KrampusC
Welcome!
Hello, KrampusC, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{help me}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Re thanks? edit
Wikipedia is a normal place for me, but first days are always though. Some people have it on the first day, others have it later. So, what stuff have you edited in the past and under which account? So far I see you as a new editor who have some troubles getting into a routine (that's why I provided those links).--Mishae (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- You don't need to ping me on my talkpage. The ping thing designed so that you can ping someone on your own talkpage. As for the weirdness, well, I don't go through contributions before I greet someone. The list is ever changing, and the more I greet the more users I can help. Besides, your talkpage was empty so it gave me a perfect idea to do a greeting. The other editors perhaps would have hit you with warning template of some kind (as you seen was followed after my greeting). Because, you know, Wikipedia is an ever changing place, there are editors that come here to vandalize (and get blocked), there are editor's that create one contribution (and then they never seen again), then there are editors which frequent contributors (but their talkpage is empty) and then there are some (if not most) which just create an account (and are never seen again either). Out of all 4 instances, I choose to greet everyone at random, because you never know if that user will stay here or not and whether he will do good or harm to the project. I don't however greet IP users becvause majority of them are used for one-day contribution or vandalism and I was already accused of greeting a vandal once, ha ha, ha. :)--Mishae (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay sorry for pinging you then. I had never seen the ping function before so I was just copying you. That's how I learn a lot of things, you know, from copying others. And you are probably right that there are a lot of people that don't use it much. I used it a bit, got bored, then found something interesting a few other times. I didn't see much point editing a TV show article when the TV show is on a break! I don't really think it is a good idea to edit articles I don't know much about. I imagine that if I did that then I'd probably get it wrong. That's why I didn't edit the chocolate shop hostage article (well, they called it the Sydney Siege, but nobody I know has ever referred to it as that, nor have any newspapers or TV shows). I only followed it a little bit. It wasn't all that interesting to me. The only interesting part of it, to me, was the extreme anti-Muslim sentiment it created, but, thanks to that hashtag, this time around the racism was kept under control. There was a huge amount of panic that it would create a riot like the Cronulla riots, but thankfully it didn't, thanks to the hashtag. It was a seriously important hashtag. And, while it is important to note that the woman that created it made up the story behind it, and probably did it for political reasons, it doesn't devalue it at all. That hashtag made a huge difference. So many of my Muslim friends were so relieved that it helped to stop the racism and calmed everyone down. Our stupid Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, had gone on this rant claiming it was terrorism, and that hashtag stopped his stupidity from getting innocent people hurt or even killed. One of the most important hashtags of all time, I think. KrampusC (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, in reality its not that bad to edit an article on what you don't know about. If you know what to fix (like a typo for example) no one will attack you for it. In fact, you might even get praised. As far as hashtags go, I think the first one appeared during the election protests in Iran in 2008 which then spread to Egypt in 2011, followed by Ferguson riots, and now this.--Mishae (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really use Twitter. As I said, the issue was racism. Racism is a big deal here, and when this crazy guy was holding up the chocolate shop, there were a lot of fears that it'd turn into some kind of riot. It didn't, and that was certainly not due to the response by our irresponsible Prime Minister. I don't know for sure that the hashtag stopped potential racist riots, etc. Maybe we are all a bit more sensible now than we were when the Cronulla riots hit. But the idea of it made a huge difference. It calmed a lot of people down. Far be it for me to claim to be an expert on hashtags, but from my perspective it looks like the most important hashtag of all time. But I suppose it doesn't make it notable enough for Wikipedia still. KrampusC (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, in reality its not that bad to edit an article on what you don't know about. If you know what to fix (like a typo for example) no one will attack you for it. In fact, you might even get praised. As far as hashtags go, I think the first one appeared during the election protests in Iran in 2008 which then spread to Egypt in 2011, followed by Ferguson riots, and now this.--Mishae (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay sorry for pinging you then. I had never seen the ping function before so I was just copying you. That's how I learn a lot of things, you know, from copying others. And you are probably right that there are a lot of people that don't use it much. I used it a bit, got bored, then found something interesting a few other times. I didn't see much point editing a TV show article when the TV show is on a break! I don't really think it is a good idea to edit articles I don't know much about. I imagine that if I did that then I'd probably get it wrong. That's why I didn't edit the chocolate shop hostage article (well, they called it the Sydney Siege, but nobody I know has ever referred to it as that, nor have any newspapers or TV shows). I only followed it a little bit. It wasn't all that interesting to me. The only interesting part of it, to me, was the extreme anti-Muslim sentiment it created, but, thanks to that hashtag, this time around the racism was kept under control. There was a huge amount of panic that it would create a riot like the Cronulla riots, but thankfully it didn't, thanks to the hashtag. It was a seriously important hashtag. And, while it is important to note that the woman that created it made up the story behind it, and probably did it for political reasons, it doesn't devalue it at all. That hashtag made a huge difference. So many of my Muslim friends were so relieved that it helped to stop the racism and calmed everyone down. Our stupid Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, had gone on this rant claiming it was terrorism, and that hashtag stopped his stupidity from getting innocent people hurt or even killed. One of the most important hashtags of all time, I think. KrampusC (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been told it is okay to delete things from my talk page edit
