User talk:Kynn/Hamsher and Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Jane Hamsher
2 Troll
3 Suggestion
4 Deletions of Templates
5 Hamsher's greatest fan
- 5.1 Screenshots from Murphy's board
6 Don Murphy wants an Admin
7 Please stop vandalizing my user talk page

Jane Hamsher

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Jane Hamsher, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spawnopedia 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... you are off-base once more here. Furthermore, you are abusing the "third level warning" tags that you copied above. You need a time-out, I think. (Note that I haven't vandalized anything, by the way). --Kynn 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have warned you repeatedly - Just stop it. Spawnopedia 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing you're warning me about. I haven't edited the page since your reversion. You don't understand the warning process on Wikipedia, nor is it particularly applicable here. Are you always this belligerent? --Kynn 19:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am belligerent as needs be. In this case I feel Hamsher should be LUCKY that things that I know are NOT in the article. I don't need her pal coming in and mucking it up. Spawnopedia 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not Hamsher's pal. And I question your impartiality in this entry, given your comment above. --Kynn 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Question anything you want. JUST STOP VANDALIZING. Spawnopedia 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't vandalized anything. This is like asking if I've stopped beating my wife. What's more, even if your incorrect version of "vandalism" was used, I have certainly "stopped" by any reasonable measure, since I haven't reverted your reversion to the page, nor have I re-introduced my edits. --Kynn 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But you want to. Yes you do. Spawnopedia 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... You're a really bad troll, you know. --Kynn 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

see WP:Civility and do not call me names Spawnopedia 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something absurd about you telling me to be civil. BTW, your WP:Civility link didn't work. --Kynn 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't it? Bwahahahahha. Spawnopedia 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it didn't. --Kynn 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll

See this essay on trolling. Calling a person a troll is not the best thing one can do, even if one believes a person to be a troll. The receiving person usually finds it insulting. Please don't do it in the future. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You do know he's playing you, right, Philip? He's been uncivil since the start of this, and yet latched on to me saying he's not trolling effectively in order to claim victim status. Look over the history of my comments, on User talk:Spawnopedia and Talk:Jane Hamsher. He's falsely accused me of vandalism. He's made up a false story about me being "a pal of Hamsher's (sic)." He's written all of the following to me:

I am belligerent as needs be. In this case I feel Hamsher should be LUCKY that things that I know are NOT in the article. I don't need her pal coming in and mucking it up.
If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Jane Hamsher, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
But you want to [revert the reversion]. Yes you do.
Therefore, the article is very valid and has been up here now in this form for some time and is not for you to question. Thanks for playing though.
Are you therefore slamming the site? This can lead to banning.
Nice Try cowboy- the changes in dispute were reverted by you. Now stop the vandalism or get reported it is that simple.
This is a bozo no no. Hence, vandalism.
You have shown yourself unwilling or incapable of working with others.
Please do not make changes again. Either use the Sandbox or an Etch A Sketch instead.
It is not personal to point out you have no idea what you are doing.
YOU are vandalizng. And apparently will not stop it.
rewriting the sentence so it pleases you is considered vandalism.
The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes not to give you carte blanche to rewrite an article about your friend.
Get a grip. This page is to discuss diputed changes NOT TO GIVE YOU PERMISSION to go make them. The point of the article seems to me that she gets sued on every film she does. This is not POV this is reality backed up by footnotes.
I am not impatient YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The changes you propose are disputed ERGO DO NOT MAKE THEM. This is vandalism
Look, here is the deal, I will type slowly so you can follow me.
Don't quit your day job
This does not give you license to come in an alter an article that is well sourced and accurate just for jollies'
See [http:/www.ratemypoo.com] for the contrary position
Once I weighed in you had no right except those I give you.
You have been illogical and threatening more vandalism. I gave up trying to deal with your irrationality.

Not once since the beginning of the discussion has this user ever been civil. Not once has he assumed good faith on my part -- instead, continually accusing me of vandalism even after I pointed out that it was no such thing -- and he uses other namecalling such as "bozo," "cowboy," "illogical," and "irrational." This isn't a normal user. This is likely someone who got banned indefinitely last month under another username and still hasn't learned from the experience.

