Kmac1036

Welcome!

Hello, Kmac1036, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

All this being said... don't tamper with an AfD, ever again, and please don't insult other Wikipedians as you just have Svest (FayssalF). (see WP:NPA).

I hope your future editing, though, is much more productive... cheers,

--Dvyost 04:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How did I "tamper" with the AfD, whatever it is, anyway? The inappropriate comment about "Glen"? I thought that was the purpose of editing... Was not trying to specifically offend anyone with "jerks" because his post was not very clear at all on the reason to delete. Just please clarify. Also, I did not post the "underwear" comment. Kmac1036 04:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Kmac1036

Here, where it's pointed out that this is your first edit. [1] Please don't delete stuff like that in the future--regardless of your intentions, it looks awfully suspicious. Happy editing, and happy new year! --Dvyost 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, I guess I don't understand what the purpose of editing is then. One was a comment bordering defamatory, I thought, and the other was a duplicate post of "metadata" already on the page. Yes, I am not much on reading manuals so that might just be my problem then. (oops, forgot to sign) Kmac1036 05:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH PODCAST?

I signed up to keep jerks like you deleting wikis because you don't know anything about it. OOOH, you have edited 4000 wikis. Big deal. leave ours alone for "wehatetech." You don't like our show than go do something else. Go listen to TWIT and it's watered down content. Unsigned comments by User:Kmac1036

Maybe 3900 of them avoiding to reply to these kind of comments! Jerked at your place (not with caps). Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up™}

Well, Ok, the "jerks" thing I think was taken too narrowly. I was reffering to all the people posting about the wiki to delete it for no reason, like yours. You need to spell out ant say what your problem with it is. That's all I ask. Just because you are an admin or something does not mean you should automatically pull more weight over those who really think the article should stay. If you don't like podcast wikis then say so. ~ kmac1036

I see that you added some new stuff (addendum) to your former comments. I am answering them here. I am an admin! So? What was the problem? I have the right to vote! Indeed, everybody can vote (including you as you already voted). That was what I did! I mean here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wehatetech. ^{Wiki me up™}

Kmac1036! I appreciate your kindness! I am sorry that I can't respond to your talk page as I can't find it! Anyway, I am not sure if you are new to the place but I must tell you that I clearly stated that it is not notable and not referenced (with almost no google listing!. If you can't understand what that means than I am free! Cheers -- Szvest 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Well, I don't understand how to link this stuff. "User_talk:Kmac1036" So it's there now. Sorry, four words still not enough explaination. Plus, Google page rank is NOT really a very good reason as such. I don't care what Google says anyway. I want to know what YOU say Sir. "Not notable" needs to be better defined as well.Kmac1036 05:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Kmac! I like your persistance! Well, I am an admin and one of my duties is to guide people who are seeking advice or help. What I can do for you Kmac is to guide you to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. You can also direct your comments at its talk page. If those pages wouldn't answer your quastions in detail than you'd have to blame me or else you can direct your concerns to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if that couldn't answer your questions than I advise you to consult Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Other than that I can't help. Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes, I am. "Dvyost" set my talk page please post there then so I don't clutter this one. So how are we suppose to get articles on here then through this research rule? If we can't post this about a reasonably popular podcast then I don't see what the purpose of this site is at all. Kmac1036 05:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Kmac. First. this website is not a website; it is an Encyclopedia and you are also advised to read these important stuff like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. To proceed is very simple; get yourself familiar with the policies and guidelines. True that everybody can edit but it is also true that not everybody can post anything they want. That's why Dyvost is an admin and that's why I am and probably yourself within weeks if you get yourself familiar with this place. The first thing we protect this place against is nonsense comments. Articles are presented for deletion if someone (no need for that user to be an admin, yourself can present an article for deletion if you believe that it deserve) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. No big deal!

