Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:07, 24 October 2009

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please:
  • Be civil, mature, and responsible in your comments
  • Assume good faith
  • Be polite, and remember the "Golden rule" — treat me as you would have someone you love be treated
  • Do not make personal attacks (including offering your opinions of what I am or am not suited for doing here in the Encyclopedia)
  • Do not lecture or be rude, sarcastic, disparaging, or "flame" (regardless of whether or not you are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet when you make your comments)
  • Do not harass
  • Do continue any conversation on the page where it was started
    • Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page, it is not necessary to post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • Initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • Sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• I reserve the right to mokusatsusuru (wikt:黙殺する) entries that, in my opinion, fail to meet any of the criteria above.

Template:8px

Archives

Archive 1

References

1. Palme, Jacob. "Anonymity on the Internet" (HTML). Retrieved 24 January 2009. ... anonymity can be used for offensive or disruptive communication. For example, some people use anonymity in order to say nasty things about other people. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

On the Obama page

Thank you for the welcome message. I have actually been around here for a while, but I make a point not to make a user account, as I see the necessity of such as being contradictory to Misplaced Pages's original intentions. That being said, I did indeed provide provisions to clean up the article; we need to get rid of loaded terms. Thus, my post was more than appropriate. 67.60.50.5 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Thank you for the welcome message". You are welcome.

"I make a point not to make a user account". That's your choice.

"I did indeed provide provisions to clean up the article". Pardon, but with one exception, I did not see specifics:

• "Regardless of what the FAQ might claim, there is absolutely no way this article is without bias; any reasonable reader could come to such a conclusion". No suggestion for improvement.
• "The entire article is peppered with partial language". No suggestion for improvement.
• "Rising star?" Really?". No suggestion for improvement, although one might charitably infer you mean to delete this phrase - even though it is (per other editors in the discussion thread) included verbatim from a WP:RS. But is this what you mean, as you did not say so? Being quite fair to all involved, your lack of precision and your broad, negative introductory comments don't engender confidence that your intention is to improve the article (which is pretty common with high profile articles such as the one in question).
• "We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically, and strive to make it an article that really represents Misplaced Pages, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Misplaced Pages." No suggestion for improvement. You did attack other (unspecified) editors ("selfish ambitions of certain members of Misplaced Pages"), and did not assume good faith ("We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically").

"I have actually been around here for a while". Then it is reasonable to assume that you know that your approach to introducing improvements to the article, demonstrated here, could be improved, as in at least two instances (WP:AGF and WP:NPA) is contrary to best practice, and could be construed as being disruptive editing. For an article on probation, in particular, I recommend you reconsider your approach. I also suggest that further discussion regarding your 'suggestions', such as they are, be continued on the talk page. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Hatnoting

Please be so kind as to go back and revert your hatnoting of discussions involving Grundle. It is totally inappropriate to hide all of these discussions retroactively. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"hatnoting of discussions involving Grundle". A careful review will show that the discussions hatnoted are those that were initiated by the editor in question, as well as being consistent with the behavior leading to his indefinite topic ban (If I got one (or more, G-d forbid) wrong, please let me know, and I'll correct).

"It is totally inappropriate". I don't think so. But I'm not trying to be WP:POINTy, and I try to be a stickler for policy. I'm hatnoting (hiding, not deleting) to remove clutter - of which there is an enormous amount. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Don't take my response as presumptive; I'm happy to read if you'd like to explain your point of view. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I think it's very bad form. I didn't see anything inappropriate in the comments I looked at after seeing some of them pop up on my watchlist. They were posted in good faith by a major content contributor. Some of them had been responded to, and I don't see any reason they needed sought out and collapsed. Obviously Grundle will not be able to participate in those discussions for the time being, but collasping them the way you did looks to me like an unnecessary provocation and an act of disrespect towards someone who is already censored from further involvement in those article discussions. Given Grundle's many article creations and his substantial content contributions to Misplaced Pages's articles about political subjects, the damage resulting from his being banned is bad enough. That you've gone ahead and proactively hidden his past comments is wrong (that's the mildest word I can come up for it). I hope you'll reconsider. Given your politics and point of view it seems you have cause to celebrate already without sticking your fingers in his eyes. Personally, I think our NPOV core policy and the best interests of the encyclopedia and our readers are greatly undermined by banning an editor who doesn't share the majority perspective as far as content and article interests are concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"an unnecessary provocation and an act of disrespect","sticking your fingers in his eyes". It is not intended that way - pardon, but it seems you're looking for conflict here.

"cause to celebrate". I am saddened that the action was necessary. I tried to help the editor in question - but I came to the conclusion that his (to quote another editor) "Doe-eyed naif act" was indeed just an act - no one could possibly be that resistant to simple understanding. I suspect he wanted to be banned (and his subsequent 'celebration' of that banning via posts to various off-wiki web site is consistent with that suspicion. Sadly for him, he seemed to lack the patience to work within the system (or, cynically, to more subtly push non-NPOV views into the knowledge base, as at least one person off-wiki has proudly proclaimed success in doing).

"someone who is already censored from further involvement in those article discussions", "greatly undermined by banning an editor who doesn't share the majority perspective as far as content and article interests are concerned". I recognize this is your core issue. There was clear community consensus on this issue, and your point of view as to the rationale of the action is not reflected in the record of what was discussed, nor in the record of the editor's misbehavior. As I recall, only you and an IP editor offered a contrary view (and I'm afraid neither of you offered effective rationale for not taking the action proposed).

"wrong (that's the mildest word I can come up for it)". If you feel your statements on the issue of the community action, or your comments here, are "mild", please spare me your less 'mild' commentary.

"Given your politics". Your statements have been rather unfriendly (to put it mildly) from the beginning of your insertion on my talk page on this topic; this last comment is per se without good faith. To my recollection (and I would be greatly surprised if my edit history would clearly and without interpretation show otherwise), I have never espoused any political opinion whatsoever, and my comments with respect to the editor in question have had everything to do with his inability to adhere to policy, and his apparent inability to change. Other than those two comments, I do not feel it appropriate to comment (let alone debate in a hostile atmosphere) more on this point - you're welcome to read my views on the recent action as I have posted them. As for my "politics", I feel it is "wrong" for you to assume that my (or any other editors') actions are predicated on bad faith. Shame on you. To paraphrase you, "I hope you'll reconsider" your comments. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)