User talk:Karmaisking

External links

Please no more external links on credit crunch. This is not a personal blog, nor is it a new aggregator or wire service. Its an encyclopedia. There is already a page called 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis and the external links there are used as references to something specific in the article. Montco (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That is a perfectly reasonable request, which I am happy to comply with. There was an earlier criticism that credit crunch didn't have enough external links or references (see the history edits). This implied that the body of the article lacked depth or substance. These external links were merely a response to this earlier comment. If you are now satisfied that the body of the article is backed by substance, that's all that matters. I would at least urge (beg?) you to consider leaving PrudentBear.com in as an External Link. As Financial Armageddon states, PrudentBear.com is probably the most comprehensive and intelligent site on the credit crunch in existence. It is not a commercial issue (I have no interest or share in the company, nor have I invested in anything related to it). It just happens to be the best reference tool on the credit crunch today for students and investors alike. Karmaisking (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The delete machine is working on overdrive. I'm OK with the wholesale slaughter going on in the credit crunch section (they had it coming to them) but the genocide that just happened on debt money seems a little excessive. I'd be careful if I was you. The International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is still in existence despite the recent departure of the chief prosecutor. The only two book references included on debt money have been torched. Please define "reference" book? How does a "normal" book differ from a "reference" book? Who decides (they are both published after all)? Surely now the article can be criticized as being "light on substance"? How do you counter that? With a web-based cartoon attached to the article? Montco, your hyperactive delete button needs less caffeine (or coke) and more common sense. What are you afraid of? Karmaisking (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you cite the book as a source, its a reference that you list. but we are not here to spam stuff.Montco (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Montco goes mad. He just ate himself (check out the history section on Montco's talk). And he doesn't make any sense here. "If you cite the book as a source, its (sic) a reference that you list". Err...I am listing both of them as a source in debt money. They are both published books. Good reads. I recommend both of them as fun bedtime reading. "but (sic again) we are not here to spam stuff". What drugs are you on? Since when is knowledge "spamming"? I have no interest in these books. You clearly have an interest in deleting all knowledge of them. What the Hell are you on? I want some too! Karmaisking (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is so much fun. I feel like enraging cannibal Montco by giving knowledge and telling the truth! Let's see if he eats credit crunch just like he ate debt money. Surely he'll get indigestion soon (I mean, look how many times he's eaten himself already!). Karmaisking (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Montco seems to think that you are making personal attacks on her/his talkpage; perhaps you could tone it down, or better yet refrain from making comments that could be perceived as attacking or inflammatory? Please and thank you. Anchoress (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that seems like odd behavior. Is there some reason you're calling another user a "cannibal" and threatening them? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Montco constantly deletes his comments and articles he doesn't like. Have you seen his talk page history? The guy is out of control. I am perfectly happy to have the credit crunch External Links wiped. However his compulsive deletions on debt money are simply crazy. I apologize if he is offended, but I am offended by his constant, unreasoned deletions. Can someone talk to him??--Karmaisking (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it takes two to tango, but at the moment I'm concentrating on you. It appears that from very early on in this dispute, your comments began to focus on insulting and mocking Montco, rather than discussing the substance of the issue(s). Likewise, claims that you are reverting "simple and obvious vandalism" are quite combative, and don't quite fit with the definition of vandalism in Wikipedia's policy. I heartily encourage you to put forward a good faith effort to participate in dispute resolution and build consensus as to the most appropriate actions. Assertions regarding Montco's previous behavior or character should probably stop, unless they can be supported by various diff evidence and/or requests for comment. You don't necessarily have to get along like best pals, but please try to work together. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Luna, focus on me by all means. Have you seen my initial (conciliatory) comments above in relation to the deletions on credit crunch?? How can you accuse me of being initially combative? It was only after I saw Montco delete all the book references in debt money (minus a cartoon) when I realized he wasn't interested in style issues, or issues of substance - he simply had a clear agenda to delete stuff he didn't like. I have (happily) left credit crunch alone after the many, many deletions Montco made. Hardly the reaction of a "combative" or compulsive contributor. "Simple and Obvious Vandalism" is the very term used in WP itself as one of the grounds for avoiding the 3RR rule - how can you say it is "quite combative" to simply refer to this as a basis for avoiding the 3RR rule?? I copied these very words from the WP site as a basis for undoing his deletion! Someone's crazy. It could well be me. But I'm never going to be "pals" with a compulsive history-eraser. Please verify what I've written and think carefully about the actions of Montco to see if they are reasonable or simply the acts of vandalism. In my view they are. When somebody spits in your face and then runs to the teacher to complain about the other student being angry you are looking at a very naughty boy, not a senior editor of stature. Please don't come to me and talk to me about manners without understanding the full picture. I fail to see how someone's previous behavior is not a reasonable basis for showing a destructive pattern of behavior that then can be used as evidence that the individual has been manipulative or destructive in this instance. Prior convictions can be used as evidence against the accused in some jurisdictions. Why not on WP? --Karmaisking (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be leaving Montco a note, in a moment. Otherwise, a few responses. I didn't say it was entirely inappropriate to refer to past incidents, only that it is arguably inappropriate to do so without providing proper evidence -- a key distinction (to wit: if Montco has repeatedly been a problem, evidence or a request for comment might be very helpful to establish that in the open). While "simple and obvious vandalism" is indeed an exemption from 3RR, WP:VAND also states quite clearly: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." Being "unreasonable" does not make one a vandal, there are far more descriptive and useful words available. The words "troll" and "vandal" get thrown around very often, frequently with negative effect, because they're not called for; you're probably better off being more specific. I do see that your initial responses appeared quite calm, perhaps even apathetically so, but I'm concerned by the rapid change in tone, not sure where it came from or why. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oy, I tried. One more like this and you're likely to find yourself on the short end of a block. Settle down and play nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Credit crunch

