User talk:TK-CP/Archive 1

RW AFD
AFDs go for one week. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Tmtoulouse. Flattered you are watching my changes. I was going to switch my vote for the sake of consensus. --TK-CP (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion review. Have fun. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, I have tried to be tolerant, but you own a known vandal site...please don't post here again. Ever. --TK-CP (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RW/CP
I disagree with most of RationalWiki and with most of Conservapedia, but neither are vandal sites. Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 06:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Any reason you randomly chose to let me know that, or perhaps your post wasn't random, and thought I might be misinformed and needed your enlightenment? And if so, on what do you base your opinion? --TK-CP (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to put a reasonable middle ground here.Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but on what do you base your claim/opinion that neither wiki is a vandal site? I have not really been involved much with the dispute on the Conservapedia talk page. That seems to be an endless dispute that cannot fairly be resolved. --TK-CP (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been to both sites and it seems Rational wiki is a place for people to rant about conservatives and Conservapedia a place to rant about liberals, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The biggest difference is that one of those sites nearly exclusively uses invective and vile personal insults against the other wiki and its editors, while the other never engages in personal insults against the other, nor even mentions it by name. That should tell you something without my getting too specific here at Wikipedia which isn't involved with either of the sites. --TK-CP (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia
Hi TK,

Thanks for your message. Your suggestion may work well on other wikis, but the philosophy at Wikipedia is to keep the editing as open as possible. Everyone (including CP and RW admins) is strongly encouraged to get involved in writing the article, provided you ensure that everything can be directly and explicitly tied to reliable sources (no blogs or wikis allowed!). If it requires any synthesis on the part of the editor, leave it out of the article.

The concept of senior editors doesn't really exist here, either. For example, admins are given the rather undignified logo of a mop to symbolise that we just have a couple of extra tools to clean up mess. I'd only consider restricting editing if there was blatant edit warring or clear vandalism taking place. This isn't (yet) the case. For now, I'll just try to keep the article talk page clear of anything except solid proposals for content changes or discussions about changes made by others. I'll also remove or hide any comments which solely discuss the behaviour of another editor. Hopefully, that will encourage people to discuss solid suggestions to improve the article and stick to the point. Papa November (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind response, Papa November, it is sincerely appreciated. I doubt there can be any fair resolution to the dispute, given Wikipedia's rather byzantine procedures. They seem to me to be designed to accommodate clever "wiki-lawyers" at the expense of NPOV and common sense. It calls to mind nothing less than a rather public political dispute in the U.S., years ago, where it degenerated to parsing what the word "is" meant. This all falls under the umbrella of certain on-going discussions at high levels, I have been told....hopefully they will bear useful fruit! --TK-CP (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, opposing viewpoints frequently meet in wikis. "Neutral" POV and "common sense" are highly subjective and the only solutions are to either favour one viewpoint as a matter of site policy or to let people battle it out.  If you choose the former approach, admins need to monitor contributions very carefully.  If the number of contributors is large, you have to police the site through very "blunt" use of editing restrictions (massive IP range blocks, night editing restrictions etc) which slows the development of the wiki considerably.  If you choose the latter, editors are allowed to run free and the project grows quickly.  However, you can end up with long, protracted debates between editors about seemingly trivial points.


 * Wikipedia was founded on the principle of allowing very open editing with minimal intervention by admins, and I doubt that will ever change. You can console yourself with the fact that all of the millions of articles here can be copied freely (under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license) to other wiki projects and edited to suit the viewpoint of the site! Papa November (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What's up with this? []. This edit removed most of the content of the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a section edit that ended up being a full page edit. -- Nx  / talk  10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, like I said above. From the posting time of Huw, who's post wasn't objectionable to me at all, merely speaking truth about my "newness" here, we both could have clicked edit at the same time. I am not a wiki expert by any means, but I do know such things occasionally happen, and people are fuddled as to why. Since I am an administrator at another wiki, as you could plainly see on my page, the idea that I would be vandalizing another wiki is pretty remote.  Not even the Rationalwikian's accuse me of that! :P --TK-CP (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer if you would stop calling us rats, ratwikians and other such derogatory names, at least on wikipedia. Thanks. -- Nx  / talk  10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nx, I was careless in my language, and didn't intend it as derogatory, especially after you bothered to step-in because you sensed what happened. I have corrected my edit and changed the word to what I really meant it to be. --TK-CP (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you're admitting fault, why don't you retract the false statements you made on Wikiquette about the circumstances of your blocking on RW? 98.226.15.58 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

