User talk:Karwynn

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

If you have come to say anything involving admonishing me for intentional IP harassment/fishing or

creating a subpage with intent to attack, read this and find something more productive to do

I have had quite enough of this. 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. Wikipedia 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

[1] 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, t'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 Wikipedia AS A REFERENCE! Haizum 05:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not want to comment on this: [2] 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)

Politics

Wikipedia is not a politics chatboard. Please discuss article, not politics. I refer to this edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Karwynn 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. Rangeley 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 WP:AGF-ed him, because if this is how he normally operates, that would be "optimistic to the point of foolishness". Karwynn

Done bun can't be undone. Karwynn 22:03, 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 "nigger," "faggot," "kike," "cocksucker," "cunt," "bitch," "whore," 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)

Wikipedia 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)

Abuse of 3RR on Ann Coulter

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. --Cyde↔Weys 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 WP:AGF wasn't necessary, why didn't you at least ask me for clarification before admonishing me? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 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). (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to read up on WP:AAGF ... citing WP:AGF as the main justification in defense of your actions never looks good, and it's actually a pretty weak defense. --Cyde↔Weys 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. --Gmaxwell 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 Wikipedia 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 User:Asbl, 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. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 17:44, 28 June 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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.

Unblock plz

IP address is 68.59.61.191, got autoblocked as collateral damage from J-BOnes by Gwernol. Help!

Update: Checked his block log, J-BOnes is blocked for a week. Can I get unblocked then? I really don't want to get autoblocked for a freaking week because of my (Personal attack removed) coworker. Can I at least get a response of some kind in some way from some person?

No such block currently seems to be in place. Also no autoblocks are currently in place either. You should be able to edit. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Panama City Rutherford High School

Yeah man I live in PC! I am currently a student at rutherford.. If you see anything wrong feel free to change it..
Down in da 8-5-0 !

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)

Compiling evidence

I don't know if this helps much, but there's this on ED [3] ~ CBGB 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

FOr better or worse, Wikipedia 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. Karwynn (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, those arn't edit for ED - It's a list of possible bad edits here on Wikipedia that someone put together over there. ~ CBGB 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I'm so dumb, I didn't even bother reading it! Whoops. THanks! Karwynn (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah too bad there's no evidence.  :: cough :: :: cough :: ---> --> [4]

... Hardvice 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved

FYI

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

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

I'm all over it :-) Karwynn (talk) 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. --kizzle 17:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[5] Karwynn (talk) 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. --kizzle 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. Karwynn (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

unblock|compied already

Already unblocked. --pgk^(talk) 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked for "trolling", after the blocking editor User:Tony Sidaway asked me to take down an IP address, which I did. Now he's taking the matter to WP:AN, 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 this question 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karwynn (talk • contribs)

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--205.188.117.65 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, sir. I have posted in response to all these ridiculous witchhunting tactics with a single diff link this one. It has gone completely unnoticed. Karwynn (talk) 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. --Tony Sidaway 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. [{WP:AGF]] or give a reason why you won't in the future. Karwynn (talk) 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. Karwynn (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Karwynn,

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 Wikipedia 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, FloNight ^talk 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. Karwynn (talk) 20:20, 20 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^{duck talk} 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)

you asked

[6] SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 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)

Harassing MONGO

Despite a reprieve and very clear warnings that you were well over the line on harassing MONGO, you come up with this. 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. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

comment unfairly taken as harassment

Notes:

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

Administrator use only:

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

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=comment unfairly taken as harassment |3 = ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=comment unfairly taken as harassment |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=comment unfairly taken as harassment |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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. Karwynn (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, see this [7] 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 WP:AGF should take a look at this. Karwynn (talk) 17:54, 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.

• • • Comment headng is cahnged to an attack, despite poster's claim of good faith
    • I revert it, since you're not supposed to edit comments, especially not to attack (I explain this in edit summaries)
    • reverted by Hpocrite, 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. Karwynn (talk) 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 User:Karwynn, a dangerous harasser. Karwynn (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would definitely be a good idea to cut off all discussion of and with MONGO. --Tony Sidaway 20

00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)