| Revision as of 18:38, 29 January 2007 editAlecmconroy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,935 edits →Reply to Nuclear← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:33, 29 January 2007 edit undoNuclearUmpf (talk | contribs)3,904 edits →Reply to Nuclear: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| ::::::Similarly-- I know you know very well that there are way more than two or three users who oppose the disputed text. Way way more. Why do you not count them, but instead try to mislead people into thinking there are only 2-3 people who oppose your actions? Is it a case of you not understanding how wrong this is, or genuinely not caring so long as it will help you accomplish your tendentious editing? | ::::::Similarly-- I know you know very well that there are way more than two or three users who oppose the disputed text. Way way more. Why do you not count them, but instead try to mislead people into thinking there are only 2-3 people who oppose your actions? Is it a case of you not understanding how wrong this is, or genuinely not caring so long as it will help you accomplish your tendentious editing? | ||
| ::::::At this point, I don't guess it's any of my business if you don't want to enlightenment as to your thought processes, but I am truly curious about that. I keep hoping that there's some set of words I could say to you that would let you just reply "oh-- okay-- I get it now". Instead, you're going to just find yourself banned and then everyone loses. --] 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | ::::::At this point, I don't guess it's any of my business if you don't want to enlightenment as to your thought processes, but I am truly curious about that. I keep hoping that there's some set of words I could say to you that would let you just reply "oh-- okay-- I get it now". Instead, you're going to just find yourself banned and then everyone loses. --] 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::Cause 2 peoples opinions do not over ride the concensus that was achieved by everyone who participated on that page. As for "way way more people" that I do not count, I do not count people who do not use the talk page. I will not go back 3 years of edit history and claim everyone who reverted is in favor or against, especially since as I pointed out, you were wrong for counting some of them, I am not sure why you do not acknowledge this, perhaps you are just in favor of reverting and not participating in talk. So ask yourself, of the people who have posted on the talk page, how many are actively stating it shouldnt be there? Not who has reverted once over the course of a year, but of the people participating on talk now, who supports you? You keep reverting against the concensus and you will probably find yourself on the losing end fo things on much of that happens on Misplaced Pages. I welcome you to start a similar page and gather over 40 people and work on a new concensus and guide the discussion and sort out topics and complaints etc, I am sure you won't, its easier for you to file an RfC on a person opposing you then actually work to solve the problem. --]<s>]</s> 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:33, 29 January 2007
Reply to Nuclear
"27 users got together to create a straw poll and give feedback"
- Nuclear-- it's hard for me to understand how this could be anything but an intentional lie. 27 users did not create the poll-- Rangeley created a poll, and proceed to spam the talk page of people he thought he might agree with him. You guys have been warned about why this was inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but Nescio was informed, someone who obviously wouldnt agree. And try to AGF, your accusations are disruptive.--Nuclear
Zer017:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but Nescio was informed, someone who obviously wouldnt agree. And try to AGF, your accusations are disruptive.--Nuclear
- Nuclear-- it's hard for me to understand how this could be anything but an intentional lie. 27 users did not create the poll-- Rangeley created a poll, and proceed to spam the talk page of people he thought he might agree with him. You guys have been warned about why this was inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"it was criticized for attempting to reach a consensus through a straw poll"
- It was not criticized for that. Strawpolls are used alll the time. It was criticzed because its wording asked people's personal political opinions, rather than asking their opinion on any content dispute. It was similarly widely criticized for the widespread votestacking.--Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong as you can see from the abstain votes, such as voting is evil etc. The criticism was on the fact that it was a straw poll. The admin who closed the MfD stated that straw polls should not overright discussion, and it did not as discussion continued on talk page. --Nuclear
Zer017:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong as you can see from the abstain votes, such as voting is evil etc. The criticism was on the fact that it was a straw poll. The admin who closed the MfD stated that straw polls should not overright discussion, and it did not as discussion continued on talk page. --Nuclear
"so off to the talk page the users who still were not convinced went and discussed and negotiated middle grounds, from that an eventual 25-2 consensus formed."
