| Revision as of 02:14, 18 June 2010 view sourceCourcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits →You are now a Reviewer: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:11, 12 November 2024 view source Cooldudeseven7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,242 edits →Memorial Comment: new topicTag: CD |
| (216 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Deceased}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = User talk:Abd/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Memorial Comment == |
|
{{wikibreak|please email me if my attention is required, Abd <s>is hiding under a rock</s>}} '''Alternatively, I may not be back at all, more than occasionally, I have no crystal ball, and real life beckons invitingly.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rest in peace, even a banned user needs remembrance for being deceased. <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 15:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''<big>Notice to IP and newly-registered editors'''</big> |
|
|
|
|
|
IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, this page is sometimes semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''<big>WELCOME TO ] TALK</big>''' |
|
|
|
|
|
]]] |
|
|
<big>'''WARNING:'''</big> Reading the screeds, tomes, or rants of ] has been known to cause serious damage to mental health. One editor, a long-time Wikipedian, in spite of warnings from a real-life organization dedicated to protecting the planet from the likes of Abd, actually read Abd's comments and thought he understood them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
]]]<br> |
|
|
After reading, his behavior became erratic. He proposed ] and insisted on promoting it. Continuing after he was unblocked, and in spite of his extensive experience, with many thousands of edits,he created a hoax article and actually made a joke in mainspace. When he was unblocked from that, he created a non-notable article on ], and was finally considered banned. What had really happened? His brain had turned to ] (see illustration). |
|
|
|
|
|
'''<big>Caution is advised.</big>''' |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Geez == |
|
|
|
|
|
Even I, as a foreigner, think that this ban is idiotic. Also, caused my ] to melt into something resembling ]. I think you've been misunderstood and ganged up upon; and I hope this teaches you not to have faith in Misplaced Pages processes. Good does not necessarily prevail in the end, even if patience is employed. The reward of patience is ... a topic ban whose bounds are ever-expanding and can be interpreted to include everything? There's a way out of this dilemma, and I think we both know what it is. And no, it's not what you've decided. There's another way. I can't go into specifics, but I'll tell you this much: you're going to need to stay away from ] for awhile, probably indefinitely. ] (]) 21:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, I can't comment on the last topic, on-wiki, but I do have email enabled. Mmmm.... if "the way out" it's not what I decided, what would make you think that I know what it is? I'm not caught in a dilemma, by the way. I do understand, very well, what's going on, though events of late have made the dimensions of it more clear. A few other people get it, too. Some are even making comments, now, but probably not enough to make a difference about my retirement. Carcharoth even came up with some cogent remarks in the RfAr/Clarification. Again, probably too little, too late, but it is what it is. I have no crystal ball, merely a fairly good idea of what to expect and not to expect. --] (]) 02:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:By the way, since you mention patience, the reward of patience is ... patience. --] (]) 02:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::To use a military analogy, when the usual ]s fail, sometimes you need to take ]. That's a better option than ], as you are considering. Do you have enough skill to accomplish useful missions while flying under the radar and successfully dodging the enemy seekers? If so, then perhaps you have ] to become ], despite getting shot down twice in the past. Maybe get some ] to soothe your ], and then choose some different missions when you're ready to fly behind enemy lines again. Maybe pick some different territory where they won't be expecting you and therefore won't have their radars calibrated to find you. ] (]) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry, I'm not engaged in a war, though others imagine so. I'm not interested in being top gun or personal victory, except, perhaps, for victory over myself, quite a another story. However, if we want to use military analogies, I served, in part, as a target to flush out ]. It's worked. Watch. Takes some time, this process. I wouldn't do this in real life, where I'm not ]. Or maybe I would. You never know till you are there. Meanwhile, meditate on ]. It can help. Thanks for your kind thoughts, but, while I'm playing a game, for sure, it's not the game you think, and "winning" doesn't depend on my personal "survival" here. At all. The goal? Well, I'll only say part of it. Part of the goal is a neutral encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that is also reliable and deep. Some people think it's impossible, including a lot of people who used to edit here. I don't think it's impossible, I just think that what is required isn't what exists yet and that same old, same old just won't cut it. --] (]) 01:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::All I'm saying is that the aircraft you've been piloting has taken some damage and looks about ready to be scrapped. Your combat record is so legendary among the enemy, that they have deployed intelligence assets to keep an eye on its whereabouts and are ready to shoot it down on sight if it crosses into the wrong territory. Therefore, you might want to consider getting a shiny new aircraft that the enemy isn't familiar with, perhaps one with civilian markings or even disguised as one of their own. Of course, when piloting your new aircraft you will want to make sure to avoid any distinctive acrobatics that would betray your true identity, and you'll want to avoid opening fire on old foes lest your real allegiance become evident. ] (]) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thus speaks the voice of experience. