| Revision as of 17:00, 6 January 2009 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Verbal. using TW← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:20, 6 January 2009 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits →Request: - replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :Apart from the last paragraph (again, point taken), I am speaking precisely of his edits, which are really pretty bad. I'll tone it down if you like, as I understand your point about better venues to discuss this. Still, I wonder if you really grok the points I'm making, and the fact that QG and SA are the real bad actors on that page. QuackGuru is majorly into ], and SA is basically just making stuff up. Do you see what I'm getting at? regards, ] (]) 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | :Apart from the last paragraph (again, point taken), I am speaking precisely of his edits, which are really pretty bad. I'll tone it down if you like, as I understand your point about better venues to discuss this. Still, I wonder if you really grok the points I'm making, and the fact that QG and SA are the real bad actors on that page. QuackGuru is majorly into ], and SA is basically just making stuff up. Do you see what I'm getting at? regards, ] (]) 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :: Thanks for listening, I do appreciate it. And it's not only your comments that I'm pushing back on, I'm also sending notes to other editors, both on- and off-wiki. My apologies if it seems I'm being unfair to anyone in particular, I'm just trying to do the best I can. Though I realize that at the article talkpage it may look different to those in the trenches who have been involved with the discussions for a longer period, from my (more recent) point of view, it just looks like multiple editors all sniping at each other. So as an admin, my preferred tactic is to call a ceasefire, and then deal with anyone who keeps on shooting even after I asked them to stop. There's usually someone who keeps sniping, with an explanation of, "Well, they shot at me first," but my reaction as an admin is going to be, "I don't care, stop shooting anyway." I realize it may result in situations where people who fired off 90% of the volleys aren't being properly "punished", while one person who fires one lone shot after the ceasefire, manages to get yelled at, but I'm doing what I can here. So please, back off of statements like the last paragraph here? It's just not helpful (I mean c'mon, do you really think anyone would receive a comment like that and feel ''less'' angry after they read it?). So please, what I'd like you to do is to do your best to stay civil, and keep comments neutral or, if possible, friendly. If enough editors can try to do this to reduce the noise level, it makes the genuine problem cases who just keep generating heat instead of light, much easier to deal with, as they're easier to spot against a quiet background. :) Thanks, --]]] 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2009 == | == January 2009 == | ||
Revision as of 23:20, 6 January 2009
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of January 2009.Therefore, please do not release or repeat
any personal information connecting me with this account.
(Bummer, but what can I do?)
I'll be sticking around just to wrap up a couple of things.
--Backin72 (n.b.) 23:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Remember when WP:No personal attacks was an actual policy, not merely a guideline to be ignored if you're on a righteous crusade?
There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: ...
- Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
I made the mistake of assuming this policy was taken seriously on WP.
Game over. Bad behavior won. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Citizendium. We are looking for expert editors. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Got that right. As usual your timing is exquisite. :-) BTW, sorry to redact, but I'm including no personal information on WP anymore. For purposes of this site, I'm a brain in a vat using an advanced augmentative and alternative communication device. cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Greetings. I hope you stick around. I understand your decision and will still support you as an honest and well-meaning editor. Good luck. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yeah man, I've been on the road to where good intentions lead for too long to turn around now. ;-) Hope your New Year brings peace and good times. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Request
Hiya, regarding the latest discussions on pseudoscientific topics, I have no opinion either way on what should go into the list. However, to make my job as an administrator easier, could I ask that you please try to keep the discussions and edit summaries a bit more neutral? Comments should focus on the article, not on contributors, and ditto with the edit summaries. If you do have concerns about any particular editor, there are better venues to express them (such as the arb case). That way the list talkpage can be kept strictly for discussion of the list itself. Or at least that is my fond hope. :) Thanks, --Elonka 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Elonka -- point well taken. In my defense, I don't want to make things worse, but everything I said is accurate, and I think WP:SPADE allows some room to state things as they are. Look at the diffs you cited. What's worse: my expressing amazement that SA would make a false statement about my not discussing, or SA actually making that false statement? What's worse: my saying in an ES that he's misrepresenting the talk page, or his actually doing so? If you're not warning SA about these things, the lesson I'll learn is that it's OK for admins to "shoot the messenger", and that some sort of double standard exists for SA.
- Apart from the last paragraph here (again, point taken), I am speaking precisely of his edits, which are really pretty bad. I'll tone it down if you like, as I understand your point about better venues to discuss this. Still, I wonder if you really grok the points I'm making, and the fact that QG and SA are the real bad actors on that page. QuackGuru is majorly into WP:IDHT, and SA is basically just making stuff up. Do you see what I'm getting at? regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for listening, I do appreciate it. And it's not only your comments that I'm pushing back on, I'm also sending notes to other editors, both on- and off-wiki. My apologies if it seems I'm being unfair to anyone in particular, I'm just trying to do the best I can. Though I realize that at the article talkpage it may look different to those in the trenches who have been involved with the discussions for a longer period, from my (more recent) point of view, it just looks like multiple editors all sniping at each other. So as an admin, my preferred tactic is to call a ceasefire, and then deal with anyone who keeps on shooting even after I asked them to stop. There's usually someone who keeps sniping, with an explanation of, "Well, they shot at me first," but my reaction as an admin is going to be, "I don't care, stop shooting anyway." I realize it may result in situations where people who fired off 90% of the volleys aren't being properly "punished", while one person who fires one lone shot after the ceasefire, manages to get yelled at, but I'm doing what I can here. So please, back off of statements like the last paragraph here? It's just not helpful (I mean c'mon, do you really think anyone would receive a comment like that and feel less angry after they read it?). So please, what I'd like you to do is to do your best to stay civil, and keep comments neutral or, if possible, friendly. If enough editors can try to do this to reduce the noise level, it makes the genuine problem cases who just keep generating heat instead of light, much easier to deal with, as they're easier to spot against a quiet background. :) Thanks, --Elonka 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009
Regarding your comments on User talk:Verbal: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is not an appropriate discussion.