User talk:Fran Rogers

User:Krimpet/header

I prefer to keep all correspondence in the same place; if you leave me a message here, I will respond here. If I post a message on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Thank you!

:O

144.32.58.114 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

(Deletion log); 23:21 . . Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Houston McCoy" (Courtesy deletion)

Well that's confusing, I miss something? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as a courtesy to a living person who objected to some of the discussion on the page remaining available. See WP:DP#Courtesy blanking. krimpet✽ 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's what "courtesy deletion" was, my curiosity stems from the fact the subject's lawyer just eMailed me to ask why it was deleted and cursed WP for deleting it...Is there an OTRS ticket or something for the request for deletion? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OTRS ticket #2008042710011139 - it was forwarded from the requester to OTRS by Jimmy Wales, who made the deleted comment in question and suggested a courtesy deletion. He may be the best one to ask about this issue. krimpet✽ 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BAG

It got included on Tangobot's last run here. It's under WP:Requests for adminship, but wasn't included until just now. Anyway, it's pretty misleading as it is now. The name is essentially a candidate's RfA, as if "BAG" were running for RfA. Enigma ^message 19:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just did noinclude to it. We'll see if it works. Enigma ^message 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All good now. :) Sorry to bother. Enigma ^message 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

Krimpet...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Made me laugh

[1] Best decline reason I have ever seen :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see you found one of my Grawp blocks :) - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the article's talk page?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why not use the article's talk page before AN/I? Isn't that the way we do it here? Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC) AN/I is the place for behavioral incidents that require additional review. I originally wanted to discuss the article with OrangeMarlin on his talk page, but he instantly reverted me, and he immediately started ballooning this into a multiperson revert war. krimpet✽ 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Behavioural incidents? You mean your refusal to discuss your edits? Or your smearing one editor when there were three different editors undoing your whitewash? Have you even read the article talk page? Guettarda (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I have already explained this on AN/I - OrangeMarlin _did_ solicit folks to help him game 3RR. Please continue this discussion there. krimpet✽ 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I see you edit warring. I see you bringing a content dispute to AN/I. I see you refusing to discuss your proposed edits. Why not stop being disruptive and try behaving like a member of a community? I see threats and smears on your part, but none of the kind of behaviour we expect of Wikipedians. Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC) And, by the way - if you don't want to be mistaken for a sockpuppet of a perma-banned editor, why not try to not behave like that editor? Guettarda (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) If you don't want to be mistaken for a meatpuppet viciously turning your articles into a WalledGarden fortified from any outsiders, well, I think you know how to rectify this. Now, please, bring this elsewhere. krimpet✽ 03:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC) You know, if you don't want to be mistaken for the meatpuppet of a permabanned Wikipedia Review troll, why not stay away from that cesspool? Many people don't take regulars from that cesspool seriously. Guettarda (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I find this absolutely hilarious. This is almost like McCarthyism. If any notable person has ever breathed a thought against evolution, their article becomes an attack piece and anyone who objects and attempts to keep that aspect of their life in focus is meatpuppetting for one or banned users, because, after all, at least one person who has been banned probably made a similar change at some point in time. --B (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (ec) I'm a "Wikipedia Review troll"? Considering I can't stand those loons, at least three sitting arbitrators are more "regulars" there than I am, and what few posts I've made there have been met with people like Jon Awbrey calling me an idiot and Brandt telling me to "shut up"... you're grasping at straws. You and your friends' tactics are tearing this project apart at the seams, and are antithetical to everything this project stands for. I strongly suggest taking a long, hard look at your actions. krimpet✽ 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Nope, sorry for the misunderstanding. You're a WR editor. Moulton is the banned editor from WR - and even there, I shouldn't have called him a troll. All I was saying is that when one WR editor shows up out of the blue and makes the edits a banned WR editor was making, I'm suspicious. Maybe undeservedly, but I really see no reason to trust any WR editor, not when they are making suspicious edits. The simple fact is that you chose to edit war on the article. You refused to discuss your edits. And then, while still refusing to engage on the article talk page, you ran to AN/I. That's the sort of behaviour you see from tendentious SPAs. I don't think I have ever seen that sort of behaviour from an established editor. Certainly never on a topic area that they had never edited before. The most logical explanation was that you were acting on behalf on Moulton. Since you are a WR editor, it made sense. I got as far as your user page there which said you had 20+ edits in the last year or so (funny, you've been there almost as long as you've been here...), and your last log-in was 8 minutes ago. I didn't go further - I stay out of that cesspool. But a couple seconds on Google show you contributing anti-SlimVirgin threads. Participating in a hate site like that is bad enough, but taking part in their sliming of SV - that's despicable. At least Brandt is honest enough to admit his anti-Wikipedia agenda up front. Coming from someone who chose to edit disruptively instead of acting like a normal Wikipedian, your claim that "You and your friends' tactics are tearing this project apart at the seams" is just laughable. Expecting people to participate in talk page discussions. Yeah, that's really tearing the project apart. You do realise that Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, right? You've got 2000 mainspace edits in the time you've been here. For God's sake - I've been inactive the last year (mainly because of disruptive editors like you) and I have more mainspace edits than that. My friends' tactics are to write an encyclopaedia. OM has over 5000 mainspace edits in that timeframe. Without WR participation. But he's tearing the project apart? And how is he doing that? Not by running to AN/I every time someone reverts one of his edits. Filll has over 7000 mainspace edits in that time period. And he writes articles in user space. And, amazingly, he also managed to do that without becoming an WR editor. That's "tearing the project apart"? Why don't you try acting like a member of a community - you know, not engaging in attacks against Wikipedia admins on hate sites, actually discussing your edits when others revert you... Maybe if you actually edited articles a little more you'd understand that articles have talk pages and talk page archives for a reason, and that when someone reverts you, it isn't personal. And seriously, try reading those talk page archives. Then at least you'd know why people confuse your edits with those of other WR editors. Guettarda (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Perhaps reading WP:CIVIL might be something good for you to do Guettarda....unless you intend for your entire contribution here to be attacks on editors who happen to use WR.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) SWAT - I don't make a habit of posting personal information about editors to Wikipedia after they have asked that it be deleted simply because I didn't believe them. You're the worst kind of troublemaker - the kind who gets people hurt in real life. So it makes sense to see you standing up for WR harassers. Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Guettarda, all I can say is... you're wrong. Your clique is wrong. And the fact that you're grasping at straws and trying to turn this into a smear-fest and childish edit count contest makes it abundantly clear you know you're wrong. If this is the way you treat an editor who comes along to tweak a BLP, you have no right to edit any article with a {{BLP}} tag; for someone claiming to write an encyclopedia, you seem blissfully unaware of the real-life considerations. The goal of this project is to create a real, respected reference, not an online pseudo-encyclopedia nobody takes seriously.

