This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tennis expert (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 19 December 2008 (→Trash talking and strategizing about other editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:47, 19 December 2008 by Tennis expert (talk | contribs) (→Trash talking and strategizing about other editors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Deja Messages Ici Bitte. I will generally respond to any comments, queries, calumnies or complaints here. Whatever you do, no templates |
 Archives |
Corporate spam (redux)
You recently commented on something being "corporate spam". Would you please give your definition of what constitutes corporate spam? Especially, formulate your definition with attention to the relative bearings of authorship, content, and purpose. Thank you in advance. -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yea, I'll get right on that for you. Eusebeus (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you aware that the original Arch Coal article was not written in exchange for any payment, nor was even the Arch Coal company aware of its provenance? The original author has stated publicly that the article's purpose was to test Wikipedians' ability to discern paid and unpaid content, and that the only reason it was "Arch Coal" was that (at the time) it was the largest Fortune 1000 firm still lacking a Misplaced Pages article. The original author didn't even publish it in Misplaced Pages. It was scraped in by an unaffiliated editor. So, you scoff away all you want. Your reluctance to define "corporate spam" indicates that you have no basis to describe the Arch Coal article as "corporate spam". Arch Coal had nothing to do with it. So it was therefore not "corporate" and awfully hard to conceive how it was "spam". You should apologize (as Jimbo did), and retract your comment here. Or, do you have a conflict of interest of your own that prevents you from addressing this question about "corporate spam" in a fair manner? -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the words of one much greater than myself, I am a harmless drudge and you are wasting your time bothering with what I think. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That answer doesn't make much sense and it's not very helpful. If you use a term somewhere, it is legitimate to ask what you mean by it, and you shouldn't just flippantly reply, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you expand on that formulating your definition of unhelpful with attention to the relative bearings of authorship, content, and purpose? thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you focus on the original question please? What do you take "corporate spam" to mean, exactly? The Arch Coal article is nothing of the sort by any reasonable definition I am aware of. If you cannot answer the question you should redact your remark characterising it as such. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you expand on that formulating your definition of unhelpful with attention to the relative bearings of authorship, content, and purpose? thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- That answer doesn't make much sense and it's not very helpful. If you use a term somewhere, it is legitimate to ask what you mean by it, and you shouldn't just flippantly reply, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the words of one much greater than myself, I am a harmless drudge and you are wasting your time bothering with what I think. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you aware that the original Arch Coal article was not written in exchange for any payment, nor was even the Arch Coal company aware of its provenance? The original author has stated publicly that the article's purpose was to test Wikipedians' ability to discern paid and unpaid content, and that the only reason it was "Arch Coal" was that (at the time) it was the largest Fortune 1000 firm still lacking a Misplaced Pages article. The original author didn't even publish it in Misplaced Pages. It was scraped in by an unaffiliated editor. So, you scoff away all you want. Your reluctance to define "corporate spam" indicates that you have no basis to describe the Arch Coal article as "corporate spam". Arch Coal had nothing to do with it. So it was therefore not "corporate" and awfully hard to conceive how it was "spam". You should apologize (as Jimbo did), and retract your comment here. Or, do you have a conflict of interest of your own that prevents you from addressing this question about "corporate spam" in a fair manner? -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Trash talking and strategizing about other editors
Comments like this one, "... he has some rather regrettable ownership issues" are unconstructive, insulting, and inappropriate for an article discussion page. They also indicate a failure on your part to assume good faith and have perhaps the unintentional effect of poisoning the atmosphere and fostering disputes instead of cooperation and understanding.
Comments like this one, "I suggest we rollback this article to the version it was last year before he ballooned its size to its current ridiculous level and then simply revert changes as needed" could be interpreted an an invitation or encouragement to vandalize an article through blind reversions and then use edit warring tactics to prevent a third editor you don't like from making changes to the article. They also indicate your lack of understanding concerning WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, among many other important Misplaced Pages policies.
Please refrain from making either type of comment in the future. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh come off it, Tennis expert. I gather your recent date-inspired temper tantrum is over seeing as you are no longer retired. At any event, you very well know you have ownership issues and you know you have a poor track record of accommodation, thus requiring that editors who disagree with you conspire to prevent you from being disruptive (cf. your behaviour in the datelinking debate). I am glad you are back; you do good work. But you do have a tendency to be rather difficult. Btw, I see that as a result of our discussion, you have crept back out from your IP editing to redress the problem. Good for you. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you continue being incivil or continue to encourage unconstructive, conspiratorial edit warring, I will file a complaint at WP:ANI. Tennis expert (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead, TE. Pointing out ownership problems and posting open comments to the talk page of the article to clear out some of the more trivial detritus in question to effectuate improvement - yea, unconstructive, uncivil and conspiratorial are the mots justes. But hey, feel free. Look, I understand that you have ownership problems as a consequence of your lengthy contributions to the tennis pages, but you need to be more agreeable in the face of the consensus process. Unlike other editors you have brushed up against in the past, your little bully tactics are not going to work on me and instead of making trivial threats I suggest you adopt a more reasonable tone and help establish a consensus going forward. If you need an AN/I thread to show you that article ownership is unhelpful, well serve it up. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone for tennis? ROFL (couldn't help myself) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that Any Two five eleven-nis? ;) Eusebeus (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh gosh, now there's one of those 17000+ unreferenced BLPs...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly when and which articles have I exercised "ownership" over? Surely you have readily at hand a list of dates and articles and a list of impartial editors who agree with this finding given that you've repeatedly made this allegation in various places. Or, is it just an incivil, disruptive, unconstructive, insulting, inappropriate, edit-warring-promoting, conspiratorial assumption that exemplifies your failure to assume good faith and your misunderstanding of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, among other important Misplaced Pages policies? P.S. I haven't watch-listed your discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)