User talk:Lizard King/ - archive1 2003 to 2004

Hello, I am the Lizard King.

Feel free to leave a message for me here. I will periodically delete the talk on the page as dialogue builds up.

As pointed out below, It's considered polite to archive talks and not just arbitrarily blank them. It's also poite to sign your talks using ~~~ (or a 4th ~ to include a timestamp. - UtherSRG 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Talks are automatically archived.--LK

I do not have the ability to "blank" talks out of the database.--LK

Aw... poor Lizard King doesn't want people to see other folks disagreeing with him. They can always go to look at the edit history, or more easily, here. It's considered nice manners to archive your talk page, so people can more accurately judge you. - UtherSRG 03:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Evercat, a sysop, has a similar policy on his talk page. A post facto commentary from Cyan 01:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC).

Response by Lizard_King: Its fairly obvious that people can look at the talk history. You don't need to explain it to them. You know very well that I wasn't attempting to hide the the talk history, and it is more obvious to anyone reading your dialogue that you are attempting to cast dispersions in that regard. Look, I am not going to trade insults with you. Just leave me alone.

It's not obvious to some. And to those of us who know, it looks like you are trying to hide. You've been unwilling to compromise in the scant dialogue you've been willing to entertain on your images and edits for Bigfoot, Yeti, and previously on Cronus. Not just with me, but with everyone who has engaged you on those issues. - UtherSRG 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Response by Lizard_King: There you go deciding what everyone thinks for them. The time stamp is unnecessary. I might decide to use it in the future. I might not. That is correct, I am not one to compromise. People who LACK integrity do that. You keep saying that you are the absolute authority on what all other Wikepedians think and believe. I, for one, resent that. Now, you are implying again that I am dishonest, though I have clearly responded to you in dialogue and am attempting not to stoop to tossing insults with you, whether they are implied or not. Most of your modifications of what I had written or uploaded were not motivated by an earnest desire to improve the entries. They were a childish attempt at retaliation, simply because I had the balls to stand up to you. To that end you have shown that you are willing to deprive other Wikipedia users by defacing my work if you feel it will help you to get your revenge.

In a collaborative project such as this, sometimes compromise is required to move forward. It doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of integrity. A post facto commentary from Cyan 01:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC).

Response by Lizard_King for Uther: That is really the bottom line here. In any thing that I have done you have made no attempt to explain, rationally, what I have done wrong. You simply rally other moderators against me, accuse me of various unsubstantiated "crimes" if you can call them that and then come on my talk page blattently insulting me in very childish ways. I can be reasoned with, but what you are doing is more akin to specious argument aimed to defame someone for your own amusement than constructive argument.-

You are not comprehending what I'm saying. You are misconstruing my actions, and you are blatantly lying. I will not continue to dialogue with you if you do not wish to engage in honest dialogue. I've called my shots and given reasons for most of my edits. If you care to ignore them and say I haven't given them, that's your own fault. - UtherSRG 04:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now you are implying that I am not intelligent enough to understand you and then you are saying that I am being blatantly dishonest. Make up your mind. Either I am too stupid to understand your noble and ingenius actions or I am deliberately casting dispersions to make it appear that you are doing someting dishonest, when, in fact, you are not. The two standpoints are not logically compatible premises.--LK

It also means you do not wish to actually engage in conversation, which is what having a talk page is about. UtherSRG 03:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Response by Lizard_King: You just can't go away can you. Here I am engaging in a conversation with you. If you actually read my dialogue I clearly state, "If you would like to leave a message here, feel free to do so". I am beginning to think that there is something emotionally wrong with you. Please show some respect for a fellow Wickepedia user and stop behaving in this regressed fashion.