98.226.15.58, the circumstances were exactly as I stated they were. Someone posted a purported IM conversation on Rationalwiki. Based upon that I was blocked by the very same administrator almost imediately. I was never asked to verify the conversation or its context, and have been prohibited from even editing my own talk page there to respond. In fact absolutely no one from RW contacted me to ask if the facts were true or as reported. I don't have a real issue if RW wants to ban me, based on my own actions taken on CP in blocking so many of its vandals and disruptors, other than they should just publicly say they don't want me there instead of constantly contriving reasons to block me. Their blocking of me wasn't evidently enough, so they have brought that dispute here and publicly tried to tie my user name with a real-life name through trick and device. --TK-CP (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When two people are editing at the same time, the second one to commit gets an edit conflict warning and an opportunity to resolve the issue. In any event, while mistakes do happen, replying to the editor who corrected your mistake with the edit summary don't remove other's comments and leave those bullying intact does not strike me as appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, Gerardw, however that was not the sequence of events that I saw, as already explained. --TK-CP (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Terry, I (Nutty Roux on RationalWiki) am 98.226.15.58, which you know because you've rangeblocked me several times, including after I blocked you on RW for 2 years for stating your intention to sue Trent Toulouse in a chat with me. As you also stated to me in the same conversation that your attorney advised you not to have any contact with any RW editor, it's surprising that you're now carping about not being able to edit your RW talk page. Be that as it may, you well know how to get in touch with any number of other RW bureaucrats other than me, the blocking admin. Nobody contacted you to confirm the authenticity of the chat log because I don't have a history of lying about these kinds of things, while you've publicly defamed other RW editors claiming they forged screenshots, chat logs, emails, etc., in your long-standing beef with RW. That's not even the worst of it. If you want to call me a liar by continuing to say the IM chat log is "purported," just out with it and call me by name. We can have a dialog and any express claim of fraud, forgery, or whatever you wish to make can get addressed. I'd prefer that you just knock this off. Given the nature of my work, you know there's only so much of being called a liar I will tolerate. Nuttish (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 98.226.15.58, maybe it is just me, but I didn't see the part where whoever it was who purported to be "NuttyRoux" on RW agreed to keep our conversation "off the record". Given the fact that if you are indeed who you claim to be, showing that kind of devious disregard for your pledge would indeed be taken seriously by clients and perspective clients as well. Absent someone being served there isn't ever a litigation. Besides that, unless you or another RW official wishes to stipulate that party is in 100% control of RW, any legal action against him wouldn't have violated any rule whatsoever that existed at that time on RW as it isn't an entity that could be sued unless it becomes an LLC, so therefore any block was unwarranted, unsubstantiated and lacking in any legally valid verification. You puff lots of hot air, whoever you are, hiding behind an IP and a fake name. As with all trolls and noted vandal site members, I ask you to refrain from posting to my talk page. --TK-CP (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi TK-CP, can you ask me not to post on your talk page too? Of course, here is some interesting logic: "Since I am an administrator at another wiki, as you could plainly see on my page, the idea that I would be vandalizing another wiki is pretty remote."  Quid pro quo and Quad erat demonstrandum. Huw Powell (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What was that, Huw? Italian? Mine is a bit rusty I am afraid. And after all your pointers, I wouldn't think of demanding you not post here!  --TK-CP (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that was Latin. TK est fatuus. Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE!" Contributions 20:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL...your sarcasm detector must be in need of adjustment, Theclerkswell. ;-) --TK-CP (talk) 21:41, 15 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 Wikipedia 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.
 * Er, nope. You're in the wrong here.81.141.222.221 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