And in interests of fairness, you let him tell you who to go argue with? C'mon, Philip. He called you names ("son") even as he was complaining that I called him a name. Don't let him play you like that. --Kynn 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me SIR, SON is not a name, it is a conveyance of respect to someone younger. Ask your Dad. FACT- You proposed an NPOV debate on the Hamsher article. FACT- I respectfully disagreed with you. FACT you then MADE THE CHANGES ANYWAY . Fact- I asked you to stop and you spent the whole day arguing with me. The guy is not being played. He isn't falling for your nonsense. Stop accusing me of things and calling me names. Fact is, there are rules to follow with Wikipedia editing and YOU REFUSE to follow them. ‚ÄîThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Spawnopedia (talk ‚Ä¢ contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

What about "cowboy," is that namecalling?

Which rule did I break with Wikipedia editing? Can you link to it, please? As far as you disagreeing respectfully, you did nothing of the sort, I'm sorry to say. --Kynn 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot play with you all day. Cowboy is the name of the brave men who colonized the American west. It is not a name that is pejorative in any way. You insist on trying to "win" a point while I insist that other users decide.Spawnopedia 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you call me "cowboy" because of your respect for my bravery in colonizing the American west? You meant it as a compliment? I find it hard to believe. As for winning a point, I'm the one who requested outside comments, not you. You are trying to rewrite history here, and it doesn't really work when anyone can see it by reading. --Kynn 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Okay, I'm going to post this on all pages. Distance yourselves from ediing those articles or contacting each other. This dispute looks like it is going to turn uncivil soon and that is never a good thing. Please follow the outside comment by Sopoforic and cool off for about a week. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As I was approached about this, I will just echo Philip's statement for now; definitly take some time to cool down (both parties). It is certainly fine to disagree on Wikipedia, but the important thing is to do so in a respectful manner. That way, things do not get out of hand. I'm confident that all parties of this dispute, when the issue comes up again, will be able to be civil, which will make for a much less antagonistic time for everyone. -- Natalya 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of Templates

You have deleted four templates wherein I in good faith nominated articles to be deleted per the Wiki process. I gave valid reasons for all 4. If you would like to edit the articles to bring them up to standard, fine. I will assume a good faith mistake on your part. But please dno not do so again.Sanddancer 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone. Give it up and get a new hobby, instead of vandalizing articles with bad-faith calls for deletion. --Kynn 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamsher's greatest fan

I originally wrote this on someone else's talk page, but I'll write it here instead:

PS: A little original research of my own (googling, in this case) has pretty much convinced me that the person we've been dealing with -- who has made repeated edits to the Jane Hamsher page, along with Manson-related pages and others -- is none other than Don Murphy himself. See, for example, the type of rhetoric employed here, or the description here. I say this based on the writing style and the focus on things related to Mr. Murphy. This is, of course, my own supposition -- but it fits in well with the accusation he's made (on several accounts) that I'm a pal of Hamsher. Nothing says misdirection like accusing your opponent of doing what you're actually doing, or in this case, of the opposite kind of personal bias. (After the writing of Killer Instinct by Hamsher, Murphy is anything but Hamsher's friend.) --Kynn 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is referring to AZJustice ne√© Bowspearer ne√© Sanddancer ne√© Spawnopedia a.k.a. a host of millions. I believe this to be Don Murphy, the estranged ex-parter of Jane Hamsher. --Kynn 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I will caveat this to say this could just be a meat puppet for Murphy. But I am pretty convinced whoever it is has strong ties to Murphy himself.

Here's some proof:

Murphy sends his board readers to go annoy HighInBC, who he calls a Shitapedia Admin.

In the same URL, Don Murphy calls for his board users to paste in [http://www.tatelabiancablogspot.com Official Tate Labianca Murders Blog] on pages related to the Manson family murders -- adding this unreliable source was what started the process that got User:ColScott and various clones banned in the first place. ("ColScott" is the name of the blog owner for this so-called "official" site.) He claims that by doing this, his board users will make Ryan's fat smelly ass implode.

