Misplaced Pages

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

My remark

This remark is skating very close to the edge of what counts as civil behaviour.

You're being utterly ludicrous: that's not even close to skating any edge of incivility, nor is it "gloating". If you don't understand what's being said or its context, don't project your prejudices onto my notification. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A minor aside

A close colleague of mine was just diagnosed with breast cancer; I just found out today. I didn't have the presence of mind to ask about staging or or other information at the time, but since she is scheduled for chemo, surgery, and radiotherapy in the next little while, I'm assuming it's not just one of the lightweight variants (DCIS et al.) but since treatment is indicated, I also assume that it's not an inoperable stage IV carcinoma.

Fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck.

Anyway, she doesn't drink, so I've gone and gotten drunk for her. Can't say it will help, but I don't imagine it will hurt. My liver might disagree, but I'm ignoring it for the moment.

I've got Melissa Etheridge's I Run for Life on the stereo. I doubt that will hurt either, as long as nobody with a great deal of musical taste listens in.

Anyway, if I've been particularly incoherent in the last couple of hours, that's why. Mind you, any comments more than a few hours old are just my regular run-of-the-mill orneriness. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

*hug* pschemp | talk 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't mind me, I'm a sloppy sentimental drunk. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tara Subkoff

Thanks - and I understand your points. The issue had been resolved, mostly, by myself and several other editors. And resolved amicably. As the initial editor involved in challenging the photographs said, "I appreciate your willingness to compromise." Then another editor came in and said they were fine. A month later, Chris came in and wrote an unsourced, uncited statement that the photos don't represent Subkoff's designs (they do) and questioned the relevance of the section (I dare say she's received more reviews for her Imitation of Christ line than her acting). Chris did not add anything to the talk page after putting the relevance tag up, but pointed to a resolved discussion in which compromise was undertaken. This is why I auto-reverted: Unsourced statements, and putting a relevance tag pointing to a discussion that had resolved an issue, and one to which Chris did not contribute. I also realize a quick reading of the page does not make this readily apparent, but I don't think my behavior was all that bad, to be honest. Chris contributed nothing to the Talk page or my own User Talk page. --DavidShankBone 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Calton

Okay, what was that about? --Calton | Talk 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why all the hostility?

I'm truly at a loss. You seem to be implying that I'm sending you on some wild goose chase, to go through the entire wikipedia database without giving you the slightest hint of what I'm talking about. Quite the contrary. I directed you to a SPECIFIC discussion on a SPECIFIC page, and asked for your take it on. In case you missed it, once again, the page I'm referring to is the RefDesk talk page, and the discussion I'm referring you to is the discussion entitled "Not a soapbox". Doesn't seem much legwork to me. A couple of clicks and you're there. I don't understand your unrelenting hostility either. I keep sending you the most polite of emails praising you on your conscientiousness as an admin, and you only reply with hostility. Why?

In any case, it's all irrelevant now, so you needn't even make those two or three clicks requested. I've taken it upon myself to do the right thing, eat crow, and, at least on my part, end the whole problem here under the discussion entitled "Mea Maxima Culpa". It would have been nice, though, if you would have at least acknowledged my polite requests by doing me this small favour and checking out this very specified dicussion rather than continually reacting with undue hostility. But as I said, I've taken care of it, so I really don't care anymore. So basically it's up to you whether you even care to check out what I'm talking about, or just continue to ignore my small, polite request and go getting your jollies blocking as many users as your heart desires. Who knows, this post itself may even consist of something you find "objectionable" and warrant yet another block. I really couldn't care less. I know within myself that I did the right thing, acted like the bigger man, and gave Clio my unconditional and unqualified apologies. I had hoped that she'd respond likewise for her hurtful statements towards me, but I suppose my hopes were unrealistic. Knowing that I have the strength of character to do the right thing and apologize for MY innapropriate behaviour is really all that matters to me. The rest is bullshit. Loomis 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: A favour to ask

Hi Ten. I usually refrain from discussing third party users "behind their backs" (so to speak), but since you care enough to want to help resolve a problem, you deserve a decent response. I've recently given Loomis the benefit of my opinion about the way he's operating. That was not done because I altruistically go around helping randomly selected people; Loomis and I have established a kind of friendship, and we seem to have good rapport. If he has any respect for me, he'll give my counsel at least some thought. I'm not entirely sure he's taken what I wrote to heart, judging from his later posts - but I don't see it as my role to act as his Wiki-parent on this. He seems determined to stick around, which imo is a good thing. Whether he's sticking around for the best reasons is something only he is fit to judge. I know only too well from my own life experience that letting go of an issue can be the most difficult thing in the world. And it's particularly difficult if a person places too high a value on others' opinions of them.

