Revision as of 03:38, 1 November 2006 editCaptainktainer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,084 edits Friends/Special Friends← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:38, 1 November 2006 edit undoIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsm →Friends/Special Friends: :::My solution: User:Travb#Important_wikiusers and I lump everyone together. I am glad that I saw this talk page topic, because if my [[User:Travb#Important_wikiuserNext edit → | ||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Formerly known as ] - Now known as ] 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ''' | '''Formerly known as ] - Now known as ] 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ''' | ||
'''FRIENDS''' | |||
] <BR> | |||
] | |||
] | |||
'''SPECIAL FRIENDS''' | |||
]<BR> | |||
]<BR> | |||
]<s>] | |||
'''SUPER FRIENDS'''<BR> | |||
] (Tbeatty Sock) | |||
==Take the Pledge== | ==Take the Pledge== | ||
Line 136: | Line 121: | ||
You didn't get my point. At all. Yeah, I'm partisan, but there are some lines I won't cross, which 'they' do, and one is trying to affect even a SINGLE vote via editing on Wiki. Look at ANY politician running for office next tues, and you won't see a single edit from me . ] 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | You didn't get my point. At all. Yeah, I'm partisan, but there are some lines I won't cross, which 'they' do, and one is trying to affect even a SINGLE vote via editing on Wiki. Look at ANY politician running for office next tues, and you won't see a single edit from me . ] 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
:I guess we will agree to disagree. | |||
:Just because you don't do x, doesn't mean you are any less partisan. Putting articles which don't fit your POV, I would consider massively partisan. The idea is that you should add verifable sources to these articles you disagree with, not delete them outright. I know finding verifable sources is more work, but it is more effective. You were trounced in the AfD, and you are close to being in an AfD. In otherwords, your partisan wikiediting is a failure. You can be partisan and get your point across, you just need to do it right. You are doing it ''all'' wrong, and you will be booted if it continues. | |||
:'''We are not talking about the other guy''', that is a ] falacy of logic. Please look it up. I use falacies of logic all the time in my partisan debates. | |||
:In otherwords: your level of partisanship does not decrease simply because someone is more or less parrtisan. The bottom line, is that you are incredibly partisan, and you are falling into the same traps that many others novice editors fall into. You need to realize that the other sides arguments have merit, and the only way you can be an effective editor here on wikipedia is use reliable sources, and when someone deletes those reliable sources, and you kindly ask them to stop, and they adminently refuses to stop, diplomatically use the "wikipolicy sword". Deleting articles and sections of articles you don't like is not only rude, but it is counterproductive, and against the spirit of wikipolicy. We are here to build an encyclopedia remember? My partisan edits and POV have stood for months, sometimes years. Why? Because I use reliable sources, impeccible sources, exhastive sources and I compromise with partisans and allow their voice to be heard too, those who refuse to comprimise, I use the "wikipolicy sword". | |||
:Your edit style is disruptive and a losing strategy, I can't say that enough. I have seen it a million times before, from all poltical views. If you keep it up, which you probably will, '''you will be indefinetly banned'''. The writing is on the wall. Now all I need to do is sit back and watch the train wreck. ] (]) 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Friends/Special Friends == | == Friends/Special Friends == | ||
Line 144: | Line 134: | ||
Right now, it's looking like you're getting more attention than you might like from people in high places. At the very least, you might want to pull down the list in the interest of not attracting more attention than absolutely necessary. ] * ] 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | Right now, it's looking like you're getting more attention than you might like from people in high places. At the very least, you might want to pull down the list in the interest of not attracting more attention than absolutely necessary. ] * ] 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
:That might be a good idea. Thanks for the advice. By the way, the Super Friends category and a sock puppet account playing off my user name were created by Tbeatty. ] 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::That explains a few things. I'm glad that I was able to communicate with you and work against one of my little pet peeves. Happy editing. ] * ] 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::My solution: ] and I lump everyone together. I am glad that I saw this talk page topic, because if my ] section is attacked and deleted, Morton Devonshire's "Super Friends" will be a casulty of this new policy too, and I can use his "Super Friends" section to argue the validity of my own section. There is nothing like an external enemy to bring two ideologically opposed editors together as allies. :) This worked faulously in ] with ], the most intellegent conservative wikieditor I have ever met, and someone I edit warred with for months on ]. This pages history is a great case study in effective edit wars which actually make the article better and more balanced than before. ] (]) 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:38, 1 November 2006
Formerly Known as NBGPWS
Formerly known as NBGPWS - Now known as Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Take the Pledge
My pledge. With important elections coming up, and politicians on both sides sinking to new levels of sleaze and smear tactics - I - Fairness And Accuracy For All - will rise above the muck and mire! I pledge to not enter any negative info, or any info which could even REMOTELY be considered negative into the articles or even the talk pages of ANY candidate running for political office on Nov 7! Anyone who would like to can join me and take the pledge!
