heloo. I am the official admin of the Kyle Lai-Fatt Foster wiki. As a fan of Kyle Lai-Fatt Foster i think ur actually not helping out with the wiki. Now that today is Officially Kyle Lai-Fatt Foster's 46th birthday today, please help out with the wiki with missing information, such as:
I did tell 18.104.22.168 something about vandalism like making sure that the main page says the wiki is now closed and warned him about it be he has chosen to not listen to it and remove it simply, I think it is a problem for him, he claims that the wiki is closed when it really hasn’t been closed and still active. I had spam emails from regarding the fact that he removed my stuff I’ve told him about.
Hi! I'm a member of Fandom's content team. I noticed that a while back you expressed an interest in editing over at the Burden of Truth Wiki, but were frustrated by the Community Builder format. I wanted to let you know that that format is being retired. There's now a new wiki for the series over at https://burden-of-truth-cbc.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page and I hope you will consider editing there. Sometime soon, the old Community Builder wiki will be shut down and this new wiki will now be the wiki for the show.
I've known Honeyfur for a while now and it's nice to see that arrogant, bossy, know-it-all be put in her place, and how she cracks and closes the thread with a salty remark after she knows she can't win. You have my respect, Tycio.
Fair enough, but it's nice of you to stand up for yourself.
Also, Honeyfur doesn't really care about understanding others feelings, she's very selfish and narcissistic in that way. Not to mention, her "friends" are just people who blow smoke up her... well you know. She's also more then willing to mistreat them when they become inconvenient to her.
"I try not to consider people as lost causes" I must say, your optimism about other people is strangely admirable but I must remind you of the famous saying "Reality is often disappointing". Not to mention, that mind-set can make you easy prey for others.
"Smoke metaphor is not appropriate" I know, that's why I didn't say it all. Not to mention, it's true and the truth is more important than anyones feelings.
Also, do you genuinely care about the context or are you just saying that? Because I've met goal-post shifters like that before...
0% chance would be overly pessimistic, just as 100% chance would be overly optimistic.
Metaphors are never true, that is why they are metaphors. Even though you did not use the entire metaphor, the insinuation is clear, and not really appropriate ways to discuss other editors.
I don't understand how requesting context is goalpost shifting. If you are going to direct me to read a conversation where people are referring to something put on a talk page, it would obviously be important for me to read the ?diff= for said talk page.
Hey man, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck it's a duck no matter what you call it.
"Metaphors are never true" Yeah, obviously they are not literally true as you said "that's why they're metaphors"... And again, the truth is the truth and that matters more than anyone's feelings. You're going to hear and see things you don't like, that's life.
Again I ask, do you genuinely care about the context or are you just saying that? No offence, but I don't know you personally and I don't want to be sent on a wild goose chase.
I can walk like a duck and quack like a duck, so if I put on a duck costume I'm a duck? Nope.
I care about the context if you want me to weigh in on the talk page you linked to. I suppose if I cared a lot I would comb both their histories to find it myself. That I'm asking you to take up that burden (for having brought it up) means that while I do genuinely care, it's not a huge amount. I'll likely forget about it unless you maintain my interest :)
"If it was a shrinking human like Ray Palmer inside a robotic duck, I could be fooled" So, basically something that would never happen...okay bruh.
False dichotomy? First off, you're talking about shrinking duck suits and metaphors being literal. No offence, but I don't think you're one to go around preaching "False dichotomies" to others.... Second off, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point for you have nothing to gain for disagreeing on small arbitrary things. In short, you're cutting off your own nose to spite your face...
Never happen by present tech but future duck disguises could always be possible with holograms.
The validity of my view considering caring/uncaring a false dichotomy is unrelated to duck hologram theory, please assess each argument independently rather than make ad hominem argument against latter based on former.
I do not believe that argument purely for the sake of argument can exist. Argument is a window to mutual enlightenment of both parties and observers, therefore other purposes can exist, and likely always exist as the priority.
I do not consider it arbitrary to note that "care or not care" oversimplifies the human experience.
Two people might care different amounts about something, for example. Perhaps one cares so much more intensely than the other that the other's lesser care seems like a complete lack of care by comparison: but that is not so.
"I do not believe that argument purely for the sake of argument can exist." Uh-huh, I hate to point out the obvious but "I believe" and or "I think" are not arguments. Also, for someone who preaches about context you seem pretty quick to let your word alone hold up your arguments...
"Caring/uncaring a false dichotomy is unrelated to duck hologram theory" Sure they do, both of them show despite the fact you love to use big words you don't really know what you're talking about and like to make yourself seem smarter than you actually are. Also, Cherry picking your past points! Classy...
Also, I'm done. I've seen enough... Also, seeing how you where too busy preaching on your soap-box I took the screenshot a day ago and I'm taking your lack of response as a "Yes".
You are correct that believe/think are not arguments. I suppose I should then point out that you didn't make an argument proving that it is possible to argue 100% for the sake of arguing.
It is a hypothetical construct, and if someone has proven it can be true, I have not seen such proof, so I am just informing you that I am not convinced of it.
These words do not seem big to me (that is relative/subjective) and I use them because they are comfortable for me as I struggle to make a point.
If I were smarter, I could get my points across using fewer/shorter words, so if I am doing this subconsciously to seem smarter, I am actually contradicting my conscious mind which knows efficiency is also a hallmark of intelligence (which I fail at).
I hope I do know something of what I talk about, but if there are shortcomings you perceive I would like to know so as to improve from learning them.
I actually did respond to you: I asked what you would use the screenshot for. Whether I said yes or no would be conditional upon that. I think you should probably take a lack of affirmation as a "no", but I did not want to give a hard refusal since I was open to the idea of giving you my consent if the use was one I liked.
Not sure which point you mean I'm cherry-picking. I totally cherrypick sometimes, I'll admit to that, but an hour later I will be fuzzy on the specifics, and I think cherrypicking is sometimes harmless so I don't know that I had any deceptive intent in doing so. Sometimes I cherrypick merely to emphasize which point I am addressing.
Isn't a soapbox generally on a public forum rather than in a private thread? If you feel I am being disingenuous because this a thread viewable to the rest of the community, I'll gladly answer you on some other medium, but I doubt I'll talk any different.
I expect you are frustrated with my vague and non-committal reply where I would not fully analyze w:c:LionKing:Thread92289 so to show my goodwill I can see if I can figure out what they were discussing without help from you...
Do you happen to know if Tristen Metcalf runs that Twitter account, or if it is one of the admins of the Lion Guard Wiki that runs it? It's described as "official Twitter feed for The Lion Guard Wiki" but I don't know if that's true. I would need to know to give understand the context of it's addition/removal.
I hope that my taking the time to look up this information on my own shows that I do care about the goings-on and your concerns. But in the future if you know more about the goings-on (ie why you objected to that specific warning) it's good form to provide that accessory information.
I'll be honest, I did get blocked and ironicly RealKnockout got banned permently for apparenty using bots. But I'm willing to come clean about it for what I did wasn't world ending and I'm willing to speak about it in constructive manner if anyone wishes to ask.