| Revision as of 09:03, 4 January 2008 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,958 edits →Note: follow up← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:34, 15 January 2008 edit undoPrimeHunter (talk | contribs)Administrators79,172 edits restore links | ||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==The "calm" tag== | |||
| I just removed it for a while. I have a feeling it migfht have the same effect as that cognitive control exercise "DO NOT think of pink elephants" that leaves people unable to think of anything but... | |||
| Also, on a common sense level, I fear it may have the same as a road sign saying "if you want a rumble, you came to the right place". --] 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AS article status == | == AS article status == | ||
| Thanks for the accolade. I'm afraid that not everyone agrees, as can be seen from the ]. ] 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | Thanks for the accolade. I'm afraid that not everyone agrees, as can be seen from the ]. ] 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Personal details== | |||
| I am really uncomfortable with you discussing what you imagine to be personal details of my life in relation to and want to ask you to please stop doing it, and remind you that, in accorde with ] and ] we should stick to discussing ''content'' not personalities. --] 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Nothing that I imagined, just what you had openly disclosed. But I acknowledge your discomfort and empathise with your discomfort, having, as you well knnow, experienced the reciprocal discomfort for many many years. It is not a comfortable experience at all, is it? You have my profound sympathies. ] 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am glad you understand and will not continue the behavior, thank you. --] 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What I would do in your position, would be to go back here and decide FOR YOURSELF, what you wish to say that is objective about why you feel the article should keep "Featured" status, put it all together in "notepad" then go here find the words "Strong Keep" and place the text after it. I can promise you that the relevance and objectivity of you argument will give it greater, not lesser weight, and the willingness to resolve issues amicably will only resound your credit. I do not want to be discussed personally as part of an FAR where I am not relevant, but I will defend with my life your right to expess your objective opinion there, whether or not I agree with it. --] 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A question for both of you at ]; please respond there if you want me to propose a refactoring in sandbox, and please let me know what your refactoring goals would be. ] (]) 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A Kiwi, regarding , there's no need to apologize whatsoever; you've not created this problem, and I'm just trying to help you sort out your commentary on the FAR. I've never seen such an ugly FAR—well, not since the last AS FAR that is—and it's not your fault at all, but keeping the "messes" on the right pages may help. I'm sorry I wasn't more available as it was unfolding, but the work on ] is done, the article is better than it's ever been and well within FA criterion, and I was buried all afternoon in difficult and tedious referencing work on the next FAR ( ], an article in almost as bad shape as AS was, if you can believe it!) ] (]) 01:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, after looking at all the "linked to" articles for that list of various terms, I was dismayed and almost frightened at what a dreadful inadequate total mess so much of Wiki must be when it comes to articles where professionals write them about their own area of expertise -- thus making them unintelligible, probably even to their own grad students!!! *laughing* Nah, I should take that back. In some cases, it is more likely that pompous grad students write them!!! | |||
| Hey, I just found out today that I have actually made over 1,000 edits now. Of course, what was not mentioned was that 30-50% of those were me correcting my own errors!! But it tickled me all the same. ] 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Asperger syndrome ease-of-understanding == | == Asperger syndrome ease-of-understanding == | ||
| Thanks for providing the examples of hard-to-understand bits in ]. I fixed things as best I could and have a question or two, which I put in ]. ] 10:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | Thanks for providing the examples of hard-to-understand bits in ]. I fixed things as best I could and have a question or two, which I put in ]. ] 10:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Please cool down== | |||
| Kiwi, this is just a personal attack for which there is no place on Misplaced Pages , and you cannot just delete my comments because they do not agree with you like this . I made it clear that I would replace my counter arguments where appropriate, and I also made it clear that I, not you replaced the comment. Though you publicly said that you would replace it here and you certainly cannot keep trying to hide the fact that you DID suggest replacing it. Why don't you go and cool down? You made some excellent edits about accessible text yesterday and behaved impeccably about resolving the inappropriate personal comments, it is a shame to see you let that go now. --] 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am just fine. I was just justifiable angry that you would not only publicly bring up off-Wiki history (a no-no) and give it a completely false positive spin that never-ever existed. | |||
| :My only error ever has been to repeatedly assume good faith with you when you start writing me so kindly. I seem to have that problem with people who write me multiple complimentary emails. You can be the most charming person I've ever encountered, Z.... And you assured me last night that you never took anything I said or did on the FARC page seriously and were certainly not bothered by any of it. But apparently you wrote up an incident report on me, they asked you to work it out with me privately. | |||
| :By that time, of course, I had it all but done on my computer for I was rightfully embarrassed at my behavior. You wanted to post it yourself, I told you I would post it myself and that you would post your new revised response for yourself. But your need to point out that I was posting a revised version was something you could have asked me to do myself. You had no right to alter MY words, but only to say that your post was altered. I've been around Wiki long enough to know that, because I've heard you tell that to people. | |||
| :If you felt it necessary or KNEW it to be necessary for the both of us to do so, then all you had to do was just ask/tell me that it was necessary for the both of us to note that an alteration had been done (in other than the edit notes). ] 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not bring up any "off wiki history" AT ALL, at any stage, nor will I bring up alleged "off Wiki" dialogues. I do, however feel that under the circumstances of, not only the project in question, but also your behavior I have every reason and right to ask for advice from ]. Because I certainly have no idea how to deal with your current, repeated ], and ] behavior to me. | |||