Murphy's most recent (as of nowish) post on his message board calls for bribing a Wikipedia admin to give him administrative access, gloating over the havoc we could cause. Note: This thread has since been deleted from Murphy's board, most likely after it was linked to here. Screenshots are available, however. --Kynn 07:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. Anyone know if there's a way to report this kind of tomfoolery? --Kynn 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Note: Updated the above to avoid silly ranting from troll (below) about "ZOMG COPYRIGHT" concerns. --Kynn 07:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Murphy's targetted pages, with wiki links:

--Kynn 01:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Now that is funny. It was funny all through, but seeing that thread really gave me a chuckle. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice guy. That was awesome, I like knowing that not all people who spammed the Manson pages were ColScott clones and meats. AZJustice still hasn't convinced me though, I think he may just be an outside editor but I will watch his contributions. Seeing as the pages were apparently removed fairly soon after these posts I think Don is watching you... be afraid... Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know he's watching me. I've gotten email from him or one of his sockpuppets. I've also got screenshots of board posts on the "I want to buy me a Wikipedia admin" thread. --Kynn 04:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

and what will you do with those screen shots, boychek? you think that it is a crime to offer to buy an admin ship? in what country do you live? Best part of this game for thee with too much time is that you KEEP GETTING IT WRONG. That must be hard on your Community college ego. Because from what I can tell, Murphy is NOT estranged from Hamsher- unless that is you offer up well wishes and prayers to someone you hate Let me ask you this Kynn and Gronowski- do you EVER get tired of being wrong about what is going on? Here's all you need to know- This is Wiki and therefore if you take it seriously YOU end up the knucklehead. Oh and Murphy, if you ARE reading this, I hope you buy an adminship= I would love to see the faces of these guys as they are blocked and banned for nothing like ColScott was. Did Bushby care that ColScott was here for over a year before he smoked out and flushed him while Phil wasn't even born last year? NOPERS. Ahh, I'll go ban myself now but rest assured, WE are the people who are amused. PimaMental 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Better trolls, please. --Kynn 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe you can call me names boychek but I just reported YOU and Wikipedia to Murphy. Because you see YOU REPRINTED HIS POSTS AND THAT VIOLATES COPYRIGHT LAWS. Ask your admin cronies. His entire board says copyright 2007 his company. YOU SCREWED THE POOCH now foolio!PimaMental 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Better trolls, please. --Kynn 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots from Murphy's board

These were taken on Monday, January 29, 2007 (as mentioned above).

First post in thread: "What if we found an admin on Wikipedia ... (and) ... offered him money to give up the job and give us control of his account. Think of the havoc we could cause!" Don Murphy
Murphy states he needs only admins, not regular editors; "I got cash"
Murphy demands that his readers bring him an admin "all sewn up"

--Kynn 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy wants an Admin

Here be an update: Shitapedia- Updated. I love how some people on his board are questioning him. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Link is dead- what happened? AZJustice 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He deletes threads from his site when they get noticed. Did you screenshot it? Is it in your cache? --Kynn 06:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not. Maybe it came down because he found an admin? Or maybe it was never up. Are you offering a reward for the screenshot? What recourse do we have anyway? AZJustice 06:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait, it's just you again. I didn't notice who I was replying to. Forget that I asked you for a screenshot; you're obviously not going to provide it. As for it never being up, well, keep spinning that line, Murphy. --Kynn 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ROTFLMFINGAO- now I am Murphy! Genius. This is performance art. At 11 O'clock at night a film producer is haunting you on Wikipedia. Delusions of adequacy much? AZJustice 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're Murphy or a meatpuppet for him, so I don't really mind calling you such. As for why a film producer is pursuing a vendetta against various people on Wikipedia? I don't know. He's done this before, however. I can't speculate on his mental state. --Kynn 07:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No I am not asking why Murphy may or may not have issues with this site. I AM asking why you think you matter enough that you believe that I am he? I could just be a Junior in High School in Toronto.AZJustice 07:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep asking. I've got my watchlist on, and I revert changes by Murphy's sock/meatpuppets. You certainly qualify as such, not to mention your repeated vandalism attacks on pages related to me, and your false accusations regarding me.

