| Revision as of 21:35, 5 April 2006 editKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →You guys upset me: fmt, clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:37, 5 April 2006 edit undoSam Spade (talk | contribs)33,916 edits →You guys upset meNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :There was a consensus, however, at ]. Sam, the main point is that you shouldn't think you're right ''all the time''. If the majority is against your edit, then ''more likely than not'' they are in the right. You say others POV the article, but what about you yourself? -- ]''']''' 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | :There was a consensus, however, at ]. Sam, the main point is that you shouldn't think you're right ''all the time''. If the majority is against your edit, then ''more likely than not'' they are in the right. You say others POV the article, but what about you yourself? -- ]''']''' 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| The majority is usually wrong. ] 21:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The victim pose. "POV an article"? It's your concept of what constitutes POV that's landed you here. You can start by not assuming that anything you write is NPOV while everything by those whose viewpoint you do not share is POV. That would be a good start. ] 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | :The victim pose. "POV an article"? It's your concept of what constitutes POV that's landed you here. You can start by not assuming that anything you write is NPOV while everything by those whose viewpoint you do not share is POV. That would be a good start. ] 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:37, 5 April 2006
There was a talk page from an Rfc that died on the vine in June here - when the Rfc was deleted, the talk page was left. I have deleted the talk page as not relevent to this Rfc. As usual, please reverse my action should you feel I erred. Thanks! KillerChihuahua 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Outside view of Justforasecond
- I'm not participating in this RfC, but I find your comments puzzling. I am familiar with a couple of the editors who have certified this request, and I have found them to be thoughtful, dedicated and helpful contributors to Misplaced Pages. It bothers me tht you are throwing around these accusations against unnamed editors. If you have a problem with their behavior, discuss it with them first. -- Donald Albury 13:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Implying that the people who have brought this RfC to light is behaving "unethically" is an unsupportable comment. Similarly, implying we are acting in a conspiracy is also an unsupportable comment. You choose to ignore all the evidence we have presented as indication of Sam's behaviour, yet you don't hesistate to attack us without any evidence to support it. -- infinity0 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- You say "users who have behaved unethically here" and "always congratulated each other on new cats". Before you continue researching this issue in depth, can you show us some examples that you consider are out of the norm? I can say with little doubt that infinity0 and I have never edited together in the past. Your comments are as bad as Sam's comments above with respect to "dirt digging". David D. (Talk) 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I do not want to do that. Pilers on are not provably violating wiki policies so naming them will at probably just antagonize them, and, at worse, make me the target of future efforts. Infinity0 says these claims "unsupportable", I do not know this user but he/she hits the nail on the head -- even when there is an effort to pile on there is seldom evidence as users communicate through email/IM or IRC. Unfortunately it becomes an arms race, when one side of a dispute piles on multiple irrelevant editors what can the other side do? And I think everyone here has witnessed it -- it becomes especially apparent once RfCs and RfArs begin. I would hope that the behavior would just end. Justforasecond 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- An RfC does not have to be a negative experience. In fact, Infinity0 has been working hard to make this constructive and not a pile on. For example, see Infinity0's message on my talk page here that asked me not to pile on and led to my edit here to reduce my examples. While i agree with your arms race analogy, I do wonder why you would start, and continue to finger point (even if in a general way) if you have that attitude. I for one have not been in contact with any of these users by IM or IRC. Possibly you should consider that this is a genuine attempt to mend bridges brought on by a communal frustration with Sam's edits. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- You stated "The issue of whether "God" is an appropriate term in English for a supreme being..." This makes no sense. No one involved in this Rfc, or the God article, has ever debated that point so far as I know, and that includes Sam. Please clarify - what are you talking about? KillerChihuahua 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Abusing Sam?
quotes from the Bishonen's talk page. Source
|
Sam, I'd like to know why you think my comments in this RfC are abusive? Does this mean you are ignoring the suggestions and points being discussed? David D. (Talk) 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- "I want the wikipedia to be the kind of place where I want my child to look up words and facts without fear of misinformation or bullying."
This sentence is especially ironic, since it is Sam's misinformation and bullying (regarding accusations of other editors' POV) we are commenting on. -- infinity0 20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You guys upset me
This page has become a literal who's who of wikipedians who upset me. What the heck am I supposed to do when you POV an article? Run and hide? Call in back up? Give up and go home? Frankly I'm at a loss. Sam Spade 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Among other issues, it might occur to you that 1) when the vast majority of editors say that your version is POV and that their's is closer to NPOV, it might be because it actually is. 2) if we "upset" you that might indicate that you need to calmd down and keep in mind that disagreeing with you about how to phrase an article or what content it should have does not reflect negatively on you. JoshuaZ 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Although the contrary was claimed in lots of edit summaries, there was never any consensus at Human. — goethean ॐ 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- 6 to 2 constitutes consensus. FeloniousMonk 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at Talk:Human. The tally was something like 9-5. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The tally was (and is) two editors for version 1, nine editors for version 2, and one editor for version 4. Sam's was version 4. You supported version 1, along with schwael. The other 9 editors supported version 2. Version 3 had been dropped from consideration. See Talk:Human#Three_potential_intro_options KillerChihuahua 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at Talk:Human. The tally was something like 9-5. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- There was a consensus, however, at Socialism. Sam, the main point is that you shouldn't think you're right all the time. If the majority is against your edit, then more likely than not they are in the right. You say others POV the article, but what about you yourself? -- infinity0 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The majority is usually wrong. Sam Spade 21:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The victim pose. "POV an article"? It's your concept of what constitutes POV that's landed you here. You can start by not assuming that anything you write is NPOV while everything by those whose viewpoint you do not share is POV. That would be a good start. FeloniousMonk 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)