I don't appreciate threats, so if anyone threatens me or otherwise demonstrates bad behaviour on this talk page I will simply delete it and not respond to it. Since that is apparently okay to do it (as it should be) then I will. KrampusC (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tell you what, English Wikipedia is the only place where you can choose between archiving and deleting comments. Other language Wikipedias have a strong policy against it. When I was on the Russian Wikipedia, I tried to removed blocks from my talkpage, they eventually blocked me for persistent deletion of stuff from my own talkpage. Like, apparently Putin and his friends wanted to read my dialogue with Wikipedia co-workers. :)--Mishae (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Yes, I kind of found myself guessing with a lot of things. I guess that some things should be policy, and I'd think that they would be, so I go with it. If I am wrong, someone soon tells me. But mostly I seem to be right. I am finding it strange that I received no less than 11 different threats for one single edit, in supporting that guy who absolutely did not violate the BLP policy, certainly not with the edit that they claimed violated it. But apparently correcting someone is very bad, so I will bear that in mind for next time I see someone make an obvious mistake in their incorrect interpretation of a policy, which they enforce by blocking someone. 11 threats. And I mean by 11 different people. The total number is up around the 20 or 30 mark. Just simply incredible, considering that, per the policy page, which I read before I corrected the error, it states very clearly that it was a mistake. I think that they need to have a policy page about how some people feel upset if you dare to question them. It is perhaps a bit of an unwritten rule here. I couldn't find an actual policy page on it though, but getting 30 odd threats from 11 different people for a solitary edit that was actually correct is just amazing. I even had that one guy threatening to ban me over it. KrampusC (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, not necessarily. If you know what to say and how, you can correct someone. Currently I have almost finished a discussion with Nick-D. As far as unwritten rule goes, just like in real life... ...A person can steal songs from iTunes, and while its illegal, as long as no one blows a whistle, he can continue do so.--Mishae (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like he is a very sensible person, that Nick-D fellow. He hasn't listened to a single thing anyone has said. It is best to avoid such people, in my experience. There is only so much you can do to try to convince someone before it becomes a waste of time. Such a pity that so few people are sensible in trying to explain it, but at least you have been. KrampusC (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, not necessarily. If you know what to say and how, you can correct someone. Currently I have almost finished a discussion with Nick-D. As far as unwritten rule goes, just like in real life... ...A person can steal songs from iTunes, and while its illegal, as long as no one blows a whistle, he can continue do so.--Mishae (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Yes, I kind of found myself guessing with a lot of things. I guess that some things should be policy, and I'd think that they would be, so I go with it. If I am wrong, someone soon tells me. But mostly I seem to be right. I am finding it strange that I received no less than 11 different threats for one single edit, in supporting that guy who absolutely did not violate the BLP policy, certainly not with the edit that they claimed violated it. But apparently correcting someone is very bad, so I will bear that in mind for next time I see someone make an obvious mistake in their incorrect interpretation of a policy, which they enforce by blocking someone. 11 threats. And I mean by 11 different people. The total number is up around the 20 or 30 mark. Just simply incredible, considering that, per the policy page, which I read before I corrected the error, it states very clearly that it was a mistake. I think that they need to have a policy page about how some people feel upset if you dare to question them. It is perhaps a bit of an unwritten rule here. I couldn't find an actual policy page on it though, but getting 30 odd threats from 11 different people for a solitary edit that was actually correct is just amazing. I even had that one guy threatening to ban me over it. KrampusC (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! edit
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Biblioworm 16:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Thanks for your help edit
|
Great Answer Badge |
| Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. | |
| Hard to believe it was your first time helping at the Teahouse. Your answer was not just right, it was great. You completed the process with a friendly talk-back on the questioner's talk page. Your answer also elicited the questioner's unstated agenda for us to confront. Great work.
| |
February 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
KrampusC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Didn't evade any blocks. Not a sockpuppet. This was done presumably because I opened up a legitimate Request for Arbitration against NeilN. Please undo. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrampusC (talk • contribs)
Decline reason:
Mister Sneeze A Lot declared that this was an abandoned account of theirs. MSAL is still blocked; therefore this is block evasion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not going to review this unblock request, but I've briefly read through your history and can offer the following advice.
You seem to think everyone on the project is out to get you, yet when you get into conflict with other people, you have been arrogant and rude towards them (eg: [1]) - not to mention your last mainspace contributions (as Mister Sneeze A Lot) were to restore a claim on Twitter that is believed to have led to a pornographic model's suicide, which is not only insensitive and crass, but against the biographies of living persons policy (which doesn't stop the minute a subject dies). It is therefore hardly surprising to see you blocked. While I have banged heads with NeilN on a number of occasions myself, I am not so pig-headed to think he offers a net-negative contribution to the project and would not support a desysopping. If he really was that problematic an administrator, don't you think there would be a queue of complaints from many other people on the project? When an administrator genuinely steps over the mark and brings serious disruption into the project, they do get desysopped without so much of a how d'ya do. Just because you don't like NeilN, doesn't mean everyone else has to share your views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
KrampusC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Didn't evade any blocks. Not a sockpuppet. I don't see why it matters if someone is pretending to be me. This account has had sockpuppet checks against it and is proven not to be a sockpuppet. Please check facts. Thanks. KrampusC (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Declined per CU info below, talk page access removed. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Per a request from SarekOfVulcan, I am endorsing his decline of this request. Also, see below. —DoRD (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- For the reviewing admin, I contacted a CheckUser off-wiki and the accounts are confirmed. Won’t decline myself since it’s my block, but I’d suggest yanking TPA. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I also looked at this account and find the following
Confirmed accounts:
- Dyinghappy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Akmereal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- KrampusC (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- —DoRD (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Talk page access has been revoked for Dyinghappy, after an unblock request was posted by them earlier this morning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333 and RickinBaltimore: All this is pretty bemusing as I wasn't the admin that the sockmaster had a beef with in the first place. [2] --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Talk page access has been revoked for Dyinghappy, after an unblock request was posted by them earlier this morning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)