| Revision as of 00:12, 26 January 2010 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →FYI: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:28, 26 January 2010 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits a word on civility and poop in lapsNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :*Sorry to hear that, although I understand your frustration. Is there anything I can do to help? –''']''' | ] 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | :*Sorry to hear that, although I understand your frustration. Is there anything I can do to help? –''']''' | ] 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::* Banninate anyone with more than 20 edits to Gibraltar or Falkland Islands and less than a thousand edits to other articles completely unrelated to British dependent territories? I suspect it would make the world a better place. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ::* Banninate anyone with more than 20 edits to Gibraltar or Falkland Islands and less than a thousand edits to other articles completely unrelated to British dependent territories? I suspect it would make the world a better place. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| The lack of the most basic of courtesies before blocking is one example of worst kind of incivility among our admin "elite". The way blocks are abused is unsettling and the people who carry them out have often become drunk with power so they're completely out of touch with common sense and decency. If they were on the receiving end they would most certainly feel differently. The lack of collegiality is at the core of the vicious atmosphere here, and some contact and discussion should always be engaged in before blocks are carried out. They are meant to be a last resort not a button that's fun to push. If something is already reverted and there's no indication that any offending behavior will continue, then a block serves only as an abusive and punitive measure of humiliation. And if it hasn't been reverted, then a polite request to do so should be the first step. Similarly with incivility, an opportunity to refactor or clarify should always be given first and discussion engaged to reach a consensus on why the comments are inappropriate and how they could have been expressed differently. But the chimps running this place wouldn't know kind a word and a handshake from a pile of poop in their lap. ] (]) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 01:28, 26 January 2010
. - I have not the words]]Yes, it's an unequivocal statement of one POV supported by equivocal sources and opposed by unequivocal sources including the UN, but what the fuck, let's put it in the opening sentence of the article until we've gazed at our navels for long enough. Fuck the lot of 'em.
{{helpme}} You are traitors and I will sue you in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. This is an explicit legal threat and will not be lifted until you stop your treason. If you do not understand what this means, report it on the administrators' noticeboard NOW.
What's going on?
Hi JzG, is everything alright? –Juliancolton | 19:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have allowed the abject stupidity of fools who insist on including POV text in the first sentence of an article to distract me from the truly wonderful music I am supposed to be learning. I have also discovered that in today's Misplaced Pages a six-hour-old 3RR report with no prior attempt to remind someone of the fact they are getting carried away is still grounds for a block even when the chances of another revert are zero. Other than by the people who insist on including the POV text, of course. I think that about sums it up. So, I'm pissed off with this place, I've had it up to here with POV warriors and above all I'm very annoyed wiht myself for being drawn into disputes about which I don't actually give a toss when I should be learning Bach and Monteverdi. So I've been doing that instead, and it's not got any easier as a result of hours wasted trying to control those fools. Er, yes, that's about it. Thanks, though, nice to see a friendly face on here for a change. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that, although I understand your frustration. Is there anything I can do to help? –Juliancolton | 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Banninate anyone with more than 20 edits to Gibraltar or Falkland Islands and less than a thousand edits to other articles completely unrelated to British dependent territories? I suspect it would make the world a better place. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The lack of the most basic of courtesies before blocking is one example of worst kind of incivility among our admin "elite". The way blocks are abused is unsettling and the people who carry them out have often become drunk with power so they're completely out of touch with common sense and decency. If they were on the receiving end they would most certainly feel differently. The lack of collegiality is at the core of the vicious atmosphere here, and some contact and discussion should always be engaged in before blocks are carried out. They are meant to be a last resort not a button that's fun to push. If something is already reverted and there's no indication that any offending behavior will continue, then a block serves only as an abusive and punitive measure of humiliation. And if it hasn't been reverted, then a polite request to do so should be the first step. Similarly with incivility, an opportunity to refactor or clarify should always be given first and discussion engaged to reach a consensus on why the comments are inappropriate and how they could have been expressed differently. But the chimps running this place wouldn't know kind a word and a handshake from a pile of poop in their lap. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Church of Reality
Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Do you know who TungstenCarbide XIII is? They seem to know you, but I see very little editing from this account. And they've posted info about Giano, so seem to have indepth knowledge of Misplaced Pages, so it seems that they are an editor with another account... your thoughts? (suggestion: let me deal with this, don't do any admin action - I just want your opinion). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
cmt
User:Seregain attempting to flood AFD
Hi. See here. Seregain recently commented on User:American Eagle (another fundamentalist Christian editor)'s talk page informing him about the AFD on The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Shortly after, American Eagle showed up to cast a delete vote, along with User:Hellbus, apparently yet another fundamentalist Christian (both Hellbus and American Eagle are Eagle Scouts, for example).
In addition, Seregain added a link on his userpage to the AFD along with a rant about the article on Tracy Goode (Christian actor) being deleted earlier. The interesting part is that the AFD for Tracy Goode was flooded by evangelical spammers using IPs and SPAs.in an attempt to stack it with keep votes.
I have no direct evidence that Seregain or the others were responsible for the vote stacking in the Tracy Goode AFD (just suspicion), but Seregain is clearly engaged in vote stacking this time. Just a heads up.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: Found another one, User:Invmog (Evidence).--SuaveArt (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- SuaveArt, you are again assuming bad faith, and again, you are incorrect. Please look at the timestamps on my talk page and on the AfD. He posted the message on my talk page at 04:47, 24 January 2010, but I had already commented on the AfD at 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC). I !voted to delete the article simply because of lack of notability and sourcing, which several other users noted as well. Please stop running around WP:ABFing to everyone. It is highly disruptive and will get you blocked/banned again. American Eagle (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Gibraltar
Welcome to the Gibraltar article. I used to edit it once, until I realised that life is too short to waste your time arguing with someone who thinks living there qualifies him to edit the article and not living there disqualifies you. You think this is bad? Try having a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks that "British Overseas Territory" was superceded by "UK Overseas Territory" or that the Gibraltar Pound is a "mythical" currency . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI
. Feel free to undo if you'd rather keep it. Cheers. MastCell 00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)