I tried being civil early on, and that failed, so I was left with the edit war or alowing you to vandalize articles. I choose to not let you vandalize. - UtherSRG 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, Uther. A user has the perfect right to do whatever he or she wants to do to their own Talk page. Also, your edit summary was not in the spirit of Wikiquette. RickK 03:22, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Response by Lizard_King for RickK: I appreciate your objectivity. I realize by standing up to Uther that I have opened up a can of worms. I don't doubt that many moderators will begin to follow his suite as he requests for them to do so. Hopefully, he won't continue to use his sysop powers to ban me but he can and he probably will. He is already referring to obviously productive work that I have done as vandalism and seems to influencing his peers to reinforce this notion.

laughs I'm not a sysop. I have no powers greater than your own. - UtherSRG 03:56, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have much more confidence in a system that would not allow you to be a sysop.--LK

That assumes that I've asked, or that someone else has asked that I be a sysop. Neither are the case. I've been here only a short time more than you have, but I've picked up more clues on how to operate within the system. Your lack of social skills might be what's holding you back from having anyone rally around you. - UtherSRG 04:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything. There is a reason no one has asked you to be a sysop.--LK

I whole-heartedly agree that I broke Wikiquette in this. Lizard King doesn't understand Wikiquette to begin with. I'm tired of his vandalism, and I haven't gotten much support on the articles in question until today. Lizard King doesn't want to discuss. He wants to do whatever he feels like, so I'm giving him as good as he's giving - which is something he claims no one here can do. - UtherSRG 03:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Response by Lizard_King: So you are saying you broke a rule but you didn't brake a rule. Whether or not you can trick someone into agreeing with you doesn't make you ethically or morally right. Remember that.

I didn't say I didn't break any rules of good conduct. I only stooped to your level. and now you don't ike it. It's a hard life. Treat people nicer from the start and they'll treat you nicer. - UtherSRG 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just look at the dialogue on this page. If you can do that, objectively, and then still say that it is you who are stooping to my level, then.....--LK

While a user may do what he wants to his user talk page, it is considered to be anti-social to over-zealously blank it. --snoyes 03:25, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Snoyes is correct in that overzealous blanking is considered anti-social, but it's clear that you respond to posts here, so I don't consider your policy to be overzealous. A post facto commentary from Cyan 01:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC).

Response by Lizard_King: It is interesting how you tell everyone what they should believe and think like that. ....Casting the aspersion that I am anti-social because I did something you do not agree with. Doesn't put you in the best light. You might want to back off a little here and really take a look at what Uther is doing before you start trying to help him out.

I didn't say that you are anti-social. Merely that some of your actions are *considered* anti-social. Big difference. --snoyes 03:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A thing is defined by what it does. To imply that someone behaves in an anti-social fashion is to also imply that person is, to a degree, anti-social. You can't really escape that. I just have balls. That doesn't make me anti-social. You see all of these people rallying around Uther and none around me, but I still stand up for myself. You should respect that rather than slander my moral character with terms like "anti-social".--LK

I think the emphasis of snoyes's comment is that other people have the perception that you are acting in an anti-social manner. I don't think snoyes is trying to make a sly claim that you are anti-social. A post facto commentary from Cyan 01:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC).

I will not engage in this conversation here any longer. I have taken it to a more public venue: Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#User:Lizard_King_(aka_User:65.35.66.136)_and_User:UtherSRG - UtherSRG 18:37, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, LK. I just took the liberty of putting your user stuff on your user page. The convention here (which you are free to follow or ignore as you see fit) is to put biographical things on your user page (where people can find them easily), and thus leave your talk page free for chatting with other users. Of course, you may prefer to do thins a different way, and within your own user space you are free to do whatever you like (within the bounds of law and good sense), but you will probably find this a more pleasing and practical arrangement. Best regards -- Tannin 03:26, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Response by Lizard King: Thanks. That is about the first civil response I have recieved all day.

Hi LizardKing, I was inspired to come here and write you a message because I was impressed by your apology to TUF-KAT on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. I've looked over your user talk page, and I have made some comments in situ. I hope that your Wikipedia experience will be pleasant in the future. Cheers, Cyan 01:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)