User talk:Crimsone

Intesvensk (talk)

I may be what ultimately caused you to leave Wikipedia, but nonetheless I'm sorry to see you leave, given your obviously notable contributions to the community. I disagree with many of your arguments, I disprove of the lack of research and understanding before you criticize others, and I personally am angered that you made the comparison between rape victims and a political matter, but throughout our discussion you have displayed an outstanding civilty and willingness to strive and toil for the wellness of the community. I wish to stress that I myself registered only to contribute to Wikipedia, and while differences my exist, we have/had the same goal - to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia for readers around the world. Good luck. Herunar (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the thing... I didn't make that comparison. Somebody else made that comparison for me. Somebody else stated that I had political views that were similar considering rape victims as to blame for wearing revealing clothes... and nothing could be further from the truth! What am I supposed to do? Sit here and let that go unargued? Sit here and happily let passers by think that such a totally misguided and uninvited suggestin actually represents my views?

And then, even after quite clearly stating that the comparison was false, and I most certainly do not believe rape victims are to blame for their own suffering, it appears that people them decry me for making the comparison between politics and rape victims... which is really interesting because the original argument was over the nature of who might consider what to be idiotic and why (and no, before anybody gets the wrong idea there... idiocy or lack of responsibility does not equal blame, nor do I consider rape victims to be stupid by nature of being rape victims - rape victims have the same capacity for stupidity as the rest of (or indeed, any other section, of the human population.) If the coparison with rape victims anger you, then please, feel free to look closely and discover who in fact was accusatively made that comparison, and be angry with that person, not me... And not least in light of your lack of research in that particular matter, I disprove that you accuse me further of a lack of research and understanding - just because I do not agree with you, it does not equate to a lack of research or understanding. I have in fact done my own research, and have my own understanding - just as you have done yours and have yours (and further... I would like to suggest in a particular instance that if you actually were aware of a source that categorically mentioned a kick in that particula instance, why didn't you use it in the first place, as it would be ipso-facto, a better source. In that respect, if you included a source that said such (as you provided in the talk page) in the article, our discourse at least improved something.

I am happy to

WP:AGF

in considering your motives in joining the encyclopedia, even to the point where untill you mentioned them, I had no cause to even consider the possibility of them being anything else but those you mention. However, in matters of research and understanding, and in matters of becoming angry, I would like to politely ask you to consider, as any of us might, a good hard glance in the mirror before criticising or even forming a view of others.

However, I would like to thank you for your message... it was indeed appreciated... and assure you that if you were any part of my ceasing all active editing, it was but a particularly small part. It is in fact a general culture I have encountered repeatedly across Wikipedia - even as I joined the first article I imporved resulted in me recieving prolonged and numerous personal attacks and insults (before the instigator of these was banned). I've mediated some patently rediculous, angry, bitter, and invloved disputes over quite simple encyclopaedic issues, and have seen numerous cases of beaurocracy getting in the way of building an encyclopedia, allowing incivility, bullying, ignorance and aggression to thrive in the process. In terms of the flam article in particular though, well, there are people who's conduct and accusations upset me far, far more than anything you said or did there. Crimsone (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think reference to the Berlin 1936 Games is quite important, I also think we should reference the Moscow 1980 Games. Because Nazi-Germany and Soviet-Russia were both oppressive and totalitarian regimes, just as Communist China. Furthermore we all know what happened in 1945 and 1989.

   * 1936 + 9 = 1945
   * 1980 + 9 = 1989
   * 2008 + 9 = 2017 (will be a year to remember)

I hope the 2016 games will be staged in Pyongyang or Teheran ;-)

Bombshell (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What Bombshell said showed the true meaning of that sentence. So please delete that sentence. It's against China and POV and not necessary.--Jingandteller (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1), He said it, not me. take it up on HIS talk page, not mine.

(2), The sentence means what it means, and while what you've quoted is OR, it's not MY OR, it's his... take THAT issue up on his page and not mine too. The sentence did not make any mention of that OR, and what I DID say about it, still applies. Besides which, International, particularly globbal torch relays are not the norm, and so it is indeed worthy of mention alongside other such relays.

(3), I do not edit articles here, and no longer edit talk pages here either, mostly for the crap that people are laying at my doorstep and the words they are putting in my mouth, the accusations and suppositions made on me, and blaming I am recieving for it all.

Take it where it belongs. Which is NOT here, as well you know. Crimsone (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to you, not to the wrong person. You said you don't want to delete the sentence and I showed you that that sentence is POV and against China. Why should we keep it in the article?--Jingandteller (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you did't. You showed me that another editor had used that sentence in support of a POV based upon his original research. The sentence itself is not POV. The sentence itself, is a fact, not a POV. Leave me alone, and take up the POV issue with the person holding a POV, and take up the seperate issue of the sentence itself on the article talk page. He mentions even moscow as a seperate issue. He says that the sentence is important but that it should be taken further. I support inclusion of the sentence, but do not support OR or taking it further.