I'm leaving a note on the other editor's page as well. Because of the dispute it would be better to discuss external links on the talk page before adding them to the article. Please remove the links you've added and discuss first on the talk page. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 08:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's OK I've left a message on the talk page of credit crunch and left these "non-controversial" essential links in for students and non-economics students alike. I'd be amazed if anyone had any issues with these.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You might enjoy this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XhvG_fD0HA Krugman speaking at Google ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregalton (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Debt money

An article that you have been involved in editing, Debt money, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debt money. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. In particular this is unacceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Karmaisking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is ridiculous. I've respectfully contributed since the initial warning. No one has given an explanation as to why I've been blocked. Anything I've contributed has been to do with (apparently) "controversial" issues on monetary theory which has resulted in multiple unreasoned deletions of my contributions. What act SINCE the warning justified the block?? I note since the block others have attempted to delete or vandalize debt-based monetary system and debt money, without me able to do anything about it (given that I'm currently bound and gagged). Is this a co-ordinated attack? Why do these topics generate such heat? What the Hell is going on??--Karmaisking (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Would you explain how what you wrote in the series of edits that conclude thusly do not, as a whole, constitute incivility and personal attacks? "I will scrupulously avoid mentioning your lack of qualifications ...", "You foolish, foolish establishment child", that sort of thing? Or here, to find a slightly older example? Unblock declined. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2007 (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.

{{unblock|SINCE the warning Daniel, SINCE the warning. What is the function of the warning? It's not "three strikes". It's ONE retrospective strike, and you're OUT. That makes no sense.--Karmaisking (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but Coren appears not to know how to unblock. Block is STILL ON. And I note that debt-based monetary system has been subject to repeated vandalism in the meantime. Go figure.--Karmaisking (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please state whether or not you are the same person as Rememberkarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Sandstein (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Rememberkarma's recent contributions were not written by me.--Karmaisking (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Accounts

You appear to be using two accounts, this one and Rememberkarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Your protestation above is unconvincing. Please don't. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless whether in your view my "protestation" (statement?) was "convincing" or "unconvincing", the fact is that the recent contributions by Rememberkarma were not written by me. However, I know Rememberkarma (and wish to thank them for their assistance) and will forward your comments on to them. I don't know quite know what they are supposed to do with the comment (start a new account name?) but I will forward your comments on.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karmaisking, and you are therefore blocked for period of 1 week. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

Soapboxing

You have already been warned that using your talk page for advocacy or for reposting material not suitable for articles was inappropriate. You will not be warned again. — Coren ^(talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend you reinsert that prose. Please carefully read WP:SOAP over. You have already been warned by Stifle, and your page was protected as a result of your using your talk page as an advocacy platform. As well, threats in edit summaries are not appropriate either. — Coren ^(talk) 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you took a moment to actually read the policy that has been pointed to you several times, you would have seen that:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise.

(Emphasis mine). While you may feel compelled to expound on the machinations of bankers and flaws in our economies, Wikipedia is not the place to do so. There are a number of free blogs where you can express your feelings freely— I recommend you look into those. — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Parts of my own Talk Page deleted by editors who think they know better

Dear impartial reader, Coren and I have been having an entertaining and enjoyable "discussion" on the finer points of "soapboxing". She is of the firm, resolute belief that this version of my own talk page amounts to "soapboxing" and has deleted it. I recognize that there may be elements of soapboxing in the "predictions for 2008" section at the bottom of the page, but have given her the opportunity to amend rather than delete the whole section. She has declined the opportunity to amend, leaving me in the difficult position of having to type this with a knife pressed ever-so-gently against my back, with Coren carefully looking over my shoulder at the screen to check whether anything is, in her God-like view, "soap-like". Not the most pleasant position to be in, I can assure you.

To use another example, picked completely at random: Let's say there's been a nasty and vicious and ugly and persistent edit war over, say, fractional reserve banking, and a number of editors want a messy but more informative version like this one kept in. Then let's say I post this earlier version on my talk page for readers to compare with the now (in my humble view) slaughtered version. Is that "soapboxing"??