As to people whom Murphy decides to attack, he's already proven (see above) that he'll gladly attack Wikipedia editors who he hasn't met and who have no particular notoriety in-and-of themselves. Trying to say "you're not important enough for Murphy to attack!" is laughable given his targetting of HighInBC.

Now, run along. If you're Murphy, get back to making failed movies. If you're not Murphy, quit trying to curry favor with him, and get a new hobby. --Kynn 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a reading comprehension issue with you. Although I don't believe any of these people is Murphy, I asked WHY would I be Murphy? I find you funny and worthy of a good laugh. Like Pesci says you are a joke to me. The fact that you obsessively follow me all night amuses me a LOT. But what did you ever do to Murphy so that you think AZJUSTICE is he? As soon as you stop being so funny I will fade away. I am not a failed movie producer- I am just a poor student.AZJustice 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're getting a laugh. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia articles now. Wikipedia isn't here for your amusement. --Kynn 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon boy- I have not vandalized anything- I have made some edits that I sourced and you disagreed with me about. Fact is one cannot ban the truth. It always comes back to bite you. Do you not wonder what HIGHINBC and GRONOWSKI did to be so vilified by someone? I do. I don't blindly support people just because they edit here.

Wikipedia is here for whatever I as a User want it to be here for, thank you and YOU are here to amuse me- Keep dancing.AZJustice 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my user talk page

So can any admin advise what to do about this guy? Every few days, someone shows up and makes the same kinds of changes to the same kinds of pages -- such as Jane Hamsher's page, pages related to the Manson family murders, people who have worked on other movies that Don Murphy is interested in, or pages related to me (such as Pima Community College) -- and saying the same kinds of things each time. Such as calling me a "friend of Hamsher" and so on. This is stupid and wastes a lot of my time. I guess I should just wash my hands of Murphy and his *puppets. But I just don't like the idea that pages such as Hamsher's will be vandalized without repercussion.

I guess this is just where I let go and ignore the trolls, and hope someone else catches the problem, huh? --Kynn 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are feeding the troll- taking him on when you should let it go. Get out more. Enjoy the third tier Community College you are at. Find a wife. Just let it go. Or there is always suicide. Hope I helped! HeyPhil 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, ThrustVectoring, I don't see why you re-added this comment, given that it's from a brand new user whose only contribution has been to insult my school, tell me I need a wife, and suggest I need suicide. Sorry, that's not what a {{helpme}} flag is for. --Kynn 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is a meat puppet and they are out to get you. This is called paranoiaAZJustice 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Having taken the time to be as amused as AZJUSTICE I can only say- write more for that unread newspaper- read more books about Cthulhu that get bad reviews- and generally consider the suicide optionNextofKin 08:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into this a bit. One moment. Luna Santin 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is getting absurd. I edit wikipedia to make meaningful contributions, not to fight children and/or immature film producers. :p --Kynn 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Probably best to just ignore it all as best you can, unless they start interacting more appropriately. I've blocked one, perhaps that'll get the other account with an autoblock, perhaps not. If you'd like, I could sprotect your user and talk pages (preventing IPs and new accounts from editing). Luna Santin 08:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That would help, if you could. I've dumped extra stuff from my watchlist, and I'm pretty much done with all this for now. No reason to make myself any more of a target over something which, ultimately, I don't care about. (Heck, I don't even like Jane Hamsher's blog that much.) I am somewhat concerned about Pima Community College, an entry which has been repeatedly nominated for deletion in an abuse of the deletion process. :p But, thank you for your assistance here. --Kynn 08:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/y/n/User_talk%7EKynn_Hamsher_and_Murphy_7f24.html"

Category: User talk archives