- Thanks for your attention span, and being good people. (Here's smiling at ya!) -Edbrown05 20:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I may have been unkind in my responses, but his were hostile. What he was trying to accomplish could have been attempted in a less-hostile way. Instead of reasons for his objections, he substitutes the authority of Wikinews policy without quoting and applying. Then when that's questioned, he becomes hostile. Many people don't know how to deal with it. Karen 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, your comments were fine.. I just read them & they made me recall a warm childhood memory. ;) Don't sweat it, everything you said made sence. MrM has a specific obnoxious editing strategy. We've all dealt with it. Many, me incl, just avoid him. Some made an ArbCom case. Neutralizer copied it for a while. Amgine just refutes it & blocks him when he pushes too much. Nyarlathotep 21:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Karen, imo your response was to a clear provocation - the same argument MrM has attempted to use. As I said to him: "I expect discussions to get heated, and sharp words will be used. However, your response went well beyond reasonable reactions. Thus the block." I do not feel any of your comments on that page were outside the expected in a heated discussion, and you gave reason for your comments. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Notice of Temporary Block is Not news 
- I highly dispute this block. (However I guess it's a little late now). mrm made this purely out of spite, and revenge. It was not justified in policy as policy is basically a summarization of current user opinions written down for confidence, and the only person who voiced support was mrm while several users voiced their opposition on WN:ALERT.
- Basically blocks should have 2 purposes:
- try and make sure that the user remedies there behavior(most blocks, 3RR, etc)
- To permanently get rid of the user if s/he makes enough people mad (WoW, the failed (proposed) block on neut a while back.)
- All this was is a trophy block to get back after mrm had been blocked for 2 hours the other day, the user wasn't even online! This block did absolutely nothing to the afore-mentioned goals of blocks.
- In addition to that, the grounds aren’t very good. According to block policy,
- vandalize articles
- break the three revert rule
- excessively and consistently break site policy. Admins should only do this as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings.
- Are trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals.
Admins can block users or IP addresses who:
- First of all, you pretty much had to use your imagination to see this attack. And second, this was the first very minor offense.
- Karen, I sincerely apologize for this admin's behavior. Had I known of this block I would have unblocked. I have blocked Mrmiscellanious for violation of the blocking policy for 1 month, but I would appreciate if any/all admins review this block. - Amgine | talk en.WN 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, I really need to learn how to spell one of these days... Bawolff ☺☻ 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not think everyone's a bone-head for misspelling; the reason I make corrections is so people (me, included) see the correct spelling so next time they have a slightly greater chance of getting it right. Most of my edits at Wikinews are style, spelling, and grammar - not content. Every so often I find the content to be in error or confusing and I'll be inspired to re-write it until I'm happy with it. The first priority of a writer is to just record the ideas; the clean-up crew can get the rest.
But I did want to defend my actions (That's what he said, "your actions on the following page: Talk:Flight 93 cockpit recorder played in Moussaoui trial. ") regarding this block Stating I don't like a behaviour, or stating my own opinion seemed to be my worst comment made in the exchange. The "[this phrase] gives me the impression that you [demonstrate aberrant behaviour]" part was not so much meant to soften my "I think you're a raving lunatic" thoughts, but more to demonstrate that the behaviour seemed aberrant to me - that I couldn't see reasons for it, for him to speak on behalf of Wikinews when no other user stated the opinions he had. That inference bothered him the most, however - it wasn't meant to. Nor was it meant to bait him. Unfortunately, it did.
My deliberate and unkind phrase from the exchange was "MrMiscellanious, you're Not news.". Honestly, even this block isn't news to me - he did what he said he would, and without stating any other reasons than "for your actions" as I said he would. A one hour block when I'm away watching TV, eating dinner, and waiting for more news to read and edit seems worth it for my intentional "not news" phrase. I will recall the phrase and associate it with MrMiscellanious fondly. I'll even use it and variations when I can get away with it - to signify his actions are expected, now that I know him better. Given a discussion and vote, I would have agreed to the one-hour block, myself. Given that the block on him was two hours, I've even blocked myself for 2 more hours (for a total of 3 hours blocked). I believe I verified that a blocked admin can unblock, so it might be debatable if I actually served 3 hours total. I did, however, log out and leave for the blocked time.