- 25-2, eh? Kindly produce the names of users who were not involved in the votestacked poll but who made up the 25-2 "consensus". Similarly, can you produce any time when you could have only known about a grand total of TWO people objecting to the inclusion? I think you're lying by intentionally not counting people just because they didn't list there objection on a specific day/time/place of your own choosing. --Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
For:
- Rangeley
- zer0faults
- Rmt2m
- Haizum
- KarlXII
- Rexmorgan
- Looper5920
- Staxringold
- Ecophreek
- Mmx1
- Vaqueo100
- Lawyer2b
- Homagetocatalonia
- Karwynn
- patsw
- James Bond
- Chuck
- Arkon
- Nscheffey
- kizzle
- Runiteshark
- Patman2648
- Choess
- Morton Devonshire
- Edward Sandstig
- Against
- Nescio
- Rkrichbaum
Sorry if my count is off. Anoranza quit Misplaced Pages mid way through this after they had an Arbcom filed against them. --NuclearZer0 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but where did you get these names from? The only place I see these names lissed, in this order, is from the Misplaced Pages:WOT poll that was declared invalid multiple times because of the extensive vote-stacking that went on. (not to mention all the other irregularites). I know you have read the statements by the admins explaining why this poll is invalid-- why do you continue to cite it? --Alecmconroy 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can I see someone saying its invalid? I seen an admin remark that straw polls should not eclipse discussions, which is when the negotiations started no the talk page. Are you telling me its more valid to make up a list of everyone who has ever reverted without discussion? People talked and came to a middle ground, one of the people you listed as voting in your favor Rkrichbaum, actually changed their mind later, same with kizzle, yet you still want to count their reverting in your favor and not in the manner in which they actually said it was to go. If you are not gonig to discuss this sincerly then I am jsut going to ignore you. PS the spirit of Misplaced Pages is not to put blind reverts with no discussion ahead of contributing editors and pages of discussions and negotiating to reach a middle ground. --Nuclear
Zer018:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can I see someone saying its invalid? I seen an admin remark that straw polls should not eclipse discussions, which is when the negotiations started no the talk page. Are you telling me its more valid to make up a list of everyone who has ever reverted without discussion? People talked and came to a middle ground, one of the people you listed as voting in your favor Rkrichbaum, actually changed their mind later, same with kizzle, yet you still want to count their reverting in your favor and not in the manner in which they actually said it was to go. If you are not gonig to discuss this sincerly then I am jsut going to ignore you. PS the spirit of Misplaced Pages is not to put blind reverts with no discussion ahead of contributing editors and pages of discussions and negotiating to reach a middle ground. --Nuclear
- The admins, as I know you know, were Xoloz and El_C. See their remarks here and here. --Alecmconroy 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure your point? How many of the normal participants on the talk page felt it should not be included there? How many people of your 38 actually participated in discussions on the talk page? Its funny cause you criticize one groups discussion then support blind reverters and oddly enough count people as opposing who are listed in that poll as being for its inclusion. Sounds like cherry picking. If you are trying to establish a moral line, you are failing. The truth is that even now there is a 10-3 majority of people who support its inclusion, with only you and Timeshifter and professor saying i shouldnt be included. Yet you oddly enough call that a concensus. --Nuclear
Zer018:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure your point? How many of the normal participants on the talk page felt it should not be included there? How many people of your 38 actually participated in discussions on the talk page? Its funny cause you criticize one groups discussion then support blind reverters and oddly enough count people as opposing who are listed in that poll as being for its inclusion. Sounds like cherry picking. If you are trying to establish a moral line, you are failing. The truth is that even now there is a 10-3 majority of people who support its inclusion, with only you and Timeshifter and professor saying i shouldnt be included. Yet you oddly enough call that a concensus. --Nuclear
- Let me keep you on topic here for a moment, because I really want to understand your point. If two admins point out the poll is invalid, that it is the result of votestacking-- why are you still quoting it? I mean-- is it a matter of not understanding why vote-stacking is wrong, not understand that the admins have told you that it is wrong, or just not caring?
- Similarly-- I know you know very well that there are way more than two or three users who oppose the disputed text. Way way more. Why do you not count them, but instead try to mislead people into thinking there are only 2-3 people who oppose your actions? Is it a case of you not understanding how wrong this is, or genuinely not caring so long as it will help you accomplish your tendentious editing?
- At this point, I don't guess it's any of my business if you don't want to enlightenment as to your thought processes, but I am truly curious about that. I keep hoping that there's some set of words I could say to you that would let you just reply "oh-- okay-- I get it now". Instead, you're going to just find yourself banned and then everyone loses. --Alecmconroy 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cause 2 peoples opinions do not over ride the concensus that was achieved by everyone who participated on that page. As for "way way more people" that I do not count, I do not count people who do not use the talk page. I will not go back 3 years of edit history and claim everyone who reverted is in favor or against, especially since as I pointed out, you were wrong for counting some of them, I am not sure why you do not acknowledge this, perhaps you are just in favor of reverting and not participating in talk. So ask yourself, of the people who have posted on the talk page, how many are actively stating it shouldnt be there? Not who has reverted once over the course of a year, but of the people participating on talk now, who supports you? You keep reverting against the concensus and you will probably find yourself on the losing end fo things on much of that happens on Misplaced Pages. I welcome you to start a similar page and gather over 40 people and work on a new concensus and guide the discussion and sort out topics and complaints etc, I am sure you won't, its easier for you to file an RfC on a person opposing you then actually work to solve the problem. --Nuclear
Zer020:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cause 2 peoples opinions do not over ride the concensus that was achieved by everyone who participated on that page. As for "way way more people" that I do not count, I do not count people who do not use the talk page. I will not go back 3 years of edit history and claim everyone who reverted is in favor or against, especially since as I pointed out, you were wrong for counting some of them, I am not sure why you do not acknowledge this, perhaps you are just in favor of reverting and not participating in talk. So ask yourself, of the people who have posted on the talk page, how many are actively stating it shouldnt be there? Not who has reverted once over the course of a year, but of the people participating on talk now, who supports you? You keep reverting against the concensus and you will probably find yourself on the losing end fo things on much of that happens on Misplaced Pages. I welcome you to start a similar page and gather over 40 people and work on a new concensus and guide the discussion and sort out topics and complaints etc, I am sure you won't, its easier for you to file an RfC on a person opposing you then actually work to solve the problem. --Nuclear