User talk:KindWordsNotHeard

Who are you?

You obviously know a bit about Wikipedia, given the depth of knowledge of internal policies as shown in your posts. So who are you? People will pay a lot more heed if you don't use a role account and actually put the force of your main account's reputation behind your words. --Cyde Weys 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you sound at best like a single-purpose sockpuppet, at worst like a troll. Circeus 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

referring to KindWordsNotHeard, not you Cyde, sorry. Circeus 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (not) for the insult. Why is it that those two words are treated in this little corner of the Web like a magical alternative to actually saying what someone is allegedly doing. I know a bit about the internal policies of a lot of organizations, and routinely offer impromptu analysis. My main pro-bono literary contributions are neither through a Wikipedia account, to Wikipedia nor in any way intended to establish a reputation that would add any force to any future words I might utter. Each utterance I offer stands on its own merit, not on the merits of my reputation. It doesn't take much to learn Wikipedia's internal policies, and to learn the ideals, strategies, traits, habits or online personality of various figures at Wikipedia. For example, I recognize Weys as a person who programs bots and attends to admin tasks but rarely edits content of articles. Weys has asserted elsewhere that the skills needed for what he does are different than skills needed to create content. If he can appreciate how he can develop useful policy analysis without hinging a reputation on articles he has edited, it would seem to follow that he can understand how others can likewise offer specialized skills. Thank you slightly for the advice, but I am quite experienced at identifying rhetorical techniques that best serve my purposes. If a person has a rational objection to the content of my analysis, offer it. Otherwise, arguments offered here are related to my identity and not to my contribution. As such, they are ad homimun.KindWordsNotHeard 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karma's gonna get ya for repeatedly (and seemingly purposefully?) misspelling this pseudonym's surname. --Cyde Weys 05:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, you might find that all errors that somehow effect your self-image might seem purposeful, but attributing motives to others based on your speculation is not an intellectually astute way to engage in debate. Forgiveness, mercy and grace could just as well protect me from any karmatic harm I might otherwise bring on myself as a result of my errors. Simple awareness and tolerance of human imperfection absorbs much of the weight of karma, which could otherwise render each of us well-gotten for our errors on a routine basis. What's more, "spelling flames are bad netiquette". Spelling errors are common in remote text-based network communication. Misspelling a psuedonym twice the first time one has written the psuedonym is scarecely worth commenting on. I don't think an extra "e" in your pseudonym on an obscure talk page caused you or anyone else any harm. If you want your pseudonym spelled correctly each time you see it, there is an edit tab you can use. If you corrected the spelling, I would be more likely to thank you for improving the quality of my donation. KindWordsNotHeard 05:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

innappropriate demand for personal information

So...Is this just a sockpuppet account like it seems to be? That seems to be a little less noble than the words that this account has spoken. If your words are kind you should stand by them, only thieves in the night hide their faces and mask their words. --Matthew 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, your message is nothing but a personal attack. You are one of few Wikipedia members who post personal information on this site. The vast majority are anonymous. To cast me as a criminal -- attacking me as a "thief in the night" when I have taken nothing but have delivered useful contributions in the form of analytic services for which my other clients would pay hundreds of dollars -- is just rude. Unlike you, I am not an undergrad with no professional investments. I cannot afford to lend both my wisdom and my identity to a project that is treated as less than dubious by most of my profession. You'll have to settle for my wisdom alone. KindWordsNotHeard 07:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not intended to brand you as a thief in the night, I have merely attempted to compare your hefty use of anonymity to the same anonymity that thieves in the night rely on. I apologize if my words where not well chosen to convey that.

I do not advocate that you reveal who you are as a person, but rather reveal your original account. I am very uncomfortable with you utilizing multiple accounts to express opinions, which is what you seem to be doing. The choice of whether or not to attach your real life person to your Wikipedia account is clearly yours and yours alone, but splitting off certain actions from your original account seems very sketchy.

I am confident you have your reasons for splitting your contributions, but I would urge you to contemplate those reasons carefully. I do not feel that splitting up one's actions on this site via a dual persona is an action which should be undertaken lightly. --Matthew 08:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This troll has been blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a verb, trolling describes an action, specifically deploying a bait in hopes of engaging someone. The verb does not apply in this context. As a noun, "troll" is nothing but an insult, which tells us more about the person uttering the insult than it does about the person being insulted.

Blocking people who participate in good faith serves to expose the contempt of those in control of this project toward those who are recruited to participate. I can't recall having ever seen a charity more hostile toward its donors. KindWordsNotHeard 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I've removed the protection from this page. User made the single comment above following blocking, protection not required. - brenneman 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also reviewing this account's contributions, and am not as yet seeing anything "blockworthy." Sockpuppet allegations aside, am I missing something here? Granted, I'd be dead suprised if this were not someone's alternate account, and granted they have never edited article space... But on the (very slim) chance that this is a real contributor, how about some sweet talking instead? *taps screen* Hey you, yeah you KWNH, over here. If unblocked will you get your bumm into article space (at least for a while) and do something to benefit the encyclopedia? - brenneman 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]