To use yet another example, closer to home. Let's say a guy like Zenwhat says to his co-conspirators, "What can we do to have OUR version of debt-based monetary system/fractional reserve banking prevail?", like he clearly said here under the (desperate?) heading "Heeeeelp".

And then he also (bizarrely?) asks Gregalton help him delete references to Mises.org like he did here, saying to Gregalton: "Also, in case you're interested, one of the easiest ways to find economics articles that have been vandalized is to do a search for links to Mises.org"

As if a reference to the great Ludwig von Mises amounted to VANDALISM? Can you BELIEVE IT? I have to hold a pencil between my teeth just to keep control of myself and keep typing this. The guy is clearly a vicious tiny weeny little troll.

He also says to his co-conspirator the following, on the same page:

"I looked at the fractional reserve banking article recently and saw how it was so horribly vandalized. It made me realize that we're going around in circles. We improve the articles to the point that they look great. Then they get screwed up again. So, I had an idea: Would you be interested in helping me write an essay on "Monetary Crankery"? It could help people who AREN'T educated...The idea is for it to be straightforward, with references, but polemic and satirical of monetary crankery."

Clearly this guy is obsessed with deleting or "satirizing" any positions on monetary theory that don't agree with his. (The guy is mad. If the guy had napalm or nukes he'd use them without hesitation.)

Then, for good measure, he goes back to debt-based monetary system to do more "editing".

Zenwhat is a piece of work. Check out the dude's talk page. In addition to his obsessive interest in deleting anything associated with Mises.org, his main interests appear to be something called "cannabis culture" and "the Buddhist connection with marijuana". So, I gather from this that his main "interests" are monetary theory and dope smoking. What a combo!

Seeing this, I ponder my options. I decide to post a note here, ON MY OWN TALK PAGE, asking readers to compare older (better?) versions of some important articles on monetary theory with the current versions. For good measure I offer my predictions on the financial markets for 2008 as a gift to the (eight?) people persistent enough to read my humble little talk page.

It immediately gets deleted by all-seeing, all-knowing Coren as "soapboxing". Is this strict compliance with WP guidelines or a WP-style Fascist Dictatorship where people like Coren delete at will, but don't bother to make CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions as to how what I have written CAN come within the guidelines?

This is like watching evolution in reverse. I carefully construct a page with the help of others. It gets vandalized by those WITH A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS agenda to delete or satirize all references to Ludwig von Mises or the Austrian School (who knows what motivates these sickos?). Instead of engaging in pointless edit wars with idiots, I ask the impartial reader to compare the various versions on my talk page. I then get told off for "soapboxing". I then ask what SPECIFIC words amount to "soapboxing". I get no response. I feel vulnerable, like someone has a knife in my back, waiting to pounce. I feel like laughing and telling them to go buy CDOs backed by credit card debt or a billion in U.S. Treasury notes (the best insult I can muster, given that both amount to a fate worse than death). They then go ahead and put the knife in. What am I to do, dear reader?--Karmaisking (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: realize that this is not USENET or a blog. Your talk page is not your property, but is "leased" as a space to help build the encyclopedia and the community. People are usually allowed wide latitude on their own talk pages - you'll see plenty of off-topic chatter if you look around - but repeatedly posting essays, blog-type entries, etc which are divisive and attack other editors is going to exhaust patience very quickly. Additionally, your style is highly rhetorical, and while it may be well-suited to "scoring points", it's not doing the trick as far as generating consensus. Of course, the use of sockpuppets/meatpuppets doesn't help your cause either. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but many of the problems you're encountering seem to stem from a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, impartial reader, but your comments are a little on the general side. Based on bitter personal experience over many years, I've long given up on achieving "consensus" on something as controversial as monetary theory. As Gregalton has pointed out on the debt-based monetary system talk page, it's not a topic that lends itself to people happily sitting around chatting over a cup of chai tea, like, say, quilting. How money should be produced and distributed in the modern economy is (if you hadn't already noticed) a slightly contentious issue. Contentious enough for the argument to be concluded with an assassin's bullet (at least according to some monetary historians). The question is not my manners, which I acknowledge are non-existent, but whether someone should DELETE what I have written ON MY OWN TALK PAGE on this basis, and threaten ominously "you will not be warned again" (I'm now reflexively turning around all the time to check how long Coren's knife is). Instead of deleting and threatening, how about editors take the time to make constructive comments and suggestions to amend the text? I can live with not being liked. However if someone wants to take the time to actively "terminate" me ON MY OWN TALK PAGE, they can't expect to do it without a fight and some risk to their own... how should I put this... tranquility. Alternatively they can leave me the Hell alone and let others read what they want to read. No one is pushing anyone's face into the computer screen to read what I've writen. If they don't like it, they can go off to Zenwhat's cannabis culture page. I'm sure it's very informative.--Karmaisking (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)