| ::This is what I actually posted . Where in that do I mention "revised version"? And if I had, I would have every right to do so, it is, after all, only a statement of simple fact for clarity? You did, in fact suggest you would replace it yourself and I am rather afraid there are no grounds on which you may suppress that information in order to claim otherwise. | |||
| ::Please refrain from personal attacks in future. --] 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Z, I only "encountered" you late late last spring or early summer here on Wiki when I found that you had brought an off-Wiki years-long battle here, even bringing off-Wiki reinforcements. But it was all over by then, the victory rejoicing done. Otherwise, I would never have recognized you or had the slightest idea who you were, save for the rejoicing. | |||
| :::So we only "encountered one another" a little over a year ago. To Sandy, you said we had known each other for years and never had any problems between us. So I beg to differ that -I- was the one to bring up off-Wiki thing, never mind totally mislead someone about the nature of those "years" that sounded so chummy all of a sudden. That you would be telling a falsehood like that was the out of line part and thus you were the first one to bring an "off-Wiki" issue up - even if it was a total misrepresentation of any conceivable reality. | |||
| :::Boy am I a gullible fool - just as my friend pointed out to me last night. | |||
| :::That is the last I have to say on this issue, so I will let you have the last word. Feel free to be as much yourself as you wish ... no matter which self it happens to be at the particular moment. ] 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Kiwi, please try to stay a little closer to the (objective and relevant only please) facts in future...and further away from problems with ] and ]? --] 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PS I don't think it is appropriate (or productive) for me to keep "rising to the bait" and getting into these discussions with you, but on the other I don't think it would be very wise for me to let it go without refutation, as it is about me, not at all accurate and on fairly permanent record. So I have posted it here , where the process is informal and without sanctions, in the hope that some neutral third parties can assist us in sorting it all out --] 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Posting == | |||
| Hi there. I'm responding from WQA to notify you that a post was filed about you on our page. (See ]). Please feel free to respond (we encourage people to keep responses civil and brief). Best, --] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just a quick followup. I realize that Zeraeph may have posted personal information on Misplaced Pages. And while I personally don't think that's really a great idea, neither is it terribly polite to dig through the archives in order to exhibit that information. From what I've seen it appears that the two of you have a fair amount of background, but I hope you both can come to an amiable solution, as you appear to be valuable contributors here. --] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fun's over now== | |||
| ] | |||
| Over and out --] 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Torture == | |||
| See ] for my reply --] 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Note== | |||
| A Kiwi, I am concerned that you have indicated you are editing just after taking a valium. The evidence is progressing fine, and it isn't necessary for you to add a lot to it. You should be aware that if you post Z's name to Wiki, you can be blocked or banned. I don't know who e-mailed you, but I am strongly advising you not to post while you are upset or have taken a valium. There is no urgency. Take care of yourself and let Wiki deal with this. ] (]) 07:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :A Kiwi, I hope you are able to read this. You must realize that even though an ArbCom is underway, you still cannot say things about Z that are based on off-Wiki events that could be construed as a personal attack. I hope you are well, A Kiwi; please don't post if you're upset or have taken medication. You must understand that Wiki can handle this, and you don't need to worry. ] (]) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear Sandy, Thank you for the cautions of off-Wiki events - but none of them that I would have addressed would only have had to do with ONLY what she has already accused me of in similar off-wiki testimony. But I understand you completely. Two wrongs do not make a right. Thank you for helping me negotiate the intricacies of WP rules and guidelines. I wish there was a better index for me to find what I need to know. I can spend hours and still be totally lost without being any closer to an answer. Have a very good break and the best of 2008 for you. I will turn 60 and I already know it will be the bsst of all possible years of my life. May it be the same for you. ] (]) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| A Kiwi, even if the things you said are 100% true in real life, they can be considered a personal attack on Wiki, and you could be blocked. If you want to remove the post you just made, pls click and click the undo button to remove the post. I'm sorry for what you've been through, but on Wiki, you must be careful not to say anything that can be considered a personal attack. You can reconsider what to post when you are calmer. ] (]) 08:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm glad you're still reading. Your other post includes a name that should be changed to a Z. Can you find that? Posting a first name only is probably not an offense, but you would be wiser not to do it in this case, all things considered. Would you consider changing the name to a Z? I'll come back with a link in case you can't find it. ] (]) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: is your other post. Be well, A Kiwi. ] (]) 08:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I will IMMEDIATELY remove it. Thanks for pointing it out to me. ] (]) 08:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :A Kiwi, I'm not an admin, but I suspect you trust my advice anyway. It might actually be better if you delete that post as well. You can e-mail any confidential evidence to ArbCom, and avoid risking your editing status on Wiki. ] (]) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here is ArbCom's e-mail: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org ] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Consider it done.... ] (]) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A Kiwi, don't overwhelm ArbCom with a lot of info, or it won't be read. Wiki policies are what matter. Canvassing other people against me or my edits or wiki articles would interest them. What kind of e-mail relationship the two of you have ''recently'', as in 2007. The off-Wiki stuff isn't of much interest to them. Take care of yourself, and don't worry about this. ] (]) 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:34, 15 January 2008
AS article status
Thanks for the accolade. I'm afraid that not everyone agrees, as can be seen from the FARC commentary. Eubulides 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Asperger syndrome ease-of-understanding
Thanks for providing the examples of hard-to-understand bits in Asperger syndrome. I fixed things as best I could and have a question or two, which I put in Talk:Asperger syndrome #Examples I found. Eubulides 10:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)