unwritten rules of this place.

On part one, firstly I think you should bear in mind the kind of situation in which you're making this suggestion.. Remember your first few edits on Wikipedia. You were new, you probably didn't understand the way things worked. If someone had made a suggestion to you then, particularly about how Wikipedia should be run, you probably would not have had anything to compare the suggestion with. In particular, you would not have understood what it was about Wikipedia that had gotten us to our first half-million articles (or however many it was). You might have signed up to anything. Your petition may be quite good, I don't know one way or the other, but it probably isn't a good idea to present it to newbies in this way.

On part two, the wikiphilosophies, here I must express more serious concern.

The basic idea is sound. One version from late October seems to be quite good. You introduce some basic concepts: AfD closing as a series of options on content and the article. Good organisational principle, there. Excellent stuff. The other content in that version really is unexceptionable as a statement of your personal philosophies, and gives me a good insight, as a fellow editor, into the way you think as a Wikipedian.

Roll on four months, however, and we see this:

• 1 Wikipedians....usually don't give much of a shit about you unless you really stick out.
• 2 Wikipedia IRC Channel...other than #wikipedia, especially technically related ones, are worthless since they are filled with silence, which apparently is more favorable than assisting you, someone more ignorant of something than them.
• 3 How Wikipedia Actually Creates Policy...Get a few people to agree with you. Call it a consensus. Slap a {{policy}} tag on there.
• 4 Alternate Method (Openly flout a faulty policy). Until people give you a compromise or real world reason to stop, just don't. The winner is the person who edits the most without breaking WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL
• 5 Policies Seems to recommend edit warring as a means of changing policy.

The rest of the page seems to be reasonable, with the exception of the WP:POINT section, which I think is so poorly expressed that, as a person who understands the precise meaning of WP:POINT, I cannot begin to understand your statement on the matter..

1 and 2 seem to be gratuitous attacks on your fellow editors. 3 to 5 seem to be counselling the new editor to adopt bad faith towards his fellow editors.

I'm a little (but not overly) concerned at your method of trying to gain currency for your policy manifesto petition. It seems to me like a futile and self-defeating way of gaining support, and is almost certain to cause great disillusionment in new editors who may sign up to your ideas and only slowly realise how far outside the Wikipedia culture they fall.

But what concerns me most is that, in your current version of the wikiphilisophies page, you seem to be deliberately poisoning new editors against Wikipedia's culture. You say things that I know to be false--that Wikipedia's IRC channels are quiet and members are unwilling to help, that Wikipedians do not in general care about one another unless they "really stick out" and so on. You deride the process of making policy--which is actually rather difficult on Wikipedia, and if you don't believe me look at the discussions on the userbox policy poll.

I try to assume good faith but this was difficult to swallow. But I kept silent on the matter when you agreed to stop using this form of welcoming. Now I see that you have resumed. On the subject I see you say to SCZenz:

I continue to petition newbies in order to hasten the eventual collision of the real world with the "wiki world" as well as to help newbies avoid becoming the next Joeyramoney, all the while with those in the cabal trying to brand this behavior as harrassment because their new insight could relieve the toxicity of the current climate as well as offer a potentially unharnessed counterweight to their control similiar to the Proles in Nineteen Eighty-Four.[1]

Here you seem to be saying that you're aware that your welcoming is having a disruptive effect, and you seem to be acknowledging that this is a deliberate act. You are doing so, not with the apparent purpose of trying to welcome new users, but with a political aim: "to hasten the eventual collision of the real world with the "wiki world" as well as to help newbies avoid becoming the next Joeyramoney". While I would welcome any attempt to warn editors against doing rash things for a "joke", nowhere in your wikiphilosophies do you say any such thing. Your precise meaning in hasten the eventual collision of the real world with the "wiki world" is obscure, but it seems evident that you have some political aim in mind, beyond welcoming editors.

I am extremely worried by your actions here. Would you consider stopping, or at least using the standard wording of the welcome template? --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well?

Are you interested in or know anyone who is interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs? Spawn Man 08:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Your "email user" feature still isn't working. Are you sure you've received and responded to a confirmation e-mail? --TantalumTelluride 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's working now. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Award

I award you this amphibian with fins for trying so hard on Wikipedia.
—pschemp 23:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)