I'm putting an end to this discussion. I thank B and SWATJester for trying to inject some sense, but this discussion isn't going anywhere other than these folks' dinner plate. krimpet✽ 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm wrong. I thought something smelled bad when you ran to AN/I instead of discussing the edits. I found that suspicious in conjunction with the fact that you were reinserting Moutlon's material. It only took a short while on Google to figure out what the connection was there.

"[T]he fact that you're grasping at straws and trying to turn this into a smear-fest and childish edit count contest makes it abundantly clear you know you're wrong" - nope, it only shows that I am trollable. You succeeded. My great fault. Your smear against OM, which you then escalated into the claim that my friends were "tearing Wikipedia apart at the seams was annoying, especially coming from a WR-type like you. And you got support from who? SWAT, who believes that it's ok to post personal information about a Wikipedia editor onto the project after they have asked that it be deleted. So he hates my guts for calling him out on that behaviour of his. There's a good saying that describes his fascination with me.

The problem with Wikipedia is the fact that there are a lot of people who believe that this is about power and control, not about writing an encyclopaedia. There are a lot of people like you who would rather game the system - running to ANI because their edits get reverted - then discussing content. A lot of people who are only here to play politics. People who would rather write an encyclopaedia than play politics get accused to "tearing the community apart" by those who would rather politic than contribute, people who flock to hate sites and partake in harassment campaigns.

Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is full of people like you. I realise, it's a fun game. But ask yourself why we're really here. It isn't for power - power in Wikipedia is an illusion. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Seriously. Try it some time. As for BLP - I think I understand that policy pretty well. I remember its birth. I've seen its evolution. And I've seen trolls use it as an excuse for whitewashing articles all the time...despite the fact that the articles are supported by solid sources. I've also seen - and worked on - articles where people with intractable differences can still produce a solid article through discussion and negotiation on the article talk page. And then I've seen people who refuse to discuss matters and who try to get content matters resolved through interventions from "the admins" or by holding their breath until they turn purple. You know what - behaviour like yours doesn't create great articles. Collaborative editing requires a willingness to discuss things constructively. Maybe you just haven't done any real collaborative editing. You should try it - it's a humbling experience. And while the real beauty of Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia we have created (the encyclopaedia, not the bureaucracy, the encyclopaedia), collaborative editing on difficult articles is perhaps the most rewarding thing you can do here. Not only does it shape great articles - it also shapes policy. You should really try it sometime. Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)