Back to our subject! I am waiting for you to read the links I gave yo above (my last comment) so you'd have more info (background) to discuss with me. If you fear that your article would be deleted before you'd be able to read that, than contact me to undelete the article or to discuss it again. Cheers -- Szvest 06:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I think Kmac1036 that you haven't revised the policies through the links I provided and advised you to take a look at. But I think that answering your Caps stuff like WHO IS THE MODERATOR THAT DECIDES TO DELETE ARTICLES AT WILL? would help cool your mind. Unfortunately/fortunately (according how you see it). there is no MODERATOR! If there was any MODERATOR than obviously there would be no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wehatetech at all. Please add this to the list of must read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It deals about the subject in question and think all questions are aanswered there. Does that make sense to you? Cheers -- Szvest 04:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I have read the links you gave me. Obviously I am missing something.... no, actually I did see one thing. Someone is using the "speedy deletion" provision. Someone only initiated the forum AFTER it's been reposted twice. You want me to understand that garble on those links? How about trying some organization, logical organization, instead of a hyperlink every three words. Yes, this IS a moderated site (It's on a webserver, uses HTML or similar code, displayed in a browser, it's a website), someone is taking leadership in something here, deleting articles at will. I am going to be persistent until I get a real response, not a bunch of links. Kmac1036 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kmac--sorry you're having so much trouble finding your way around. Check out Wikipedia:Deletion policy and I think you'll see what Svest is talking about; there's no one person who controls the site here, but rather things are often put to a vote for the community at large, as they were here. Anyway, those links may look frustrating for now, but thousands and thousands of people have found their way through them before--I'm confident you can too. I guess I should warn you though that you're unlikely to find anything helpful in there for this particular case; generally, users who come on to insist on a single article they're personally involved with don't have much luck (check out our page on vanity articles for more info). If you're interested in Wikipedia, why not just try editing some other articles? That can help you get the hang of it and then maybe you can return to this discussion later. Good luck in everything, --Dvyost 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS FRUSTRATING! WHEN WAS THIS VOTE? I SAW NOTHING OF ANY VOTE! Kmac1036 05:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wehatetech, where you registered your comments before; as I recall, the vote was unanimous among Wikipedians who hadn't created their accounts specifically to vote in this (sadly, those don't qualify). I'm afraid this is what often happens to Vanity articles. Anyway, sorry you're so frustrated... generally the best thing to do on Wiki is to move on to another article when you get frustrated with one; you'll see that it all works out in the end! Cheers, --Dvyost 07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's pure BS. Where's the rule on that? When did I "sign" saying I joined for that article? Yes, that article prompted my membership finally. You are making this up as you go along. I was told this was up for some vote and WAS NOT TOLD on purpose when to or how to or whatever so called "vote." No wonder this thing is being kicked around as a joke! Kmac1036 08:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote was pure BS and defied your Neutrality policy. A few people seen the posting on Digg that has done some wiki work and who have some beef with us and voted for delete. There will never be a neutral vote on this topic and you only recourse is to vote based if it worthy based on podcast guidelines, which I have not seen. I hope you kindly consider it based from this policy instead and at least give us a fair shake based on a neutral value not a stacked value. Xerves 19:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As indicated above, wehatetech has been decided by a consensus of the Wikipedia community as not notable enough for us at the present time. If, in the future, it becomes notable, then articles can be written on it. But to keep recreating the content is vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You asked where the discussion took plage. The answer is, it happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wehatetech, which you edited back in December. Articles for deletion discuss whether or not an article should be kept, and the closing admin does so based on the votes and discussions on the page. Users who have very few edits, none before the articles for deletion page was created, and anons are generally discounted in the final count. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been asked to take this into consideration: http://www.digg.com/technology/WeHateTech_spammers_are_changing_their_own_wikipedia_. If you check the votes they started coming in after this time. This clearly violates any Neutrality voting since it was people just showing up to smack us down. I don't anything will change because as you can see by our constant nagging that we have an audience that loves us and an audience that hates us just as much. Why I asked for it based off of some other method other than vote because it will never be neutral. Xerves 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about