I need to balance the equation though. I'm not in the business of pointing fingers, but if I were, it would be wrong to point the finger at only one person in this sorry episode. A lot of the escalation that occurred could have been avoided if both sides had taken 10 deep breaths, and said "Let's cool it before this gets out of hand. Can you explain your position in a different way, please - I really want to understand where you're coming from. I accept that you were writing in good faith and you didn't intend to offend me". Unfortunately it went way too far, and it's still going on, with Mutually Assured Contempt as the apparently permanent outcome (an unconditional apology notwithstanding). Both parties have good reason to reflect on that, because both parties played significant roles in arriving at that outcome. If that's a model for operating in a win-win way out there in the real world, pity help the real world.

Without necessarily pointing to Loomis or Clio specifically, I've been truly amazed at the display of ego-driven absurdity that we often encounter around the Ref Desk. People who, one assumes, make valuable contributions to articles often show different colours when emotional issues get raised on the Ref Desk. Some people seem addicted to getting insulted at even the slightest perceived provocation. I'm not entirely blameless here, though. I've also succumbed to what I thought was baiting - in some cases, I was indeed being baited; but in other cases, it was just a matter of an opinion not being expressed in ideally clear language. What my time here has shown me, more than anything else, is that any chink in an editor's skills with written English is apt to be misinterpreted, and in a negative way. This is one of my personal things, admittedly - I'm a stickler for good grammar, spelling, punctuation; but above all, writing what you truly meant to convey, not some colloquialised or ill-thought-out version thereof. Many people don't seem to understand that having an online debate is not like having an oral conversation. They require different (if overlapping) skills. I think a lot of the personal issues could be avoided if people could just learn to express a potentially provocative opinion in a way that does not actually provoke anybody to take precipitate action, or press their ego-buttons. I'm not saying it's easy - I've had to apologise for unintended slights on a number of occasions. (And that's another thing. Simply saying "I'm sorry; I apologise", and earlier rather than later, seems to be completely beyond the powers of a lot of people with otherwise fantastic skills. It would resolve a lot of issues; and with no loss of personal status, integrity, or respect. It takes courage, but it's well worth it.) But some people never even try to choose their words carefully, they just seem to blurt out whatever's on their mind and save their edit without the slightest review of what they're about to post. I'm rambling badly now, I know. But I think there are wider issues at stake here than what is ultimately a petty war between 2 individuals out of millions of Wikipedians.

In summary, I'm humbled that you think I could play any further meaningful role with the Loomis/Clio issue. The best I can hope is that they both read this and have a think about it. Feel free to send it on to them if you think it would make a difference. All the best. JackofOz 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ten. JackofOz 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

International wheelchair symbol discussion

A discussion concerning how we should use International Symbol of Access on Misplaced Pages is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol. You are welcome to participate. —Remember the dot 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

LC

Hello ToaT. You may not be interested, but the recent mention of Light current on the RD has inspired him to self identify from a few IPs and sockpuppet accounts, including 88.109.82.174 (talk · contribs), 88.111.79.170 (talk · contribs), 88.110.145.192 (talk · contribs), FunnyMunny (talk · contribs) and, just for you I guess, UnderTrade (talk · contribs). I blocked and reverted a few of them that have been used to !vote on policy and communicate with LC's associates. Its clear that he is continuing to contribute anonymously to the Ref Desk from that IP range and there is probably a paper trail to a few more accounts or IPs we could find. Personally, I have no desire to pursue him as long as his contibutions remain anonymous and he stays out of trouble, but I thought I would let you know in case you wish to investigate further. Rockpocket 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Emmett Richmond

Good point -- I've restored, thanks. NawlinWiki 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi TenOfAllTrades, I'd like to apologize to you for the misunderstanding. In the interest of context, I've explained my screwup in more detail on my talkpage. I hope you don't mind. Thanks and sorry again. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL vs. spam question

Hello - since you seem knowledgeable about some of the subtleties of GFDL, I was wondering if you could look at this AN/I thread and give me your feedback. I don't have a problem giving credit where it's due, but when the owner of another wiki inserts text from his wiki, then tags the article with a GFDL credit, it smells like vanity/spam. I'd appreciate your thoughts if you have the time - thanks. MastCell 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

