Misplaced Pages

Wikibreak

Looks like its time for me to take a step back and find a soft beach somewhere; I apologize if you're trying to contact me - please use one of the above instant messenger or email contacts. Hopefully the editor that has harassed me for months placing false accusations in every venue possible will now feel pride at the damage he's managed to cause; now that I've looked, I'm certainly not the first person he's done this to. Its incredibly disheartening to see that if you scream loud enough, it doesn't matter that you don't have a single diff to support you - I expected some people would fall for that, but some Wikipedians I respected have made comments that show me they haven't bothered to look for the truth either. So before I completely lose any faith in the project, somebody hand me a mimosa. Shell 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a mimosa ...

...but a dandelion - as a symbol for how detachment can be the seed for new growth. I hope you'll find personal strength in your vacation. — Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Would this classify as a personal attack on a public board?

Edit in question. I.e. calling a constructive edit 'WP:POINT' violation, and inventing a fictional ArbCom criticism (not only no diff has been provided, but I am 100% sure there was no ArbCom proceeding which called any of my past actions 'tag trolling', especially as I was never ever a part of any ArbCom proceeding...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't believe your memory is that weak. I refer to this exchange, of course. --Ghirla 08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Cursory analysis of the diff's shows that 1) Fred never called this 'tag trolling', only 'bad editing practice' 2) if you fail to spot the difference between edit Fred criticized (), and this, well, I what can I say...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't say much because my jocular edit was meant to highlight the pointlessness of your habitual abuse of citation needed tags, and you know its context too well. --Ghirla 09:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're using an RfC to try to resolve these issues. I think the points made by JzG and Elaragirl are particularly important. I've left a note for Ghirlandajo asking him to help cool-down the situation by avoiding those types of comments and hopefully avoiding comments on your actions at all. I hope you'll agree to do the same for him; I think if you're both able to edit without the other commenting everywhere you go, it will be incredibly helpful. Shell 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, half of what I ask (per recent dicussion about solution on talk of RfC) is that he avoids comments like this in the future. Unfortunatly, so far it appears that Ghirla's favoured solution is a demand for me to be desysoped :/ - so I am unsure if we can find a solution that will satisfy both sides...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good first step to answer the questions JzG has asked on the talk page of the RfC. Maybe with the help of the community, a creative solution can be found. Best of luck and happy holidays! Shell 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I already took quite a few steps and addressed such issues on the talk page (as I pointed out to JzG in my comment), I believe I'll wait before I repeat those answers (if they need being repeated and/or clarified) to see Ghirlandajo responce. Certainly I hope that with community's help we can find a solution - but as they say, we 'need two to tango'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Answered the latest outburst of anti-Ghirlandism here and here. --Ghirla 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point above (or here) better than I ever could.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that you use Misplaced Pages for "proving your points". I advise you to consult WP:POINT and to stop treating it as a battleground in the future. --Ghirla 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Waves a white flag. Seriously guys, this exchange is very good example of exactly what needs to stop. Surely there must be things you can do that will not cause you to interact. I think the RfC shows that people think you both need to take a breather from each other until you can work together without this tension. This kind of dialog is very unhealthy. Shell 10:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus! Stop! Stop! Stop!!!! How long do you going to lead this anti-Ghirlandajo crusade? If you do not respect your opponent, people who commented on your RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus, at least respect neutral participants such as Shell Kinney, who probably have much more urgent work, when to read your, yet another, accusation. Sorry Kinney for using your talk page, but some contributors do not understand that such type of behavior becoming really annoying and acquiring disruptive behavior shape. M.K. 19:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but characterizing this as a crusade or accusing someone of a lack of respect is really doing nothing to help the situation. Both editors have some issues they need to resolve here; this is certainly not one sided. Please try not to aggravate the situation any further. Shell 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your implicit personal attack

I notice you spammed my user page with excerpts from some template that was created some time in the past by persons with no knowledge of the controversy I address.

Let's break it down. First, you impose your "suggestion" which is a thinly veiled threat of attack and escalation, under the guise of asking me "could I suggest...". Had you waited for a reply, I would have replied "no" and you could have saved yourself the effort of pasting spam on a user page where it will have not even a slight chance of persuading me to revise my well considered understanding of matters at hand.