I did not touch your User page, as you can clearly see from the page's history. And I have only added comments to your Talk page, as you can also clearly see from the page's edit history. What am I supposed to have vandalized? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It was gone when I logged in and I posted on your thread. I forgot to sign it and relogged in, to sign, and it was back... You telll me. Kmac1036 04:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue. Are you sure you weren't looking at the User page of the anonymous ID you were posting from when you weren't signed in? If there had been a deletion from your User page, it would clearly show up in the history. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anom ID? What are you talking about? I logged in like usual... Kmac1036 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Kmac1036 04:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a non-static IP, my modem was down for 20 minutes. Kmac1036 04:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You said, It was gone when I logged in and I posted on your thread. I forgot to sign it and relogged in, could you possibly have been looking at the User page of the unlogged-in account at the time? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief here, I'm not that stupid. I was logged in, "kmac1036" my pages were gone, and you were the last edit on them. I am going from what I have. I don't have the admin tools. I don't know what happened. Kmac1036 04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about. You can easily see the diffs. I did not change your page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on User:Haikupoet

• Read the changelog. I didn't delete your comment, I moved it to the talk page and responded there. Call it clutter removal. Haikupoet 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I call that censoring. I don't know what you call that. Way to go guys, keep trying to bury this problem. You are only going to piss him off more. Xerves 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• The comment was finally reposted on the talkpage. "Xerves" did not see the whole conversation because there was one comment that was deleted and the way it was moved did create confusion. Kmac1036 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

Please read WP:POINT. If you disrupt Wikipedia with your continuing crusade to promote your non-notable forum, or for any other reasons, you will also be blocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin

Greetings. I read your complaint, "Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin". It would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you move it there, you're more likely to get a response. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In this case, you can simply copy-and-paste the text. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Kmac1036 00:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some final thoughts on the "Wehatetech" issue

There is NSFW language used here. Just warning you.

The following is my personal opinion and hopefully my final statement on the subject. I've heard enough from all sides that I don't particularly feel like fielding comments about the matter, so please don't leave them on this page, and I'd prefer that you didn't put them on my talk page either. Any comments left on this page will be deleted. Not moved, deleted.

It is often said: "Never piss off a Perl geek with a cause". I'm not sure what to say to that, except to assume that whoever came up with that was of the opinion that Perl geeks were, to a one, batshit insane motherfuckers. I wonder if the same thing isn't true about sysadmins -- after all, a lot of them are Perl geeks too...

So as a sometime contributor to Articles for deletion, I posted my opinion on an article for a website I'd never heard of, wehatetech.com. They claim, and I have no reason to doubt, that they are a website for sysadmins who are tired of cleaning up technical bloopers, miscues, and other assorted disasters. There's a long and hallowed tradition of such things, the most primal of all of them being scary devil monastery on Usenet. Now WHT has a podcast, something which since the invention of the term a year or so ago has become a dime a dozen, and I voted delete, nonnotable. Others did as well, for much the same reason. The article was deleted, despite a fair amount of noise from two of its supporters who seemed to be Wikipedia newbies. Thus began a horrifying trainwreck of a debate/guerrilla war that seemed to ultimately center around me and User:Zoe, an admin who I don't know and never had any occasion to contact until recently.

Words were exchanged. I admit to occasionally being uncivil, but the upshot was that I was trying to get across to the WHTers that a consensus had been formed that wehatetech.com was not notable enough for an article -- that not enough people were likely to want to look it up in Wikipedia. You often see people debating a judgement of nonnotability on the AfD for their pet article, but in about a year of contributing to Wikipedia I've never seen a group of people so persistent about trying to get their group "recognized" (for whatever good that would do) on Wikipedia.

There have been accusations of censorship and collusion. There have been threats to drag the flamewar (as that's all it really is at this point, the AfD long since having been closed) out far beyond reason. Above all there has been a pattern of obtuseness about the nature and function of Wikipedia and its culture from the WHTers, which I find especially ironic coming from a group that claims to be made up primarily of sysadmins, a group of people well known for their intense desire to force every user to RTFM twice over before calling for help. (I've done tech support, I've been there, I understand.)

The following I do not say to pull rank, but simply to give an illustration. I first got internet access in February of 1994, a few months after the September That Never Ended, and was heavily involved in Usenet for a number of years. The bitterness at the incoming flood of dotcom newbies was palpable and the Serdar Argic spam affair was at the high water mark. The cardinal rule of Usenet, something that was drummed into newbies on a regular basis back then: when you go into a forum, you lurk for a while, read the FAQs, just generally learn the lay of the land before you post. Not only does Wikipedia recommend that, but when it comes to AfD it's enshrined in policy -- newbies have to make a really good point in order to get recognized on AfD, and those who come in just to stuff the ballot box are often ignored. I believe this is a good system. The problem is when you get legions of meatpuppets (most of whom probably wouldn't even understand the term as Wikipedians use it, much less realize that they are) coming in to affect an AfD without knowing how things work here, things sometimes get uncivil.

