Revision as of 04:55, 31 July 2010 editNuttish (talk | contribs)135 edits →Once again...: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:50, 31 July 2010 edit undoSuperHamster (talk | contribs)Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers36,084 edits →Marking non-vandalism edits as vandalism: ExpansionNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
You've my prior request that you stop making inflammatory personal comments on[REDACTED] as vandalism. Please knock it off. ] (]) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | You've my prior request that you stop making inflammatory personal comments on[REDACTED] as vandalism. Please knock it off. ] (]) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Marking non-vandalism edits as vandalism == | |||
As Nuttish requests of you above, please do not mark edits as vandalism when they are clearly not such, as you did in {{diff|User talk:TK-CP|376372424|376307760|this reversion}}. You are free to remove comments from your own talk page to your liking, but you are not allowed to mark clearly non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Vandalism is described as, "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages," and Nuttish's comments to you do not constitute as such. Marking them as vandalism is an ]. Please see ] for more information. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">]</font></b> <small>] ]</small> 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:50, 31 July 2010
Unified login: TK-CP is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.
“ | To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. | ” |
This is TK-CP's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
15 January 2025 |
|
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, TK-CP, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! PCHS-NJROTC 00:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC) (aka DMorris)
TK!
Good to see you on Misplaced Pages my friend. Enjoy yourself! Keegscee (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Keegscee! Almost anyone on the Internet has my email, or could easily find it on my CP user page, if they have burning questions for me to answer, so I appreciate your clearing this area of junk unrelated to Misplaced Pages. --TK-CP (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding oversight
If the admins haven't responded to your oversight request, I'd be happy to try and get them to respond. Sorry for indirectly calling you creepy; you may watchlist my talk page if you wish. Just try to use it for talking with me, and with a purpose. I appreciate your suggestion on my talk page. I haven't deleted or archived it ever before, and am hesitant to do so. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I re-sent the entire complaint to "Oversight" about two hours ago, and would be happy for any assistance you (or anyone else) can give...but I do wonder if my sending it again, mentioning it even, is being counter-productive and pissing people off. I wanted to prod, not anger whoever looks at that stuff, is all. As for the creepy-stalky thing, we are both Admins, and I know where you were coming from, just my dry sense of humor at work. Sorry. --TK-CP (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am, in fact, not an admin, as far as I am aware. ;) Speaking of stalking...lol. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Dang! I guess I had better go right now and enable that pop-up thing someone suggested! Perhaps you should be, B. :P --TK-CP (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Being a regular WP editor, I find plenty of ways to
waste my timecontribute at Misplaced Pages! If anyone nominated me to be an admin at WP, I'd decline for fear ofwasting more timebeing overwhelmed with things to do. =P ...comments? ~BFizz 07:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Being a regular WP editor, I find plenty of ways to
- Dang! I guess I had better go right now and enable that pop-up thing someone suggested! Perhaps you should be, B. :P --TK-CP (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am, in fact, not an admin, as far as I am aware. ;) Speaking of stalking...lol. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Not bullying, just some advice
Use the other rollback buttons, not the vandalism one. You have to be careful not to label something as vandalism unless it is clearly vandalism, as that is considered a personal attack too. -- Nx / talk 11:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nx. That was indeed the case, me using a new tool I was not familiar with and someone obviously allied with another site rushing to judgment or just stirring the pot. I would think that most fair-minded people, like you are showing yourself to be here, would have asked and assumed good faith. Anyway, live and learn! --TK-CP (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where terms such as vandalism are concerned, the burden is upon the person using them to ensure they are used correctly. Inexperience is not an excuse. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Use of talk pages