The last statment I'd like to make on my behalf is that I didn't intend to insult him, or bait him. I intended to express that I needed his reasons to be more defined before I could consider them, before I could give any weight to his assertions that he can speak for all of Wikinews. He should have quoted specific policy to do that, and invite/involve others to support his position instead of assuming the authority he did. He has mis-used that authority - that's my opinion. Karen 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
TalkPage attacked 
- Thank you, Brian. Cowicide verus Amgine edits were causing the "New message" notice to appear constantly. I'd read the history, so saw Cowicide's message. He didn't need to fight to deliver it, but I think he wanted it posted here for others to read. It was slightly disruptive, and if I'd have thought to do so, I would have protected my own talk page overnight. Karen 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Am I a witness to something that needs my comment? Karen 06:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't mean to jump in here, but, you are currently named as an "interested party" and so are subject to arbcom findings, remedies, etc... If the request is granted. If you wish to participate in this arbitration, please feel free to summarize your thoughts on whatever on the request page. The ArbCom will vote whether or not to accept the request... If you wish to remove yourself, you should also feel free to do that. If the request is granted the ArbCom may later involve you, if necessary.... It's late and I may not be clear/coherent... If I'm not, let me know! --Chiacomo (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- While I'm interested in consensus being reached, I don't understand how I'd be involved in the process. Am I being requested to be an interested party?
- And if so, what am I being a party to? Until I know, I feel that I'm not an interested party. I have a very narrow involvement in what I perceive to be the issue. I feel I will just complicate the proceedings if a request for a statement from me is mandatory. I'd prefer if any statements are required, those statements I've already made fill the requirement, and requests of me to elaborate are made if needed.
- I'm confused by "if the request is granted." Do you mean to say that it's possible there will be no arbitration hearing? If I summarize my thoughts now, they will only regard thoughts on the process, not incident Wheel war of April 19-20. The first thing I think needs clarifying is exactly what is being (or requested to be) arbitrated.
- My immediate thoughts on any process related to arbitration hearings on Wheel war of April 19-20 is that it's immediately disruptive of the short time I have to actually make edits. I logged in to make an edit, then before proceeding to make other edits, find myself potentially involved in more warring. I am not going to be able to make contributions in what I perceive to be a potentially hostile environment (not referring specifically to any expectations of dealing with an arbitration committee). If comments are requested, and I'm over-due to make them, please refer them here (or paste these comments there) to read and address comments before expecting me to have any more involvement.
- They make perfect sense... I don't know what you're a party to, either... :D The person requesting arbitration listed you as an involved party. The Arbitration Committee will review the request and will vote to either accept the request (which will open a formal case) or reject the request (there won't be any further arbitration unless someone else brings a request). It's not clear to me either, currently, what the goal of this particular request is. I suspect tha Ral, who initiated the request, is asking the ArbCom to make a determination on the appropriateness of adminstrative action in relation to the wheel war and to attempt to remedy the situation if possible. It's not entirely clear to me. You can remove yourself as an involved party, if you wish. The ArbCom may involve you again if necessary, however. It doesn't appear to me that you've got a dog in this fight. I'm rambling a bit, so let me know if I need to clarify. --Chiacomo (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Rfda is Not News 
This is a message to inform you that I have added every administrator to the Rfda section on WN:A. This is not personal and I feel as if the community, who did not have the option of voting for or against most of the administrators, should be able to choose who they want to be in charge. I also want to say that I value everyones work on this site and I know that everyone does their best. I hope that none of you will take this personally and I hope that all of us will continue to work together. Jason Safoutin 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- lol. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, but I removed your comment as well as that of Neutralizer's when I reverted back to before the vandalism. I hope you don't mind. (And I agree entirely.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That's Neutralizer trying to cause trouble? I thought it was someone from Australia. Well, I didn't see the original context of your message, but just your quote below seems like a harmless attempt at humour. I'll include it here just for fun. Karen 02:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that's Neutralizer. He's been pasting this everywhere he can because it's the only thing he's been able to find which he believes would violate WN:E, which confuses me because I thought I was much more rude and abrupt than this. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"Simeon edits from Australia, a continent populated entirely by criminals! And, as a criminal he would expect that we would not trust him, so obviously we cannot drink from the glass in front of us…"- Amgine/talk 03:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
What Vizzine (The Sicilian) said in the movie The Princess Bride. 
- Vizzini: Not remotely! Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
These two quotes (the first being an allusion to the second) represent a chain of logic that is purely comical - not to be taken seriously. Karen 01:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Wanna hear a joke? Wazzawazzawaz 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you just dont give a damn how you make newcomers feel either? Wazzawazzawaz 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- You just plan on being a jerk and ignoring me too??? Wazzawazzawaz 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)