User talk:TK

(create an archive)

• Archive #1
• Archive #2
• Archive #3
• Archive #4
• Archive #5
• Archive #6

• User_talk:TK/vandalism

---

Conservapedia Discussion Group - Visit this group!

---

WELCOME BACK!

From all of us at RationalWiki. TmtamesP 16:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

email

TK, its me formerly Bohdan. I sent you an email through this wiki telling you the block had expired. Your email has probably been disabled by tmtoulouse, even your talk page was locked for most of the time. Welcome back. --TmtamesP 01:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

"And then, Sir, there is this consideration, that if the abuse be enormous, nature will rise up, and claiming her original rights, overturn a corrupt political system."

-- Samuel Johnson

TmtamesP 01:54, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Quite right, tovarich! Join the glorious RationalWiki Soviet today and do your part in bringing down this festering boil of oppression and villainy, ushering in a new era of liberty and brotherhood! Da zdrastvye revolutzie, etc. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Bye now.

Go fulfill your dream.-αmεσ (decider) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Block

Satisfied? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

My point was mistaken, but I think it fair to say management jumps on some users much faster than others. RW will grow and mature when that is finally, officially recognized, and there are Admins in place, not over ruled by Bureaucrats, who enforce the standards equally. I was trying to point that all out in as light of spirit as I could, and wasn't demanding a block, as some here always do with those they disagree with politically. The point is, a statement by admin, disapproving what was done, by an obviously known user (to one person at least) would have been better. Better still, would be to give the rest of us the same slacks given to the rest. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 18:14, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sharing my trousers with anyone!  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

ROFL! Okay, okay....I'll buy a new pair! --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 18:24, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

policy

I think the way to go foreward on rationalwiki is to get rid of the mobocracy. What is your opinion? TmtamesP 19:44, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I think "mobocracy" is a buzzword, and nothing more. There are thousands hundreds of examples on this tiny wiki where just a few regular users minipulated votes, ignored them, whatever. If anything, long-time and regular users wishes should be given even greater credence by those who control this place. I think the time has long passed where users here needed some "big daddy" bureaucrat deciding what is best for the place, (Cue demeaning/denigrating response(s) from those guys) in most cases. Seriously, hardest thing for the founders of any site is to relinquish control/manipulation to a major degree, and just be proud of their baby's maturation. That isn't much different from real-life parents, is it? I doubt many of us have chosen the path in life our parent's had all mapped out for us, and the same goes for this place. If the powers that be don't like the direction RW goes, they need to just make another newer place, or relax and enjoy watching this baby as it grows and experiments. So, using the word mobocracy, if it stands for bowing to community maturation, I am all for it. If it stands for a few old hands, manipulating the place to ensure the outcome they want, then I am with you, because so far RW hasn't lived up to, nor have the Founders tried to make it, its original principles of tolerance and forbearance, something they didn't find at CP, and supposedly made this place for.

And thanks, Bohdan/TntamesP, for asking me, and getting me in deep-hating retaliation shit once again! :P --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 20:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I see. TmtamesP 20:02, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As always, TK, you are welcome to raise specific complaints against specific individuals, backed up by solid evidence. Long and vague monologues about "those who control this place" are unlikely to be considered, especially considering that right now, nobody really seems to be in charge of anything. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:04, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Anders, go and play with your handcrafted shoes or your bacon and let us trained wikilawyers decide policy, allright? TmtamesP 20:06, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

"As always"? Since when? Do you ever at all just bust up laughing when you post such silliness? Do you think the majority of users here don't understand, know for a fact, who actually runs this place? The mere fact that you have always posted immediately after any reference to "powers that be" shows it to be your personal "hot button". The fact that you are part of that ruling group only makes others chuckle at your protestations. And in case you want to make people believe I am somehow going out of my way to put RW down, let me say that all sites are mainly run by a very few "leaders", self-appointed or made, who influence others who want to advance in the site heirachy, to support their ideas/decisions. Now, if you would be so kind as to step back, stop making threats to me, laying down the law, perhaps some actual dialog could happen. You saying, as an administrator, that I am "always welcome" to say something, but only in the way you want it presented is intimidating and threatening. You saying "no one" seems to be in charge is laughable, as I was just blocked for no reason, once again, and without discussion or notice, so "someone" obviously is "in charge". If this sounds as if I am pissed, I am most assuredly not, just being blunt, and sometimes I am overly so, as you know. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello, I just wanted to add that this time I won't interfere with the block. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 20:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Neither will I. human 20:49, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

TK, for the record, I consider the statement above to be impugning my motives as a sysop, which according to my own personal and long-standing standard is a cause for blocking. If it happens again, there will be sanctions. If this sounds as if I am pissed, I am most assuredly not, just enforcing policy. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:59, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Just to play devil's advocate, shouldn't site policy come before "personal policy"? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:17, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Is there a difference? I don't want us to repeat mistakes of the past.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 21:19, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

It should, yes. However, since we don't have policies on sysops at the moment, the logical conclusion must be that it is up to the individual sysop how he or she administrates that privilege. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

We don't have sysop policies yet? Jesus Christ, even RationalWikiWiki has regulations for sysops—and they have less than 10 regular users! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:26, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