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? ~B F izz 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? ~B F izz 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 time contribute at Wikipedia! If anyone nominated me to be an admin at WP, I'd decline for fear of wasting more time being overwhelmed with things to do. =P [I reserve the right to change my mind about that in the future] ...comments? ~B F izz 07:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle access removed
Hi TK-CP. I have added you to the Twinkle blacklist per the consensus at this ANI thread. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a "consensus", Olaf Davis. Do you?  I am not familiar with the procedure as to who exactly is allowed to vote in the already archived thread. In any event, exactly how long do you perceive this blacklisting is going to last?  --TK-CP (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the poll alone there are four people supporting, one neutral and one oppose who subsequently said "I guess I could go neutral at this point". Taking the discussion above into account, I still see a consensus in favour. The comments took place before the thread was archived, but unfortunately no-one implemented it for a while afterwards. Any editor is allowed to express an opinion at ANI.
 * As for duration, I'd suggest that you edit for a while while demonstrating that you understand the difference between vandalism and not-vandalism, then post to ANI asking people to review your contributions and restore your access. Or, if you feel that my close was unreasonable, feel free to post now and ask for others to review it - if they agree with you I'll gladly overturn myself. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a consensus of Rational Wiki administrators meting out their brand of justice here at Wikipedia. This place needs to clean its house and become fair for all. A "consensus" made up of ideological opponents acting out of retribution isn't even a pretense of fairness. --TK-CP (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just saw this post to the archived thread. Since the thread is archived, I'll respond here. Twinkle is an automated tool, which you used to make this edit among others. The blacklist is a list of editors prevented from using Twinkle - in your case because you were using it to mark as vandalism edits which are not vandalism. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I understand now.....merely because I am new, and didn't understand that someone repeatedly posting to my talk page on matters about two outside wiki's, that is offensive here. I also asked for how long Wikipedia intends to "blacklist" me....do you have any idea?  Surely fair-minded, open-minded people don't do such things based upon the opinion of three or four people, do they?  --TK-CP (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no set duration to the blacklisting. As I said above, I suggest you edit without Twinkle for a while and then apply to be reallowed - doing anti-vandalism work might help to convince people you understand the difference, as long as you do it well. As for how long to wait it obviously depends on your edits until then, and the feelings of whatever editors see your request: perhaps a month or two is wise.
 * Although only a few people commented in the poll, ANI is a very highly watched noticeboard so you can be sure many others read the thread. If any of them had strongly disagreed with the proposal, presumably they'd have commented to say so. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing comments
Please read WP:TPG. You are not supposed to remove comments on your talk page without asking the users who put them there. Mr.  Anon  515  04:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, removing comments from one's own talk page is specifically exempted from that rule; see TPG. As it should be, because if not people would have to allow comments posted by blocked or otherwise inactive users to remain forever.   —  Soap  —  10:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the user's who left the comments that were removed are not blocked users. TK's reasons were "vandalism", when they were clearly not. Mr.   Anon  515  17:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The last revert TK-CP made to this page using the rationale of removing "vandalism" was on the first of this month; since then they've been cautioned for incorrectly flagging edits as vandalism. The more recent removals of comments are perfectly within Tk-CP's rights. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent revert of a comment on the talk page was of a comment that was not disruptive at all, and completely relevent to the disscussion. Is that within his rights? To censor comments he deems unworthy? Mr.   Anon  515  23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the policy. It seems to imply, however, that the comments that are removed from one's own talk pages must be vandalism, which the comments in question are not. Mr.   Anon  515  23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does it imply that? People remove unwanted messages from their own talk pages all the time.  Even administrators do it.   —  Soap  —  19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)