DaveSeidel (talk | contribs) |
→User:Realskeptic: reply |
||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
: [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|APK]], what almost bothers me the most about this is that we have so few courageous admins. Discretionary sanctions gives a strong permission to block/ban/whatever, without any complicated processes or discussions, yet few actually do it. They should. It's like a prior permission allowing one to put a suffering animal out of its misery, without first seeking opinions in the neighborhood about what to do. If one finds a dog or cat in the street that has been run over, but is still alive, and is so seriously injured that it cannot be saved very easily, then the most merciful thing is to kill it by any means necessary, as quickly as possible. It's not pleasant, but it must be done. That's what needs to be done here. Just get it over with, without asking. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 06:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
: [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|APK]], what almost bothers me the most about this is that we have so few courageous admins. Discretionary sanctions gives a strong permission to block/ban/whatever, without any complicated processes or discussions, yet few actually do it. They should. It's like a prior permission allowing one to put a suffering animal out of its misery, without first seeking opinions in the neighborhood about what to do. If one finds a dog or cat in the street that has been run over, but is still alive, and is so seriously injured that it cannot be saved very easily, then the most merciful thing is to kill it by any means necessary, as quickly as possible. It's not pleasant, but it must be done. That's what needs to be done here. Just get it over with, without asking. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 06:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
::A shrewd observation regarding Admin courageousness BR. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog™]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|woof]] 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
::A shrewd observation regarding Admin courageousness BR. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog™]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|woof]] 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
::I wish I had Admin rights so I could help, though if course it would be unethical of me to do so, given my known views on the subject matter. This is one of the most egregious examples of cluelessness, arrogance, self-justification and Talk page abuse I've yet seen on WP, and that's saying something. -- [[User:DaveSeidel|DaveSeidel]] ([[User talk:DaveSeidel|talk]]) 15:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
:::I wish I had Admin rights so I could help, though if course it would be unethical of me to do so, given my known views on the subject matter. This is one of the most egregious examples of cluelessness, arrogance, self-justification and Talk page abuse I've yet seen on WP, and that's saying something. -- [[User:DaveSeidel|DaveSeidel]] ([[User talk:DaveSeidel|talk]]) 15:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
"Clueless" is really a good description. Let's see what happens. We even have admins who practice victim blaming, bullying, and piling on, so they may even side with Realseptic's bullying attacks on me. |
|||
The disruptive removal of other editors' comments from a user's talk page, edit summaries which attack them, and requests for banning of other editors from the talk page, are characteristics of disruptive, cowardly, and uncollaborative editors. [[:User:Technophant]] and [[:User:Worldedixor]] come to mind as egregious examples. |
|||
I am not disputing the right of productive and collaborative editors to delete certain types of material from their own userspace (note that no one "owns" their own userspace completely), but this situation is different and battlefield behavior should not be rewarded. We're dealing with an editor who reveals a very negative [[learning curve]]. |
|||
Here's a good quote from [[Dave Mason]], a great musician and entertainer: |
|||
* ''"As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because it's been quite an education."'' [http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/archive/index.php/t-29987.html] |
|||
At Wikipedia it's all about one's [[learning curve]]. None of us is perfect or fully understands Wikipedia's myriad PAG. We've got to learn from our mistakes and improve. An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's contributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about. |
|||
The following profound prose from [[User:Hoary]] is worth repeating here: |
|||
* "Neither humility nor perfection is required. But a combination of confidence and error will not persuade."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.106.194.135&diff=prev&oldid=481248901] |
|||
That last sentence describes this editor quite well, and none of us have been impressed or persuaded. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 16:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:42, 21 November 2015
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
ToolBox, Watchlists, Source bin, Hamsterpoop, Templates, OWL
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
The Signpost: 28 October 2015
- From the editor: The Signpost's reorganization plan—we need your help
- News and notes: English Wikipedia reaches five million articles
- In the media: The world's Wikipedia gaps; Google and Wikipedia accused of tying Ben Carson to NAMBLA
- Arbitration report: A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement
- Traffic report: Canada, the most popular nation on Earth
- Recent research: Student attitudes towards Wikipedia; Jesus, Napoleon and Obama top "Wikipedia social network"; featured article editing patterns in 12 languages
- Featured content: Birds, turtles, and other things
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Community letter: Five million articles
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Reference for Joseph Reagle
Howdy, I noted you add a reference to my biography article. Thanks! If you are interested in improving the article further, I have a WP page with dozens of sourced factoids and references that could easily be ported over. -Reagle (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Reagle, I'll take a look at it. I assume that the reason it hasn't happened yet is because you are very conscious of your COI. Very wise. I found and used your WP NPOV article as an External link in an essay I'm working on: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. I'm nearly ready to go public with it. I would appreciate your thoughts about it on the talk page there. BTW, is the semicolon in the title proper punctuation? I'm American, but have lived in Europe for so many years that I'm a bit "language confused", so my punctuation rules are bit rusty. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}
16:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Correct on the COI, and I'll look at it ASAP. I think semicolon is fine; OWL is a great resource on stuff like that. -Reagle (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. They have a great website which I've used quite a bit. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}
02:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. They have a great website which I've used quite a bit. --
- Correct on the COI, and I'll look at it ASAP. I think semicolon is fine; OWL is a great resource on stuff like that. -Reagle (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 November 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation finances; Superprotect is gone
- In the media: Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: propaganda myth or history?
