→AGF warning: response |
Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) →AGF warning: I'm taking this to a dispute resolution. I will accept nothing less that a full apology from you. |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
:As for assuming good faith, it's unreasonable to use it as an absolute requirement all the time. In fact, if it was, accusing others of not assuming good faith is also not assuming good faith, so it would be impossible to point out that people aren't assuming good faith, no? |
:As for assuming good faith, it's unreasonable to use it as an absolute requirement all the time. In fact, if it was, accusing others of not assuming good faith is also not assuming good faith, so it would be impossible to point out that people aren't assuming good faith, no? |
||
:No evidence: You can't claim that I have not brought in any evidence, since you mentioned the diff that I gave as evidence. --[[User:Raijinili|Raijinili]] ([[User talk:Raijinili#top|talk]]) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
:No evidence: You can't claim that I have not brought in any evidence, since you mentioned the diff that I gave as evidence. --[[User:Raijinili|Raijinili]] ([[User talk:Raijinili#top|talk]]) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
I am taking this to a dispute resolution. I will accept nothing less than a full apology from you. This has come from nowhere, and it is a completely personal attack on my good name. I have not lied - I was confused by the misspelling, and I've based my arguments on that! You say "''It's a strong implication that I believe you're a liar, but it hardly compares with saying it out loud.''"!! How ''dare'' you! Who do you think you are? People here strive every day to 'assume good faith' and you come out with this while having '''no evidence at all'''!--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:27, 20 August 2008
Fansites
I was referring to Wikipedia:External links --Squilibob 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
May I ask what you're doing with this article? You create it with the comment that it probably will be deleted, then alternate between improving it and recommending its deletion. If you really don't think it belongs on Wikipedia, you can just add the {{db-user}} tag to the article and have it removed. ~Matticus TC 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people wanted that article, and I'm torn between helping them and being realistic. I have an idea though. --Raijinili 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Forums as sources
From WP:RS: "posts to bulletin boards etc should not be used... no way of knowing who has written or posted them... and no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". Axem Titanium 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- The point is, we don't know who it actually is and whether or not this person's information represents Atlus' information. Axem Titanium 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ummmm... why are you asking me? It's already done and it's being localized right now. I thought we were talking about using this guy's forum post as a source for a release date, not whether the game is still in development or not. Axem Titanium 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I agree that the game is no longer in development. I recently reverted a release date added by an anonymous editor because it had no reliable source information. If you're still referring to the forum admin thing, what he says cannot be considered the stance of the company as a whole because it hasn't made any official announcements about it. It cannot be verified, hence the part about editorial oversight and third-party fact-checking. Axem Titanium 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Andy Richter
Aww, crap, I'm stupid for not reading that. Thanks for catching that, and I reverted myself. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Questions on IDT Energy and ITD Corp
You've recently posed two questions regarding IDT Corp. on the article's talk page. This is just a quick note to let you know i've responded and I hope my answers give you enough information and detail to deal with the questions. If you need some more help, don't hesitate to drop me a line via my talk page. thewinchester 15:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's talk about it on the discussion page. Kazu-kun 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: My rvv on Utawarerumono
While I do realize it wasn't exactly vandalism on the editors part, there have been several edits in the past related to Revised Hepburn romanization, the correct English romanization by ADV Films of Erurū/Elulū's name and the fact if the twin archers Dori and Gura are male or female, so I just lumped all three into one and did a quick "rvv" summary as a way to discourage other editors who know that ackronym means "Revert vandalism" from editing it back to how it was altered by the editor in question.--(十八) 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: My duplicate/orphaned Ouran image (and other images that may arise)
I thank you for the cleaning up of any images I may have uploaded in the past which are now orphaned for one reason or another, though know that when you post the notice on my talk page, I'm going to send it to the archive since it clutters up the page and makes it look bad. So any further action you take on my past images I won't stop. Delete them by abiding by Wikipedia policy and informing which ones you intend to delete in case I want to save it before it gets taken off the server.--(十八) 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Castle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Castle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Tetsusaiga
1. Google searching is very flawed, because there are many factors that can be used to alter google rankings in one's favor. Nowadays we use Wikipedia:Original research to largely exclude Google searching. Instead we go by reliable sources. 2. Raijinli, if information is not sourced from a Wikipedia:Reliable source, I can remove it. The responsibility for getting the sources lies with the person that adds the information. It doesn't stop me from making an effort to source info, but it means that I am perfectly allowed to remove the information instead. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of that section, it is full of Wikipedia:Original research - it is totally unacceptable. That section has no sources that say "this is a mistake and not deliberate." Please do not post any OR. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That is still original research. Your "reference" states that in Japanese the sword is Tessaiga. Okay. What is DOES NOT SAY is whether "Tetsusaiga" was a mistake. Because no relaible sources say that Tetsusaiga was a mistake, you cannot add this information in. A sentence like "due to either an error or an intentional change, it became the Tetsusaiga." does not belong in here. There may be a third, or fourth possibility. Suggesting that it may be due to an error is OR too. Please read the discussion pages. BTW, this name change does not need a section on its own as there is no information about it. All we need to do is say it is Tessaiga in the original Japanese, and that is that. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at [1] 1. In an encyclopedia, you do not refer to the reader as "us" 2. You do not need an entire section about how the name is different unless you have sources that explain how it is significant. As there is no significance to the name change (no reliable sources that state anything special about it), there is no need for a section. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You said: "Tetsusaiga" is an obvious mistake. The question is whether it's intentional." 1. How is it a "mistake" if it is intentional? Also, the sentence does not agree with the following from WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - Having Joe Blow analyze the use of Tetsusaiga and conclude that it has to be a "mistake" is original research. Now, if CNN or some other reliable source clearly states that "Tetsusaiga was a mistake," that would be acceptable. WP OR says: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." - You need a source that explicitly states that Tetsusaiga is a "mistake." Without it, you cannot say anything about it.
