User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu

Users have a right to delete comments from their talk pages.

I realize that many believe that this is a convention and I agree to a point. However, RK is abusing the priviledge in an attempt to stifle debate, and I'm not about to let him do it.

I'm sure RK will be more willing to talk with you, if you don't antagonize him.

The historical record does not bear this out. There are any number of people trying to talk to him, and trying to be reasonable, and he is responding with a) insults, b) intimidation, and c) an attempt to "salt" the record. I prefer to simply support those who are trying to talk to him, which is what I'm doing.

So, please don't "revert" his talk page any more. --user:Ed Poor

No offence meant at all, but I may very well continue to do so, all in the spirit of gentle and loving concern for all.

Oh, and by the way: welcome to Wikipedia. I liked your edit] to the Honeydew article. --Uncle Ed 21:46, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. They are wonderful fruit, I think. Perhaps I should write about some of the other types as well. Kindest regards. Louis Kyu Won Ryu

You dont seem to be a newbie-- so I'll just agree with you and Ed both:Users dont necessarily have a "right" to blank their talk pages-- these are how people communicate with them, and should be respected-- if not codified. That said, its might be better not to get into edit wars as a newbie (if you are a newbie). And yes, I know exactly what the nature of the edit was, and understand completely the frustration involved in trying to communicate with a problem user. 戴&#30505sv 21:56, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hint: best places to talk to Robert are:

on the Wikien-l mailing list
on the talk page of any article you and he are editing

--Uncle Ed 22:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that user:Mediator isn't you, Louis? *raised eyebrow* Martin 23:03, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Though I may occasionally try to mediate, I am most assuredly not User:mediator. Surely you didn't think I was, did you? Even if I were suffering from one of my fits of unilateralism (we all get them, after all), I wouldn't have created all those subpages. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:09, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I genuinely did: the two of you seemed to have a similar style. Not that it really matters. The other person I wondered if you might be was user:BigFatBuddha - only because I missed the fellow and his cool talk page. Just wishful thinking, though, I fear. Martin 23:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:24, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lol. Is there anyone you won't be mistaken for? Are we not allowed to know who you previously were? Or were you really not here before? I'm very surprised Martin thought you were Mediator by the way. I thought it was blatently obvious who that was. *shrug* maybe not. Angela 23:30, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that I like thatself, and I certainly don't agree with half of what I wrote. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like and I like less than half of you half as much as you deserve. Bilbo Baggins

I'm not ruling out the possibility that I thought that both Louis and Mediator might be the same as yet a third person! Martin 23:48, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

He _is_ a third person, if you refer to him that way. ;-) --Uncle Ed 00:04, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

re:mailing list post... I'll bite. Is this your only Wikipedia account? If you're a (non-banned) ex-Wikipedian who's returned under a new name, that's fine by me. If you're currently actively using two accounts, I'd prefer that you didn't, and would ask you to stop or declare your other account. If you're a longterm lurker, first time writer, that's equally fine - what made you make the switch? :) Martin 23:38, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ill bite too. 戴&#30505sv 01:36, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have contributed under other names and plan to continue to do so; I fear I do not wish to have the other accounts publicly known. Jimbo and a couple others are aware of the particulars. Most of my contributions to everyday, hum-drum, non-controversial topics are under one persona. I am Louis for more controversial edits and policy discussions. Periodically, I abandon a persona and create a new one.

I do this for a number of reasons, but chiefly because I believe that the Wikipedia edit history will remain public for decades and I want to erect some barriers to the convenient retrival of a full list of edits, to articles, talk pages, and all, by some investigator twenty years hence when I'm looking for a job. In contrast to on-line communities like The Well (where you "own your own words"), there is no provision on Wikipedia to delete one's own contributions. Even on UseNet, while more compete archives exist, most respect X-No-Archive, and dejanews/google groups allows you to retroactively remove content. And in the absence of a meatball:UseRealNames philosophy, I see no reason why I should in effect sign every post. Martin is aware of my real name, as are a few others who I trust; it is unique enough that Usenet and Web searches return a fair number of valid hits.

In any case, I ask for no more consideration than a casual anonymous user. I ask for no special status based on my past history, and would hope that no one would ascribe any. Actual experience bears this out, as Wikipedians rarely give greater credence to material written by longtime users. On the other hand, there is some development of cliqueish groups who are mutually supportive due to a similar viewpoint on issues of mutual concern. Each edit speaks for itself on Wikipedia, by and large, and that's probably OK.

As a rule, I don't edit the same page under more than one persona, at least not on purpose. For one thing, I might get in an edit war with myself :-). But seriously, that would raise issues of fairness. And, as a rule, I try to avoid voting on anything, under this persona or any other.

In any case, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, to foster community, create shared understanding, support the Meatball:RightToFork, support the free availability of the content in perpetuity, and be part of something that is unique enough that no one really knows how it will turn out.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 02:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While there is no provision to delete one's own contributions, some folks have asked and recieved a name change to obscure their identity, along with appropriate page edits. See user:H.J., user:JHK, for example - a kind of agreed mind wipe. But it's slow, it's not guaranteed, and an even marginally persistent investigator could no doubt easily pierce such obscurity.

Thank you for sharing what you feel able to share. Martin 12:10, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Suggest you peek at list of aviation topics and see what exists already before rewriting it all! Also, I'm not sure that e.g. Airspeed Indicator should have both words capitalised, it's just an Airspeed indicator, even though it is commonly abbreviated to ASI. GRAHAMUK 02:38, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Louis, thanks for your comments on the Quality Survey. I'm a little vague on all these "spaces," I had never heard of the Meta-thing until Angela moved it there. I don't really mind where it is, so feel free to do with it what you will. By the way, it was in no way intended to be critical of Wikipedia, which I think is a wonderful project. It does however draw attention to issues which Wikipedia will have to deal with if it wants to be a complete and accurate encyclopaedia. Adam 09:37, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

'Twere never my intention to include you in a numerical vote. While I was reading the discussion I was having difficulty keeping track of what the positions were, and I figured if I was having trouble, other people might too. Sorry about that. -- Cyan 21:54, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Neither Angela nor Anthere had expressed an opinion in the discussion, so I left both of them out or the summary. While I feel strongly about out-of-process deletions that bite newbies, cf. User:Paranoid, I've decided not to get involved this case. Cheers, Cyan 23:53, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. The point is that, until you just gave it, I did not have permission to edit this page as it was in your user space, but if you happy about that then I will. If the votes at VfD end up being for the deletion of this page though, is that ok with you?. Your real point could be made better at m:outing than here I feel. Angela . 00:41, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy for the page to stand as a pointer to the yet-to-be-created outing subpage until such a page does exist. Angela . 16:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you changed the links from m:outing to a link on Wikipedia. I'd be interested to know what your objections to using Meta are. It seems to me more appropriate to have Meta as a place for discussing things about the project and this site for the encyclopedia itself. Meta also has the advantage of being project wide, rather than focusing purely on the English Wikipedia, which surely is best for discussions related to, say, outing or arbitration procedures. I recognise that it requires a separate recent changes and watchlist but this can be an advantage. I've got nearly 1000 pages on my watchlist here so many slip through unchecked anyway, whereas on Meta I watch less than 100, and recent changes is small enough to notice everything that happens in a day there. I think that for those interested in these issues, they will be able to find them more easily on Meta, where they can be linked to the main page, or its new subpages, rather than here where such pages are quite likely never to be seen by the majority of people. Angela . 20:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)