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Sure. But it's not the game I'm playing, and won't be. If I have to hide, I'm on the wrong side. Not hiding, for sure, makes me a ready target, and maybe Misplaced Pages will be better off without such a ready target. Except that I think not. I think the targets being present exposes snipers, like I said above. If anyone is looking. If not, it all doesn't matter. --] (]) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Sometimes you can be on the right side, but it's simply unwise to reveal yourself openly. If you see a murder, testify against the Mafia and have ]-style large-lapel-wearing goons trying to hunt you down, will you decline ] because "If I have to hide, I'm on the wrong side?" Should a submarine commander, charged with defending freedom, surface when ]s of an enemy communist state are hunting for him, because "If I have to hide, I'm on the wrong side?" It's the same concept. You can't fight successfully wage ] against a more powerful foe. Like it or not, that's the position you're in. Enemy snipers may expose their position by firing on you, but ultimately those snipers come back incognito, so who really wins in the final analysis? I leave you now to choose between a masochistically suicidal, ]-like defense of a fixed fortification, or to begin a ]-style infiltration. Farewell. ] (]) 07:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the thoughts, but I did not start seriously working with Misplaced Pages as a foot-soldier in the war you see, and, yes, there is a war, and Misplaced Pages is, indeed, a battleground. I started to try to change that, and my actual struggle is against the systemic deficiencies that turn Misplaced Pages into what the remaining community continues to try to deny, what is common knowledge among those who have left, and they are legion, or been banned. It's not against the individuals who happen to fill this or that role at a given time. My "foe" is not actually more powerful, but appears to be so, because the community is, as it were, a sleeping giant, with all the power, but each person who might be able to make a difference imagines himself or herself powerless against the monster, and is reduced to fighting endless battles. What's missing is what is essential, by policy. It was ''required'' but the mechanisms to create it were not established. It was assumed that it would arise naturally, but the entire history of human society shows that it takes special social technology for it, consensus, to arise across tribal divisions. It takes ''process.'' And Misplaced Pages is a human society, an ordinary human society, without the normal restraints of face-to-face contact, and the high bandwidth communication possible there. It's beautiful and enticing at times, when the assumptions of collegiality hold, and devastatingly ugly when that breaks down. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's not their fault as much as it is the fault of the system, something missing from it, efficient and effective dispute resolution. Decision-making has been confused with dispute resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As to the claim that the snipers will come back incognito, I'm not seeing that as a problem. I'm not being sniped at by new snipers (except maybe one, not really strongly allied with the old). It's the same old set, well-known, and declining in numbers. They are actually "losing," and the reason is that, from the beginning, I did not allow myself to struggle against broad consensus, but only against local illusion. Each one of these actions was a demonstration of how to find wide consensus (or an experiment toward that). (It's easy to overlook that what sometimes seemed to be disruptive dissent, initially, often became established consensus later.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Misplaced Pages is not my life work, it's just a piece of it, and should it happen that I'm banned, which looks unlikely at the moment, I would see it as guidance to channel my efforts elsewhere. That has already happened to a large degree. This is just a wiki. Really. --] (]) 14:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here. As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. ] 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'll look at it. But whatever happened to user RfC? AN/I is a spectacularly inappropriate place to conduct a sober examination of an editor's behavior. I do have a question as to whether or not it would violation my sanction to comment there, and I'm generally not editing Misplaced Pages at this time. --] (]) 01:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not a fan of RFC's. Well, for that matter, I'm even less of a fan of AN/I, but the administrator noticeboard tends to result in faster results and less of a circus than RFC usually becomes. I would rather not see GoRight blocked again, but I feel that is what will happen if his behavior isn't altered. I think an acceptable result would be editing sanctions to end his dealings with the editors he tends to see the most disputes with. ] 01:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm surprised you think that, Trusilver. AN/I can be swift, indeed. Swift to jump to conclusions, swift to block and ban without ever actually coming up with evidence and reasoning, and with people making comments without checking and searching for evidence. GoRight was asking you for help, with a situation where he really didn't know what to do. Did you assume that he was making it up, or that what he considered harassment wasn't? Did you assume that if he's being harassed, he must be doing something to deserve it? RfC is slow, and if it becomes a circus, nevertheless it collects evidence and arguments that can later be used for a community ban, if needed, or to address other issues. AN/I easily can spin out of control, I've seen it many times. |
|
|
:::But short of that, GoRight is responsive to constructive criticism, I've seen it many times. The AN/I report, I predict, will become a coatrack for a certain faction which has been after GoRight for about two years to hang many accusations on. You can expect it. --] (]) 02:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{ec}} I don't wish for this to spill over and slap Abd. Unless there is some official acknowledgment that Abd is allowed to comment here I would prefer that he didn't. Let us not poke that hornets nest again, please. --] (]) 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Abd. Because you participated in ], you may be interested in ]. ] (]) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re: Great Repeal Bill == |
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to recreate it I won't stop you, since information still pops up on it. ] <sub>]</sub> 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bucklin == |
|
|
|
|
|
You may be interested to know that there is a dispute about the ] page ongoing. The issues are: |
|
|
|
|
|
# Can the term "Bucklin voting" comprehend systems which allow equal and/or skipped rankings? |
|
|
# If so, do such systems meet the IIA and Clone independence criteria? |
|
|
|
|
|
(One possible answer to either question is that we can't say either way because we don't have relevant citations to reliable sources. In that case, we must choose what we can say.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your participation in the discussion might help us attain consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers, ] (]) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FYI == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've ]. It gave me an audible chuckle then, and still does now. Cheers, –]] 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks, Xeno. Like a stopped clock, perhaps I occasionally get it right. That was a mixture of sarcasm, plain humor, and serious advice; I'm glad that you enjoyed it then, and had forgotten about it completely, which is often true with some of my best work, so I was quite glad, today, to see it. --] (]) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== As expected == |
|
|
|
|
|
As you expected, I've filed an enforcement request. You can find it at ]. ] (]) 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== You are now a Reviewer == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010. |
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