":::I offered a compromise of changing it to "taken" from "mistaken". Regardless, an objection to one word of one line is not just cause to remove the whole section." There is nothing special about this name change, so it does not need a paragraph.
The section is useless. Think about Wikipedia:Manual of Style - You cannot dedicate a section to every single aspect of every subject. You need to carefully think about how to properly divide an article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Testsusaiga_name_issue WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Heated Discussion
I did lose my cool at the end, and I do want to apologize for that. You are right that I occasionally lose track of how antagonistic I sound, and that is something I need to keep an eye on so stuff doesn't escalate like this. Happy to call a truce here. Doceirias (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Spring egg (media)
Seleted because it is useless redirect. Since Spring egg is itself a redirect, its disambigutation is meaningless. It is also an improbable search term. `'Míkka>t 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
AGF warning
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#ad_hominen_.E2.86.92_ad_hominem. Thank you.
You have for some reason (I'm not sure why) personally gone after myself and User:HighKing here, and after the proceeding "ad hominen" redirect was no longer being argued for deletion too! Both I and HighKing corrected you on the matter, and in response you wrote this line: "You claim that your misspelling of "ad hominem" was because of your own confusion? You spelled it correctly the third time in that edit, though." This is blatantly calling me a liar: I told you the live-linked misspelling of "ad hominen" confused me, and it did for a good while - which ever 'version' I may have used myself (I don't remember - I expect I've used both, though I've hardly ever used the term). How can you question my honestly on this? It is what I have argued all along too - that I and others can be confused by the live-link redirecting of misspellings.
You have simply been wrong about most of this. You have not Assumed Good Faith at all, and you are contributing in a place where you simply have to do it. I came in good faith to help Wikipedia, and you have cast aspersions on my motives, with no evidence behind it. I deliberately kept the person who made the misspellings anonymous as this is ONLY about the misspelling redirection of "ad hominen" (and it is simply polite anyway). You not only named him (and his previous name) - but related our history with each other! It is neither relevant to the re-direct matter, nor appreciated by either of us (or anyone else I'm sure), so please let it go.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I've been relatively benign with the accusation of bad faith up until, well, when I posted on HighKing's talk page.
- "...to me, this request does not seem in good faith..."
- "If this is not a good faith request..."
- Also, I disagree with you that pointing out a fact which contradicts what you say is blatantly calling you a liar. It's a strong implication that I believe you're a liar, but it hardly compares with saying it out loud. How else should I bring up that fact (since I had reason to do so)? This is a technical point, though.
- As for assuming good faith, it's unreasonable to use it as an absolute requirement all the time. In fact, if it was, accusing others of not assuming good faith is also not assuming good faith, so it would be impossible to point out that people aren't assuming good faith, no?
- No evidence: You can't claim that I have not brought in any evidence, since you mentioned the diff that I gave as evidence. --Raijinili (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am taking this to a dispute resolution. I will accept nothing less than a full apology from you. This has come from nowhere, and it is a completely personal attack on my good name. I have not lied - I was confused by the misspelling, and I've based my arguments on that! You say "It's a strong implication that I believe you're a liar, but it hardly compares with saying it out loud."!! How dare you! Who do you think you are? People here strive every day to 'assume good faith' and you come out with this while having no evidence at all!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)