There are 4. I documented them - SVRTVDude 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! He violates the rules, 4! times...and you let him go?! I demand an explanation. - SVRTVDude 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten, I have tried, I have asked an admin to no avail. He may have beat the 24 hour part, but it is still a violation regardless. He asks for references, I give them, he reverts 4 times and gets away with it. You're an admin, how about you step in. I am sick and tired of him violating every rule possible with no real consequences. - SVRTVDude 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My first edit was the actual adding of the references not a revert, but you know what, I don't care. This user has driven another editor away and no one seems to care. I have added alot to the radio and TV sections, done my best to follow the rules and only blocked one for 24 hours. Never had an RfC against me and always tried to solve disputes with others in the best way possible, which if you look back, I have tried to do with Calton. I have always been polite (unlike Calton) and always tried to be as helpful as possible (again, unlike Calton) and it means nothing. I don't violate a rule, yet I get in trouble. He violates MANY rules and he doesn't get in trouble, ever. He is not a good editor, he doesn't follow the rules, he pushes many a good editor off this site and no one cares. Tonight, he pushes another editor away and you had a chance to step in. Goodbye. - SVRTVDude 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's not an entitlement. Honestly, I didn't even realize I had come as close as I had.

Orangemonster2k1, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what the actual rules -- and guidelines, practices, and policies -- are here, not just the 3RR. He knows what he wants, and make up stuff to justify it: witness his adding a 7.7K list of TV show logos, sourced to a fanwiki, and claiming that there's a "Wiki rule" making it okay, which doesn't even touch the issue of whether that ludicrous level of detail is called for, sourced or not. And yeah, it's listed -- and has been listed for a few days -- at RFC, which I had to do myself. He certainly didn't seem actually nterested in discussion, given his ignoring any discussion while the article was under page protection in favor of simply running out the clock.

His protests about his alleged good faith are also nonsense: every once in a while, in some fit of pique, he makes reversions of my edits he's not even bothered to read first or tries to solicit allies from anyone who's crossed paths, including from abusive sockpuppets his guy being the latest. He also seems to be implying he helped drive off AMiB, and seems rather proud -- or at least happy -- with that result . --Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten, I took a couple hours and I realized I overreacted. I let this antagonist get to me and I was at fault there. He doesn't get that he is not always right and having to beat my head into the wall just to get him to understand the slightest bit of information is, at times, stressful to say the least. He throws the "psychological projection" article at me when it is obvious from my userpage that I have Aspergers...that's just a low blow. But this is what he does when an editor has a different opinion or doesn't back down to his incivility, constant berating, rudeness, and then low blows. This would set anyone off in a heartbeat.

But, I let him get to me...and that was wrong of me and I am better than that. I apologize for my actions on your talk page. - SVRTVDude 06:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I may, point out that Calton's RFC was made on the 6th of April, the day the block was taken off the main Stoopid Monkey page, not days before as he has stated. - SVRTVDude 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting neutrality

Ten, I just wanted to drop you a note to say I appreciate your attempts to remain neutral on Ref Desk debates. I detect a subtle lean in your position towards "having the Ref Desk be just like the articles in Misplaced Pages", but not the blatant advocacy of that one position I've seen from other Admins, like Friday. For example, Friday actually endorsed a poorly supported RFC filed against me by User:Hipocrite: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/StuRat, who quite obviously was just looking for a way to make trouble. You were able to see past the fact that Hipocrite generally supports your Ref Desk position and block him for incivility at one point, something I can't see Friday ever doing. I personally think that Admins should either completely avoid listing any opinion on issues, or, if they do list opinions, should hang up their Admin hats and promise not to block those of the opposing opinion, to avoid any conflict of interest. I have even suggested to Friday that he should try to emulate the way you (at least attempt to) remain neutral. StuRat 05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from JackofOz

Hi, Ten. Thanks for your message. You're right, of course. I knew when I was writing that message to Orange Monster that I was breaking my own self-imposed rule, not to talk negatively about third-party users behind their backs. But I went ahead and sent it anyway - partly because I had a genuine desire to support OM, but partly because of my own history with the other guy, which after about 18 months still leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I didn't read your full interchange with OM, because I wasn't a party to it and it didn't interest me. My sole motivation was as I outlined above; however I should have realised that any intervention could have created the impression that I was siding with him against you. That certainly wasn't the case. My apologies. This is a lesson in letting go of old wounds and moving on to new challenges. All the best. JackofOz 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)