This is what happened here, in spades. There has been a great deal of guilt tripping and rules lawyering in attempts to get the article decision reversed, and in the process the WHT advocates have run roughshod over the process, to remarkably little end. The admins on the WHT website have declared a unilateral truce, which is fine with me as I'm quite sick of the whole mess, but have said that if others want to continue they can, which is not fine.

I have no hope that those remaining in the fight will back off without admin intervention. They seem so determined to make their point that they aren't willing to take anything anyone on the WP side says at face value unless it backs up their predetermined POV. I'm going to walk away now and chalk this up as a lesson in just how nasty the AfD process can get.

• This is my final word on this. It really boils down to what has happened, I am forced to use a proxy to post this comment because I make mention that we will keep fighting this in one way or another. For you, it is good that we are taking this off of wikipedia and moving it off to sharing our experience and letting others share their experience. You should know by now people really do not like to be silenced, they tend to get rather aggravated and unruley by the actions. I can only imagine someone going through this process with *REAL* useful information to post such in the areas of science and medicine only to be met by a forceful wall such as the one we ran into. Oh User X Has been using wikipedia for 5 months and has made thousands of edits and so decides that your Expert Y's opinion doesn't matter so we should just delete it or move it off to a talk page. Expert Y is now just Joe User Z because Expert Y hasn't invested enough time in Wikipedia for anyone to care. If you want to be in the business of sharing information I would think you want to invite newbies to come help out instead of deleting everything they post and offering useless advice such as visit this website. You make comments about RTFM, etc, well this is fun to say, but in practice doing that gets you fired in real life. This was never about getting a wikipedia article, it was the silly policies of Wikipedia that makes new users jump though 50 hoops to get any content posted since they are "new users". Perhaps in the future you will not be so quick to delete, but instead try to work with those who wish to help out and contribute. This would of NEVER happened if only someone would of taken the time to work with us instead of taking 2 seconds to mark it NN and ask for a deletion.

• I am sorry you got involved with this Haikupoet. If it wasn't you it would of been someone else, but you have to clearly see that MOST people come here want to share information and leave. Making new users jump through the hoops is only going to discourage the growth of wikipedia and make the great strides for accuracy seem redundant because it will turn into a bunch of individuals with a lot of time on their hands screaming NPOV...NN...Sockpuppet and those with real information and real expertise will tune out and leave. That is rather unfortunate. Seeing how I work in education I cannot help but tell anyone that asks me about Wikipedia what went on and how it is going to be difficult for relevent and accurate information to be listed on this website. I know you did not make the rules, you are just following them so you can be part of the community, but thr rules and barrier of entry are REALLY going to hurt Wikipedia in the long run

~~Josh (WHT) a.k.a User:Xerves

(above postings originated on User:Haikupoet discussion page)

Bravo Josh! Agreed.Kmac1036 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up!

I support your efforts and actually believe in what you say, this is why I have left Wikipedia being that it is nothing more than an excuse for over-obsessed fools to live out their dreams of being omniscient false-Gods. Good luck with your campaign, there is still some hope with people like you and the others on here who still believe in decency and truth Piecraft 12:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Crappy Admin

I heard you might have problems with admin notably guys like Zoe.. I've been having the same problems, hang in there. I suggest you don't let them get to you, and don't get offended. Please do me a favor, if you hear anybody else getting nailed by Zoe, please drop me a line, I'd like to hear all about it. --Masssiveego 09:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a role account with no article edits, created solely to disrupt Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone said that the blocking policy doesn't allow this, and he removed the block. I disagree. That said, I think it's about time you started working on the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. To answer your question, I believe you can remove the notice if you like, since you are no longer blocked. If you'd like to contribute, I'd recommend the Missing Articles Project - there are lots of subjects there that would make good articles. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of IntelliMouse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IntelliMouse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliMouse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LES 953 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)