- Traffic report: Death, the Dead, and Spectres are abroad
- Featured content: Christianity, music, and cricket
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Essay templates
I have proposed two templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Essays/Templates, and would appreciate comments. Because no one seems to have noticed, I have chosen to notify several editors who have edited the project page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}
01:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have left comments. I like the personal essay one, though not the standard essay one. Thanks for having a go at making them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have a moment
To run your usual fine bare URL repair scripts at Brighton Beach, it would do a world of good. Thanks. Note, in not being sure how much of your work was manual versus script, I converted near-bare-URLs to fully bare URLs, to make this easier on you. Let me know here if this is not necessary in future. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do it all by hand. It's very time-consuming, so I only do it where I'm already involved. If there's a better way, teach me how. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Incidentally, there are tools to automate this process, such as Refill and Yadkard. It would make your work a lot easier. ;) epic genius (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bull. Article still needs work if you have time, and I am looking into better ways as well, but @Epicgenius: seems well-informed on this. WIll look to his tech suggestions. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Incidentally, there are tools to automate this process, such as Refill and Yadkard. It would make your work a lot easier. ;) epic genius (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 November 2015
- Arbitration report: Elections, redirections, and a resignation from the Committee
- Discussion report: Compromise of two administrator accounts prompts security review
- Featured content: Texas, film, and cycling
- In the media: Sanger on Wikipedia; Silver on Vox; lawyers on monkeys
- Traffic report: Doodles of popularity
- Gallery: Paris
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed your recent comment and absolutely agree with you. I've had their talk page watchlisted since notification of this ANI discussion. I'm amazed no one has indeffed yet. I mean, look at that. If Realskeptic deletes your latest comment, I suggest bringing this to ANI (or I can, if you don't want to deal with that forum). His/her block ends tomorrow and I'm afraid the disruption will resume. APK whisper in my ear 05:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- APK, what almost bothers me the most about this is that we have so few courageous admins. Discretionary sanctions gives a strong permission to block/ban/whatever, without any complicated processes or discussions, yet few actually do it. They should. It's like a prior permission allowing one to put a suffering animal out of its misery, without first seeking opinions in the neighborhood about what to do. If one finds a dog or cat in the street that has been run over, but is still alive, and is so seriously injured that it cannot be saved very easily, then the most merciful thing is to kill it by any means necessary, as quickly as possible. It's not pleasant, but it must be done. That's what needs to be done here. Just get it over with, without asking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- A shrewd observation regarding Admin courageousness BR. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I wish I had Admin rights so I could help, though if course it would be unethical of me to do so, given my known views on the subject matter. This is one of the most egregious examples of cluelessness, arrogance, self-justification and Talk page abuse I've yet seen on WP, and that's saying something. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- A shrewd observation regarding Admin courageousness BR. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
"Clueless" is really a good description. Let's see what happens. We even have admins who practice victim blaming, bullying, and piling on, so they may even side with Realseptic's bullying attacks on me.
The disruptive removal of other editors' comments from a user's talk page, edit summaries which attack them, and requests for banning of other editors from the talk page, are characteristics of disruptive, cowardly, and uncollaborative editors. User:Technophant and User:Worldedixor come to mind as egregious examples.
I am not disputing the right of productive and collaborative editors to delete certain types of material from their own userspace (note that no one "owns" their own userspace completely), but this situation is different and battlefield behavior should not be rewarded. We're dealing with an editor who reveals a very negative learning curve.
Here's a good quote from Dave Mason, a great musician and entertainer:
- "As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because it's been quite an education." [1]
At Wikipedia it's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect or fully understands Wikipedia's myriad PAG. We've got to learn from our mistakes and improve. An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's contributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about.
The following profound prose from User:Hoary is worth repeating here:
- "Neither humility nor perfection is required. But a combination of confidence and error will not persuade."[2]
That last sentence describes this editor quite well, and none of us have been impressed or persuaded. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)