Secondly, you refer to "mundane editorial disagreements". That's interesting. Did you know that fewer accidents occur at workplaces where workers are trained in safety pratices? That's all good, but that fact is no more relevant to matters at hand than is your rambling pre-packaged speculation about "mundane editorial disagreements" -- a situation with which I am not involved and that would have no bearing on the matters about which you found a need to address me. The matter about which I submitted comments (in response to Misplaced Pages's aggressive solicitation of comments to every article in its archives I might point out) relates to situations in which Misplaced Pages fanatics libel their critics by claiming the work of their critics outside of Misplaced Pages comprises abuse. Mr. Brandt has cause to subpoena Wikimedia Foundation to force production of IP information for Majorly, who libelously refers to Brandt's Web sites as abusive, so that Mr. Brandt could, if he so chose, seek legal relief against such libelous publications.

Thirdly, you demonstrated the futility of your second point (solicit feedback and ask questions) by ignoring the feedback I offered in the context of the discussion about which you found cause to attempt to educate me in elementary editorial relationships. It is a curriculum I long ago mastered but which has no relevance to a cult environment such as Misplaced Pages where editorial disputes are more often and most decisively resolved by building administrative alliances and gaming the conflict resolution system. If the feedback I offered in response to others' solicitations were attended to, I would be more inclined to solicit feedback from others. You further compromised your assertion that the best approach is to solicit feedback and ask questions when you refused to solicit feedback or to ask questions of me before you sounded off with your condescending message to me.

My point is, whoever you are, that condescending to me with kindergarten rules about getting along in no way informs my choice of the best course of action when an unruly crowd such as that hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation and directed by Misplaced Pages's secret administrators makes it their purpose to libel anyone who dares criticize their misguided assault on intellectual discipline.

Finally, I notice from reading the top of your user page that you refer to another with whom you've initiated some sort of conflict as a "cretin". Advice to whoever claims to be Shell Jareth Kinney: don't open your mouth to advise me about manners when your mouth is already full with the crap you are spewing at others. Marakopa 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

Several editors have tried to help you understand how the Misplaced Pages community works and what our standards are for behavior. Instead of taking their helpful comments to heart, you've now attacked each one in turn. You obviously already knew about our policies and procedures, so I assume you felt there was a reason for returning under a new account - I hope you use this as a chance to start over and try to find a way to work with others this time. Shell 07:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy question for Average frustrated chump

Hi, I have a question relating to the Average frustrated chump page (I'm asking you because I have seen you moderate seduction community article-related disputes fairly). Centrx tagged the page as only relying on primary sources, because the main source for the article is The Game. He argues that The Game is not an indepedent third-party publication, because Strauss is affiliated with the community. I argue that The Game is an independent third-party publication in the most literal sense, because the publisher of The Game is a reputable publishing house that presumably uses fact-checking. The problem here is that WP:V seems to be ambiguous: it is unclear whether the author and the publisher have to be third parties to the phenomenon described in an article, or just the publisher. I lean towards the second interpretation, because the affiliations of the author are irrelevant as long as the facts are checked (and we have no reason to believe that the author didn't check Strauss' definition of "Average Frustrated Chump," because his definition is so similar to the one used on major seduction websites). If you are able to shed some light on this, perhaps you could post it either on Talk:Average frustrated chump, or on my talk. Thanks! --SecondSight 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded on the article talk page. Thanks. Shell 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting side comment you could make is that you could take the view Neil is not directly involved in the community, but is merely a reporter. But to effectively report on anything it is helpful to immerse yourself in the subject material, that is after all what Neil himself claims is the reason he originally become involved (but then he went very deep down the rabbit hole... and become more than merely a reporter). Mathmo 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much; my Award subpage is a little bit unorganized :) I'll have to try that when I get a moment. Shell 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Curly horse

You removed a copyvio tag from the article Curly horse, claiming in the edit summary that permission had been recevied. Can you document this on the talk page, please? RJFJR 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

All fixed up :) Shell 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)