In any case, even if you felt it appropriate to argue against the sentence itself and it's inclusion in the article, the article's talk page is the corrent place to do so, not here. In fact, this could be construed as a form of

canvassing

of a sort. So yes... wrong person, wron issue, wrong page... jusyt about wrong everything, so leave me alone. My comments on the article talk stand, as they do here, and I intend making no further comment.

May I also point out that "please delete that sentence" is an innapropriate section heading to be posting to my talk page, as there is no reason for me to do so, nor did I put it there, nor to I feel in the slightest that the sentence needs to be removed. Incidentally, as previously mentioned, nor am I editing articles.Crimsone (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I leave you alone. Sorry for disturbing.--Jingandteller (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Crimsone (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Jingandteller (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this:

I know you're peeved, and I understand it. I've been there, for similar reasons.

It helps to come to the realization that the admin system on Wikipedia is pretty much a sham. That's not to say anything derogatory about admins in general -- on the contrary, many of the people who've achieved that designation are nice and upstanding, even exceptional people. The designation itself is what I refer to as the sham. It denotes absolutely nothing about a person, or their ethical responsibilities here beyond the use of their maintenance tools. In every other sense, admins are no better than editors, and the earlier you learn that, the happier you can be on Wikipedia.

Having a technical knowledge of this place and its rules is pretty much the only prerequisite to earning the admin title. The rest of what you "need" can be attained any number of ways. I hesitate to use the "P" word here (popularity), since that's such a common way of critiquing the admin process here, but it's the truth.

Admins are not, by mere possession of the title, more respectful, more politically responsible, more reasonable, smarter, wiser, or more mature than anyone else. Perhaps they should be -- the title does seem to evoke that expectation in just about everyone. But it just isn't so. The more I've learned to abandon that inherent expectation and respect of the title, the better I've been able to function here. Again, that's not to say I don't respect people as individuals -- but I do that despite their title, and likewise, if someone is not deserving of my respect, their title or lack thereof will not influence my outlook.

I do still cling to some small chance that the admin title can mean something beyond my jaded outlook. I hope for that, strive towards it, and I sometimes even demand it -- but I still don't expect it. I've turned down 3 admin nominations so far because I don't want to live up to my own demands. I want to be able to throw a hissy fit once in a while. And while it may be true that admins can and do those things, that is a problem in my mind, and I don't want to contribute to it.

Anyhoo, I don't know you from anywhere but this incident, but I think anyone who's been editing for as long as you have, with no sordid block log activity, can only be an asset to this place. So I hope you can eventually dismiss this incident and come back. Adios for now. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:43, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I deal with a lot of controversial content, primarily religious, and know on that basis how bad this place can get. I don't think I've yet been accused of blaming the victim of rape for the crime though, or anything that bad, and I've still felt like ditching the place more than once. And I note from your userboxes that you admit to having an illness. From what little I know of depression, I have to say that I am more than a bit impressed by your willingness to continue in this place, and to be able to be the respected contributor you have been.

I can't blame you for wanting to leave, or doing so. Many people better than me have done both, and I don't want to talk about how often I've considered it myself. I do however find it intolerable that a long-time contributor has been subject to such abuse.

If, for whatever reason, you do choose to return, or just see something on the site which you think needs attention, please let me know. I am an admin, whether I really deserve to be or not, and I am more than willing to do what has to be done, particularly regarding such baseless, really disgusting, accusations like the one above.

I salute you for all you have done, and wish you the best of good fortune in whatever you choose to do from this point forward. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit busy recently and only just saw your discussion with Adambro about the torch relay page. Let me just say that you've done an excellent job in maintaining civilty. The admin system in Wikipedia is not perfect. We have plenty of admins who abuse power - and many are de-sysoped each year. You were unfortunate to have gotten into a discussion with such an admin who has no respect for Wikipedia's policies and lie and cheat to get their way. Just ignore them if you could. Herunar (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new discussion you may be interested in:Consensus on reasoning for LGBT Project Articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading your userpage. I'm sorry you've stop contributing significantly to wikipedia. It honestly makes me sad that people willing to contribute to a worthwhile non-profit cause feel they can't due to incivility and stubbornness. I was talking about thhis very subject with a friend of mine earlier today due to the mounting tension currently on the LGBTProject page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I hope you feel better and recover quickly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the NAMBLA talk page were intelligent, accurate, and expressed my sentiments so much eloquently than I ever possibly could. Just to let you know you are not alone, here. I have been labeled a pederast and pro-pedophile activist on the Wikipedia Review for my defense of several articles, even I have made no active contributions other than reverting what I saw as vandalism. The term you used, moral panic, was well chosen and sums up the current atmosphere here on Wikipedia. Frankly, my heart was in my throat when I posted to the NAMBLA discussion today, as I have been threatened with blocking/banning for disruption if I speak out again on those subjects. I've really been too afraid to do much more than edit Kim Delaney lately, and even that is turning into an edit war.

I won't take up your time with my level of frustrations, but just wanted you to know I empathize completely with feeling misunderstood and victimized simply for standing up for intellectual principles. Jeffpw (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Duw'ch bendithio.

Ceffyl Bach (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceffyl Bach

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Llangeinor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayes (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) 11:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crimsone. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]