User talk:Karjam

Welcome!
Hello, Karjam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * 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

When I edit talk pages...
...I might forget to sign them like I did on the talk page of "Super Mario Brothers 2".

Granted that's the first time, but I actually forgot to sign it. :P

About List of features removed in Windows 8
Thanks for allowing me to contact you on your talk page.

OK, first of all I put a message on the mentioned article's talk page about the citation's problem of my edit not the removal of the entire line of text, including the citation unless the author of the cited webpage is not using a real name.

Secondly, this is needed for those who are still not used to the new Start Screen at all to know that there is a free (though Microsoft Account registration is needed (it's on SkyDrive)), more reliable (as a citation also) and compatible way to add back the old Start button and menu, made by someone else who don't like those "troublesome" features of looking for whrere the Log off/Shutdown is.

If you wish to delete that line of text again, anwser my message on that article's talk page first then I will make reference changes or let you delete that line of text permenantly. Kyrios320 (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spelunky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

nbsp
It appears from your recent edits that you do not understand the purpose of &amp;nbsp;. It is to prevent line breaks at bad places. Specifically, it is bad form to write something like
 * For any real number

and using &amp;nbsp; prevents that. We can't easily predict where the line breaks will be at different screen sizes than our own, so it's simplest just to put in a &amp;nbsp; at every place that a break should not be allowed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop it
All of your edits to Talk:Absolute value begin with long discussions of who has wronged you and how. Please just stop: comments like that are completely unproductive, and they just read like whining. Anyone who wants to can go look at the article history and see exact what's happened. If you have something to say about the article, say it succinctly without all the personalized baggage. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Quit complaining; others were doing it too. Besides, I'm not putting my own personalized thoughts into this. If you actually read what I say, you'll note I was actually talking against the use of "personalized baggage". --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Your most recent comment at Talk:Absolute value, where you say
 * "Guys, why are you saying I'm violating WP:NPA and the like? If I'm attacking something, it would be the decisions of those who really are violating it, not them, themselves. I'm attacking their logic, not the person. Heck, I knew of this rule even before I discovered this. I even held back on this matter; notice that in spite of my snark and rhetoric, I actually stopped myself from calling others "fools". Really was tempted, and even almost did, before wisdom took hold of me and made me realize that wouldn't fit the spirit of Wikipedia."

is simply a indirect way of calling other editors "fools". Which of course you know because that's why you did it. Please stop. Paul August &#9742; 10:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you see too much into things, of course you'd notice things such as this. I was never actually calling them fools, be it directly or otherwise. Rather, I was explaining, for reasons that should be obvious in regards to that discussion, that I was actually tempted to do so, but held back. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I noticed, anyone would. Just as I'm sure you would notice, if for example, someone were to say to you: "I actually stopped myself from calling you a jerk. Really was tempted, and even almost did, before wisdom took hold of me and made me realize that wouldn't fit the spirit of Wikipedia." From the point of view of Wikipedia policies i.e. WP:NPA (have you actually read this?), it makes no difference whether you call someone a fool, or simply imply it as you did in that comment I quoted above. You don't get to get off on some sort of childish technicality: "I didn't touch my sister, I had on gloves!" Whether or not you understand this (although I'm sure you do) have no doubts about the fact that your comment is a violation of Wikipedia policy, for which an administrator (like me for example) could block you from editing. Consider yourself warned. Paul August &#9742; 18:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You do know you're taking my words out of context, right? If you actually had seen my tone of voice, i.e., within the edit reasons of the main pages as well as my responses on that one, you'll know full well I really was questioning their logic, really was angry. At those points, you can tell that I really was tempted to say that word, since that would be most logic coming from my own posts. Why do you think I was accused of violating WP:NPA even before I said the word "fool"? It was because others were picking up my angered tone of voice.


 * None of this really matters anymore, in either case. The relevant discussions were already called off by those trying to be responsible. You did not have to warn me, since I was warned for the exact same thing. (Besides, I'd rather make mistakes than to reek in folly, no matter how deadly or costly that mistake is.) --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Absolute value. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. D.Lazard (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * The same goes for you. Honestly, I've brought up an incredibly valid point. That issue you have problems with? As I've already pointed out in regards to what you've reverted, it cannot be resolved if we can't talk about it. This might need to be one of those cases where WP:IGNORE would apply, if only for reasons of sanity. Then again, I can't say. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User warning
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Absolute value. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. D.Lazard (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do you really want to be banned?
At Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, an administrator has written to you "If you leave the article and the Talk page alone, a topic ban won't be necessary". Apparently, you have read this, and, nevertheless, you have edited again Talk:Absolute value. This is certainly a good method for being banned from Wikipedia. Please stop editing this page and the associated talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For starters, he's talking about a topic ban, not a whole-wide ban. A topic ban is a an only upon a certain section of Wikipedia; see WP:TBAN. I won't be banned from Wikipedia. I would just be banned from editing parts concerning mathematics.


 * Second, you seem to be forgetting WP:GOODFAITH in my regards. Don't just automatically assume I'm the type to completely disregard the spirit of Wikipedia as is implied by your hostility. Besides, I was just called out by them for incorrectly treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD. In turn, you mustn't as well. The same sort of rules you take comfort in will be your undoing if you, yourself, violate them.


 * Safe to say, what the admins are really talking about is me continuing my folly, which I'm now trying to avoid. Wikipedia doesn't care about the letter of any sort of enforcement or policy; see WP:IGNORE. What I did was wrong, yes, but the fact remains, Wikipedia cares more about the spirit of the rules, the spirit of the rulings, than it does the letter. (Besides, other than what I've already wrote, I'm more trying to clarify myself and apologize than actually work on the article. I won't be foolish when I know it to be avoided. I even considered asking the entire discussion to be closed due to it serving its purpose.) --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Forced by remarks at WP:ANI
I want to unequivocally make clear that my verdict ... repeated, deteriorating edits by Karjam ...

in a thread, directly addressed at Paul August, in reply to his question in an edit summary, does not pertain to grammatical variants, but to the mathematical wrongs, the functionally effective layout flaws, and the unencyclopedic math lingo throughout an edit streak, which I addressed already in two other comments on the talk page. "Repeated deterioration" does not turn to "improvement", when caused along a learning curve.

Funny, that my explicit valuation of "inserting 'follows' or not" as a "non-valeur" (note both alternatives!), and my rebuttal of disregarding "prettiness" as a criterion, is interpreted as a "personal attack". I already apologized for a provoked (by multiplex behaviour) projection of misbehaviour to the future, but I am not aware of any other PAs.

As I repeatedly stated, I dislike discussing such petitesses, and so again, I try to stop commenting on this at my sole discretion until further notice. Purgy (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I said that was a personal attack, forgive me. I was within the process of misreading the edits of others, just like some other people misread my comments as personal attacks.


 * Let me ask you something, however: was my edits really deteriorating, or are you just saying that because you disliked the way I tried phrasing things? Is this really about "unencyclopedic math lingo"? What is that, in any case? My motivations, be it me doing it the right way or wrong, is not to make things seem encyclopedic. It's to make things clear to the general public, the target audience of Wikipedia. To rely on arbitrary standards as to what makes something seem encyclopedic actually misses the point on what editors are supposed to be doing. That point is to convey facts, convey information. That's what an encyclopedia's supposed to be for. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)