Fairness And Accuracy For All 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I hope you live up to all this. Jinxmchue 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
fyi
The Irony
The irony considering whats above, but I have good faith in your intentions:
Not sure if they are recent, but both use their content from Misplaced Pages, just in case admins at AN/I do not oblige you, those are at least images of the article at one point to work off of. --NuclearZer0 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I didn't think of checking there. Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Protest Warrior
Walter Andrew Stephenson
Please see BenBurch 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
SB Courthouse
Greetings! Yes, I do actually have quite a few photos I can upload if you like. It also shouldn't be too hard to get a cite for that "most beautiful public building in the United States" quote; I've seen it in the LA Times, and Walker Tomkins, local Santa Barbara historian has it in at least one of his books. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go: Image:SB_Courthouse1.jpg. It's not the best of the bunch, but it was ready for upload. There's some others that need some minor photoshopping, and I can also snap some more any time; I'm only a couple minutes away from there. Let me know. By the way I may also have some shots of Hollister Ranch from Gaviota Park and Gaviota Peak (since I saw from my watchlist that you are interested in that area too). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wonderful pic! Thanks! That's one of the exact angles I was hoping for. The Hollister Ranch article needs a total re-write. I think that most of it is copied directly from their page. IMHO, its notable mostly for their private ownership of 8.5 miles of coastline, the cost of ownership there, their draconian rules and regulations, and efforts to keep surfers out. I've visted someone who has a home in there a few times. The place is amazing. Cheers Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Section header
Please do not make further edits like this one as it messes up the numbering on the main page, WP:MFD. Naconkantari 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't see the note in the edit summary till too late. I've seen other discussions with page breaks, so I thought it was OK. Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
When you get that HBO transcript
If it is electronic, I would love to have a copy! Thanks so much! BenBurch 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Email Enabled
Thought I had already done so, but it is done now. BenBurch 16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Votergate Film
You know, most of the 'delete' votes have come from conservative editors with a similar edit trail. Groups like this often organize via email, then pretend not to know each other in public. Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it's a classic situation. The opposite of good faith, when it occurs. Auto movil 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- See your talk page: Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, it's the case. Derex 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You might get indefinetly banned
I have watched this debate with interest from afar, like a pedistrian watches an oncoming train wreck, powerless to stop it, knowing it will happen, and secretly, deep down inside facinated to see its conclusion.
Ask yourself Fairness, are you really any different from the person you argued with? To attempt to difuse the situation, I won't use his name, but that won't matter anyway, will it? Go ahead and post yet another ANI. I will illustrate the blatant hypocricy of the ANI when you do.
Both of you are hardcore partisans who use wikipolicy as a sword.
Both of you are going to be eventually banned. You will be banned first, and soon, because the other user's side is better organized and has virulently partisan admins on his side.
The only chance you have is to:
1) Become a diplomat and edit smart, in otherwords, become a POV diplomat. You are editing stupid. By stupid I mean that your partisanship is so evident, and the tit for tat deletions etc. are going to get you banned. You have pissed off a well organized group of partisans, who have much more power than you do.
2) Take a deep hard look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you are any better than your nemsis in the AfD. I don't think you two are much different at all. You are both POV warriors, pushing your own POV, refusing to comprise. POV warriors eventually get AfDs, then they get restrictions, and eventually they are banned or leave wikipedia with a loud egotistical pronouncement, which no one really cares about anyway. And they are in the outside looking in, and everyone keeps editing, and forgets about the POV warrior. That is your fate. If I was a betting man, I would bet 99 to 1, that is your fate. I have seen it dozens of times before. Rarely has anyone changed. I was indefinetly booted myself once, it is only by the grace of one kind admin who I had argued with before, that I am still here. I am still here because I radically changed my behavior, whereas most editors I know are slowly on there way out or have been indefinetly banned. Will I eventually get banned? Probably. I hope not, but if I was a betting man, probably. But I will be editing here months, if not years after you are forgotten. You might get indefinetly banned.
Signed: Travb (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. You must be MUCH more more dispassionate that I am. When people start f_cking with me, I'm pretty much powerless not to respond in kind. I already DID file another ANI! LOL ! Thanks for your thoughts. On to Nov 8!
- Note - no pics here please. Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.
- I refactored your prediction. It was bad juju. Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here is why I restore the photo: User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#Train_wreck you can delete it now if you wish. I respond to people in kind, but I do it in a diplomatic way, and I use wikipolicy like a weapon, as my advisaries have taught me.
- I went up against some of the most powerful admins, and got indefinately banned. I then learned by looking at their edit histories, that these admins are no different then me, and in fact, in most cases they are far more partisan, stubborn, biased, peity ideologues than I am (or was). Except the difference is:
- 1) These partisan admins and veteran editors know how to use wikipolicy like a weapon, they learn how to vent in other ways, instead of using their mouth like a weapon, like you naively do (and I naively did and sometimes still do), they use wikipolicy like a weapon.
- 2) These partisan admins and veteran editors form "clics", some people call them "cabals". It is obviously going on, but because of WP:NPA and other policies, no one can actually say the word "cabal". It is the "elephant in the room", like I mentioned recently on the village pump. So what do you need to do? Get organized: seek out and kiss ass to partisan editors who share your POV.