We do have RationalWiki:Sysop_guide and RationalWiki:Blocking_policy, but neither are very specific. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:30, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I think I see the source of this problem. It's a sysop guide, as in help for newbie sysops. What we need are sysop regulations, a document specifying under what circumstances a sysop can and cannot use their power(s), a standard to discern when a sysop is abusing their powers. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:55, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and we also need to figure out which position a sysop should have in the community in the first place. So far, the prevailing attitude has been that they (we) are just unimportant janitors, which I honestly find horribly naïve. But we should probably take that discussion in a more logical place than here, and in connection with the other issues. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:59, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Agreed there. When it comes down to it, I like the idea that being a sysop should not be regarded as a privilege, but it's not valueless either, the way a janitor job would suggest. Although there is janitor work involved, it's janitor work pretty much anyone can do (reverting, page moving, and so forth). I think all a sysop can do that a regular editor can't is delete pages entirely and block people, is that right? So it's more like security guard than janitor, far as that goes. --Kels 22:08, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Alright, but... I would prudently suggest a greater display of transparency with regards to these matters (i.e. "I blocked him and for this long because...") Making history traceable on a wiki and all that, and not just "trust me, this was necessary" (not that I'd accuse you of such behaviour, but I ask on principle). Uchiha^KATON! 21:31, 25 March 2008 (EDT) I just wanted to point this out (and to start following Uchiha's suggestion, that's my reason for not unbanning. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 22:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

My thoughts to everyone else about TK

I'd just like to say, TK has made very few positive contributions to this site. See his mainspace edits. So why are we giving any comments/complaints/suggestions he has any merit? It seems pretty arrogant of him to expect to receive the same respect as everyone else when he has done very little that commands respect. Granted, the random I.P. adress made even less positive edits, but he has yet to demand anything of us, which is possibly why his side of the argument is better off. </IMHO> Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:40, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I just received a very important e-mail from you.

You asked to have your account removed. We don't do account deletion... at least, I don't think we CAN, and if we can, I don't know how we feel about it. But we do do permabans & locks. If you'd so like, please reply to this telling me to perma-block you and lock your page, and I'll do it. Of course, you may in the future request an unblocking, given that you'd be parting at your own wish.-αmεσ (decider) 23:35, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget archiving to leave a nice, quiet blank space. human 00:10, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I think he's doing it to get on the right side of the boss. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 15:48, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Nine months ago? ħuman 16:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Happy Birthday TK!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy Birthday TK! Have a Great 58th! - From your old mates at HotOrNot 193.200.150.23 16:22, 27 December 2008 (EST)

No harm in blocking him

He's still a sysop!-caius (spy) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Notice of serious vandal

Dear TK,

So long as you're blocking people associated with RationalWiki (a "vandal/parodist" site), I thought I would alert you to the presence of a vandal whose history is more troubled and complicated, but equally connected with RW and its mission. You can find his user page here. Thank you.

In return for this favor, please don't block my parodist sock (JPatt). Thank you, -Diadochus 17:47, 23 February 2009 (EST)

You Are Now My Bitch Here

For blocking me at CP for absolutely NO reason. Seriously, the only thing I edited on the account was Freedom Fries to reflect the history of the terms french fries and french toast. As a result, you are now my personal punching bag here. Have fun! Hell hath no fury like the wrath of The Goonie 1!!!The Goonie 1 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear TK...

Following a recent event on Conservapedia in which you accused "vandal site members" (by which you obviously mean us) of posting despicable comments on another CP user's userpage and reproducing said comments yourself on your own userpage, I am registering my disgust with you here.

As for your talkpage "thought of the day", the notion of offering condolensces to an "enemy" is not deceitful. It's something that signifies while we may have differences we are all in this (life) together, and to show genuine sympathy for another human being regardless of socio/political/religious reasons shows that these differences are not necessarily personal, even though you have a history which suggests you cannot discern between personal and internet lives.

I'm not even going to fart in your general direction, as you don't deserve it. SJ ^Debaser 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I was going to post over there about how despicable it is for TK to repost that quote (which NO-ONE here condones) to use it in an attempt to discredit us. You may hate us, but you should show a bit of respect to the person involved (not that you actually care about people's feelings, asshole). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A message for TK

You know I have never really made a statement about TK, publicly anyway, but I think I might now. TK, if you are reading this then I want you to know....in fact, I am going to tell you something you already know. This isn't what I think of you, this is what we all, including yourself, know about you. You're a lying, scheming, bigoted, unintelligent scumbag who obviously has failed so pitifully in real life, so appallingly, that your only option to make yourself feel important is to take over a little known website by manipulating its owner (which is the owners own fault I might add) so that you may spread your miserable existence, your utter inability to cope in the real world, to others. By throwing your inordinate weight around you get your jollies but you can't hide what you really are. Even with all your over-sighting it is painfully obvious to all what you really are. A nothing, a nobody, a zero, a loser. The fact that you spend all day being a petty asshole to all and sundry just goes to prove that you have NOTHING else in your life. I would pity you if you were not such a mean spirited bastard. All you have to look forward to is to get bureaucrated on CP. And that is a sad thing indeed. What is even sadder is that you know I am telling the truth but you'll deny it to your own face rather than face the failure that you have become. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 21:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Web (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that told him! Генгис^marauding 19:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You better believe it, G! SJ ^Debaser 20:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Evening Terry...

Thought you'd like to see this...

Spot of vandalism in my local pub. Good for poops and giggles.

Peace out. SJ ^Debaser 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Plz unblock me and undelete Bimbo Wales at CP, so I can help ruin the cred there. You're not fooling me--I read PJR's essay. I know what you're all about. Say something like I gave good reasoning about it on E-mail or something. Pax 68.76.156.225 02:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wasting your time, TK doesn't check this page, and saying "I know what you're all about" means literally nothing to him. Out of luck my friend! SJ ^Debaser 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. There is a reason he is called SuperJosh, you know! --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 20:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)