| Revision as of 15:17, 27 November 2005 editWarriorScribe (talk | contribs)1,372 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:29, 27 November 2005 edit undoWarriorScribe (talk | contribs)1,372 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{user|Jason Gastrich}} is behaving himself at the moment. You are allowed sympathetic biography on your user page, see ], and believe it or not he has made some useful contributions, enough to merit. ] pages are for talking to Jason, not discussing him. You can always file an RFC at ], if you have specific complaints. — ]|] 14:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | {{user|Jason Gastrich}} is behaving himself at the moment. You are allowed sympathetic biography on your user page, see ], and believe it or not he has made some useful contributions, enough to merit. ] pages are for talking to Jason, not discussing him. You can always file an RFC at ], if you have specific complaints. — ]|] 14:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| * Whether or not Gastrich is "behaving himself at the moment" is entirely beside the point; and if you had bothered to read what I suggested, you'd have seen that, in principle, at least, I ''agree'' that a user is "allowed sympathetic biography" user page. In fact, I went further and suggested that user pages not be subject to editing by just anyone that comes along and has a "beef" with the user, in question. | * Whether or not Gastrich is "behaving himself at the moment" is entirely beside the point; and if you had bothered to what I suggested, you'd have seen that, in principle, at least, I ''agree'' that a user is "allowed sympathetic biography" user page. In fact, I went further and suggested that user pages not be subject to editing by just anyone that comes along and has a "beef" with the user, in question. | ||
| * As I mentioned in the article portion you removed, this is exactly the sort of thing that is causing problems with Wiki credibility as an objective resource. My comments were not so much about Gastrich, but about the policies and the incidents that led to the events as they occurred, and they included a suggestion as to what could be done about it. Yet, all by yourself, and by your own arbitrary and subjective criteria, you decided that it was trolling, and removed it. Now, it would have been one thing if you had responded and suggested that the subject (Wiki policies with respect to the incidents, as they occurred, and the use of Gastrich only as an example of when bad policies can lead to events that get out of hand), and suggested that I move the discussion to a "more appropriate forum" or if you had told me that you had even responded in some other area. I would have gone along with that. But you didn't do that. You removed what I had to say and declared it "trolling," without explaining ''why'' it was trolling. | * As I mentioned in the article portion you removed, this is exactly the sort of thing that is causing problems with Wiki credibility as an objective resource. My comments were not so much about Gastrich, but about the policies and the incidents that led to the events as they occurred, and they included a suggestion as to what could be done about it. Yet, all by yourself, and by your own arbitrary and subjective criteria, you decided that it was trolling, and removed it. Now, it would have been one thing if you had responded and suggested that the subject (Wiki policies with respect to the incidents, as they occurred, and the use of Gastrich only as an example of when bad policies can lead to events that get out of hand), and suggested that I move the discussion to a "more appropriate forum" or if you had told me that you had even responded in some other area. I would have gone along with that. But you didn't do that. You removed what I had to say and declared it "trolling," without explaining ''why'' it was trolling. | ||
| * I'm attributing a great deal of what I'm seeing with a lack of experience, insight, and even maturity when it comes to administering a page like Misplaced Pages, and, again, that can't help but damage Wiki as an objective resource. | * I'm attributing a great deal of what I'm seeing with a lack of experience, insight, and even maturity when it comes to administering a page like Misplaced Pages, and, again, that can't help but damage Wiki as an objective resource. | ||
Revision as of 15:29, 27 November 2005
Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) is behaving himself at the moment. You are allowed sympathetic biography on your user page, see Misplaced Pages:User page, and believe it or not he has made some useful contributions, enough to merit. User talk pages are for talking to Jason, not discussing him. You can always file an RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, if you have specific complaints. — Dunc|☺ 14:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not Gastrich is "behaving himself at the moment" is entirely beside the point; and if you had bothered to read what I suggested, you'd have seen that, in principle, at least, I agree that a user is "allowed sympathetic biography" user page. In fact, I went further and suggested that user pages not be subject to editing by just anyone that comes along and has a "beef" with the user, in question.
- As I mentioned in the article portion you removed, this is exactly the sort of thing that is causing problems with Wiki credibility as an objective resource. My comments were not so much about Gastrich, but about the policies and the incidents that led to the events as they occurred, and they included a suggestion as to what could be done about it. Yet, all by yourself, and by your own arbitrary and subjective criteria, you decided that it was trolling, and removed it. Now, it would have been one thing if you had responded and suggested that the subject (Wiki policies with respect to the incidents, as they occurred, and the use of Gastrich only as an example of when bad policies can lead to events that get out of hand), and suggested that I move the discussion to a "more appropriate forum" or if you had told me that you had even responded in some other area. I would have gone along with that. But you didn't do that. You removed what I had to say and declared it "trolling," without explaining why it was trolling.
- I'm attributing a great deal of what I'm seeing with a lack of experience, insight, and even maturity when it comes to administering a page like Misplaced Pages, and, again, that can't help but damage Wiki as an objective resource.