→What's up, Doc?: re. |
Rainbowofpeace (talk | contribs) →On Sex and Gender: new section |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
::[[WP:Assume good faith|AGF]] is important to have if you want to be a good contributor to this site. If you have it you won't have the tendency to be suspicious when somthing doesn't go the way you'd expect. Of course we could suspect a hoax, but only after the accounts were verified. Now that we know the temp account really is a hoax, we no longer have to AGF the situation. –[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCentury]][[User talk:BuickCenturyDriver|Driver]] 11:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
::[[WP:Assume good faith|AGF]] is important to have if you want to be a good contributor to this site. If you have it you won't have the tendency to be suspicious when somthing doesn't go the way you'd expect. Of course we could suspect a hoax, but only after the accounts were verified. Now that we know the temp account really is a hoax, we no longer have to AGF the situation. –[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCentury]][[User talk:BuickCenturyDriver|Driver]] 11:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::If there were no trolls and the world was a perfect place, we could assume good faith in everyone all the time. Unfortunately, there ''are'' trolls, and I have a way of quickly knowing whether they are or not. It's my secret, though ;> I never would have made a statement as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=455672245 "conclusive"] before any official results were in if my little hunch wasn't on: I don't want to look like an idiot, after all. Cheers, BuickCenturyDriver! [[User:Doc9871|<font color="#000000" size="2">'''Doc'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Doc9871|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]] 03:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC) |
:::If there were no trolls and the world was a perfect place, we could assume good faith in everyone all the time. Unfortunately, there ''are'' trolls, and I have a way of quickly knowing whether they are or not. It's my secret, though ;> I never would have made a statement as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=455672245 "conclusive"] before any official results were in if my little hunch wasn't on: I don't want to look like an idiot, after all. Cheers, BuickCenturyDriver! [[User:Doc9871|<font color="#000000" size="2">'''Doc'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Doc9871|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]] 03:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== On Sex and Gender == |
|||
You recently put on my profile that I stated that my gender is "unfortunately male :(" now I want you to look over that again. I said that my sex is male not my gender. I think it is important that you study the difference between sex and gender very carefully before making statements like that which could offend someone. My gender on my profile clearly says Genderqueer. I will give you a few days to respond before I delete your comment from my talk page. -[[User:Rainbowofpeace|Rainbowofpeace]] ([[User talk:Rainbowofpeace|talk]]) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:41, 19 October 2011
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hello
Saying hello cause I've seen you now on threads on Wesley's and PoD's talks. REM RIP, for sure; have you read [1]. As with all AV club articles only the comments are inciteful. Ceoil (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've been through R.E.M.'s whole catalog (yet again), and it's incredibly hard for me to find even one song through Monster that I don't love. That's every song on every album. One of my favorite little gems: Wendell Gee. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
If someone is seeing "only what they want to see" in a guideline then it is helpful to point this out to them, using carefully chosen words such as "seems" and "a little". You've been here long enough to know that off-discussion, personal comments should be made on user talk, not article talk; flouting this could (yes, could) be interpreted as disruptive. Uniplex (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've known CuriousEric for awhile, and I have never known him to be disruptive. He's not the most "consistently active" editor I've seen, but I hardly think he's in that discussion to mess things up. What off-discussion, personal comments are you referring to? Doc talk 06:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The one you made about choosing words carefully, inappropriately at article talk. Uniplex (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You chose a word that cast his motivations in a bad light: that's not assuming good faith in him as an editor. You should consider not commenting on another good-faith editor's contributions with terms such as that. Doc talk 06:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that you fail to understand that the word "seems" indicates a possible interpretation, not an accusation, and that the major point of this discussion is your inappropriately placed comment. Uniplex (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are we gonna play lawyer here? "Seems" is pretty neutral. "Could appear to some as" is neutral. "Disingenuous" is not neutral. You said, "Your interpretation of the MoS:... seems a little disingenuous." That means you are saying that he appears disingenuous to you. Next time, say something like, "You are possibly mistaken about your interpretation of the MoS." CuriousEric is a very easy-going editor, but many others (including myself) would take offense if our arguments were accused of "seeming disingenuous". And: any perceived personal attack can be brought up on the page it is issued. Are we good now? Doc talk 07:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that you fail to understand that the word "seems" indicates a possible interpretation, not an accusation, and that the major point of this discussion is your inappropriately placed comment. Uniplex (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You chose a word that cast his motivations in a bad light: that's not assuming good faith in him as an editor. You should consider not commenting on another good-faith editor's contributions with terms such as that. Doc talk 06:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The one you made about choosing words carefully, inappropriately at article talk. Uniplex (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Doc! Thanks for your support at L/M. I try to keep a cool head where possible, no sense escalating things. CuriousEric 07:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Noprob - see above. Sorry I didn't reply sooner - trolls have been very active recently, and I got a little distracted. Nobody's escalatin' nuttin' - relax, will ya? :> Doc talk 12:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
IP editor at 92.24.104.225
FYI I have blocked this IP address for 24 hours following the serial reversions of your edits. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - I just tagged it.[2] The banned editor has been hitting the AN page like crazy, and I've been the only one reverting him. This was my third round of reverts[3][4] - if he hits it again, a semi might be needed. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (2)
I was perusing the talk page history of a user when I saw [5]. Thanks for your vote of confidence :-) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:) –BuickCenturyDriver 11:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello! No way is that an administrator, I gotta tell ya. Your AGF skills are enviable to a grizzled old coot like myself, but I can smell a troll from a long ways away. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- AGF is important to have if you want to be a good contributor to this site. If you have it you won't have the tendency to be suspicious when somthing doesn't go the way you'd expect. Of course we could suspect a hoax, but only after the accounts were verified. Now that we know the temp account really is a hoax, we no longer have to AGF the situation. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- If there were no trolls and the world was a perfect place, we could assume good faith in everyone all the time. Unfortunately, there are trolls, and I have a way of quickly knowing whether they are or not. It's my secret, though ;> I never would have made a statement as "conclusive" before any official results were in if my little hunch wasn't on: I don't want to look like an idiot, after all. Cheers, BuickCenturyDriver! Doc talk 03:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- AGF is important to have if you want to be a good contributor to this site. If you have it you won't have the tendency to be suspicious when somthing doesn't go the way you'd expect. Of course we could suspect a hoax, but only after the accounts were verified. Now that we know the temp account really is a hoax, we no longer have to AGF the situation. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
On Sex and Gender
You recently put on my profile that I stated that my gender is "unfortunately male :(" now I want you to look over that again. I said that my sex is male not my gender. I think it is important that you study the difference between sex and gender very carefully before making statements like that which could offend someone. My gender on my profile clearly says Genderqueer. I will give you a few days to respond before I delete your comment from my talk page. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)