- Want proof? Look at the admins you have gone up against, they are so terribly partisan. People report them to ANI ALL THE TIME. Many users have gone up against them, and many of those users who went up against them are indefinetly banned. Ask yourself: Why are these other novice editors banned and these admins are still editing?
- Two in particular that you are fighting with currently come to mind.
- The absolute best tactic you can do is be less ideological and less partisan. But I have no illusions about this happening soon. Peoples ideologies change glacially. Unfortunatly, you will be banned before yours changes.
- You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.
- Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section.
- RE: Thanks for your thoughts. I responded to them on my page Very nice pic too, I just don't want pics on my talk page.
- No prob, I will watch your page, so you don't need to comment here, and all comments are in one place. When I saw the "unread message" notice, I was thinking you were an admin who dislikes you, threatening me.
- It is only a matter of time before someone threatens me or puts up a ANI about my comments on your user page. Many of these editors tactics are so pathetic, obvious, and predictable.
- Maybe I can save you from yourself, you have been one of several "interventions", everyone always ignores me, especially partisans (because, of course, by there nature, they are not very open to new ideas), and they get banned or leave noisily and nastily. Maybe I am simply becoming more convincing with practice. Travb (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.
- Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section.
- You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.
You didn't get my point. At all. Yeah, I'm partisan, but there are some lines I won't cross, which 'they' do, and one is trying to affect even a SINGLE vote via editing on Wiki. Look at ANY politician running for office next tues, and you won't see a single edit from me . Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess we will agree to disagree.
- Just because you don't do x, doesn't mean you are any less partisan. Putting articles which don't fit your POV, I would consider massively partisan. The idea is that you should add verifable sources to these articles you disagree with, not delete them outright. I know finding verifable sources is more work, but it is more effective. You were trounced in the AfD, and you are close to being in an AfD. In otherwords, your partisan wikiediting is a failure. You can be partisan and get your point across, you just need to do it right. You are doing it all wrong, and you will be booted if it continues.
- We are not talking about the other guy, that is a red herring falacy of logic. Please look it up. I use falacies of logic all the time in my partisan debates.
- In otherwords: your level of partisanship does not decrease simply because someone is more or less parrtisan. The bottom line, is that you are incredibly partisan, and you are falling into the same traps that many others novice editors fall into. You need to realize that the other sides arguments have merit, and the only way you can be an effective editor here on wikipedia is use reliable sources, and when someone deletes those reliable sources, and you kindly ask them to stop, and they adminently refuses to stop, diplomatically use the "wikipolicy sword". Deleting articles and sections of articles you don't like is not only rude, but it is counterproductive, and against the spirit of wikipolicy. We are here to build an encyclopedia remember? My partisan edits and POV have stood for months, sometimes years. Why? Because I use reliable sources, impeccible sources, exhastive sources and I compromise with partisans and allow their voice to be heard too, those who refuse to comprimise, I use the "wikipolicy sword".
- Your edit style is disruptive and a losing strategy, I can't say that enough. I have seen it a million times before, from all poltical views. If you keep it up, which you probably will, you will be indefinetly banned. The writing is on the wall. Now all I need to do is sit back and watch the train wreck. Travb (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Friends/Special Friends
I had your old account on my watchlist, so I noticed the name change. May I ask a favor or request of you?
I notice that on the top of your page you have a "Friends" and "Super Friends" list that seems modeled after Morton Devonshire's little list. We could duck and weave all day on what "Special Friends" means, but I think you and I both know that it divides people into a "Friends" camp and an "enemies" camp. It wasn't okay when Morton did it (in fact, it drove me up the walls fuming), and I really don't think it's okay that you're doing it, either. It divides the Misplaced Pages community further along ideological/personality lines.
Right now, it's looking like you're getting more attention than you might like from people in high places. At the very least, you might want to pull down the list in the interest of not attracting more attention than absolutely necessary. Captainktainer * Talk 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- That might be a good idea. Thanks for the advice. By the way, the Super Friends category and a sock puppet account playing off my user name were created by Tbeatty. Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- That explains a few things. I'm glad that I was able to communicate with you and work against one of my little pet peeves. Happy editing. Captainktainer * Talk 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- My solution: User:Travb#Important_wikiusers and I lump everyone together. I am glad that I saw this talk page topic, because if my User:Travb#Important_wikiusers section is attacked and deleted, Morton Devonshire's "Super Friends" will be a casulty of this new policy too, and I can use his "Super Friends" section to argue the validity of my own section. There is nothing like an external enemy to bring two ideologically opposed editors together as allies. :) This worked faulously in Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse with User:Rjensen, the most intellegent conservative wikieditor I have ever met, and someone I edit warred with for months on Business Plot. This pages history is a great case study in effective edit wars which actually make the article better and more balanced than before. Travb (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- That explains a few things. I'm glad that I was able to communicate with you and work against one of my little pet peeves. Happy editing. Captainktainer * Talk 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)