Per WP:TALK, The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. You appear to be misusing the Talk:Conservapedia page to do something else. You should not edit the Talk:Conservapedia page if you are not proposing a specific edit to the article or evaluating a proposed specific edit to the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should actually read the thread you "removed" and you would have seen that was exactly what was being discussed, eh? As opposed to the continual arguing, a few of us have actually been making headway at resolving some of the changes that have been proposed. In America we have a old saying about too many cooks spoiling the soup. Perhaps it would be helpful if instead of instantly jumping in and proclaiming your arbitrary decision about what you think is going wrong, you waited and let the Administrator who is watching the page deal with it, Hipocrite. Just a suggestion..... --TK-CP (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- There were no proposed changes in that section. Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Perhaps since you are not an Adminstrator, you will kindly stop posting here, and kindly stop with the arbitrary, unilateral and silly "warnings", and leave it to the Admin monitoring the situation? If you have questions, ask first, remove stuff later. I am going to revert your actions on the page and leave it to the Administrator to act if he deems it necessary. --TK-CP (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I warn you that if you remove my colapse box, I will seek to have you prohibited from further editing of both the article and the talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. You are the appointed dictator of the page now? What gives you the right to judge over anyone else? Take your complaint to where it belongs, and seek sanctions, Hipocrite. But leave the page alone, or I will file a complaint about your actions, arbitrary, judgmental and unilateral as they are. --TK-CP (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I welcome any and all concerns about my editing behavior and waive the 2-certifier requirement for an WP:RFC/U regarding my edits. Hipocrite (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
“ | To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. | ” |
--TK-CP (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Emails
Since you offered, I for one would like to see the email allegedly from Trent Toulouse, in which he threatens you "with investigation by private detectives, knocks on my door, late night phone calls and court orders from his editors." That's sort of a serious accusation to make against someone when you're unsure who the email is even from. I'm curious as to what makes you think it was from him. -R. fiend (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think we never, ever talk, R. fiend? It was from his known email address at gmail, the same one he has used to email me dozens of times in the past, and in response to my own email to him. Who said I was unsure who the email was from? That seems to be the Alinsky method for making me seem unsure of myself, or what? --TK-CP (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- "I had a email earlier, from Trent apparently", now "apparently" seems to strongly imply that said email was not certainly from Trent. So was it or was it not? Why not say "I received an email from Trent"? And since you offered, yes, I would like to see the email in question. Can you forward it to me or not? -R. fiend (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Trent and I did exchange e-mails, as he posted on your talk page, but he is misrepresenting what was said evidently, and leaving out context for the dispute. As far as I am concerned it is resolved. If you want more specific details, you can talk to Trent since he is offering you further insight, even though he claims the matter is resolved, which makes one wonder if it is, IMO. But over the years this is par for the course with the RW people, and I have grown to never trust their word for anything, as it always is made public if it suits their schemes. I am still waiting delivery of all those "trolling emails" David Gerard said he had, or word from the audit committee they have gotten them. --TK-CP (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You do not understand the situation.
When I registered under the innocuous name of ArgueCat, I was banned for 5 YEARS for having that username. No messages, no definite rules banning the use of my username, and GOD FORBID there be some way to contact the admin who banned me. I tried contacting the webmaster, but he has not responded for almost 4 days.
I (and a lot of others might) think that banning someone because their name is ArgueCat is quite discrediting to a site like Conservapedia.
In the future, please do your homework before insulting someone you don't know to make you feel better about yourself. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I fully understand the situation. It is you who have chosen not to follow the rules at CP, and now complain about them. It is my rule not to discuss other websites here, but you are certainly free to contact me about this via email. --TK-CP (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Contacting someone without their Email available is harder than it sounds. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- My contact information is on my CP user page, has been for years, and of course you could always use the toolbox on the left of this page and click on the "Email this user" link.
Once again...
You've misrepresented my prior request that you stop making inflammatory personal comments on[REDACTED] as vandalism. Please knock it off. Nuttish (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Marking non-vandalism edits as vandalism
As Nuttish requests of you above, please do not mark edits as vandalism when they are clearly not such, as you did in this reversion. You are free to remove comments from your own talk page to your liking, but you are not allowed to mark clearly non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Vandalism is described as, "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages," and Nuttish's comments to you do not constitute as such. Marking them as vandalism is an assumption of bad faith. Please see WP:VAND for more information. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)