Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →General question: depends on whether or not you're looking |
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →General question: comments |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:::::::Malleus, you seem to be using two instruments for measuring abuse, calibrated at opposite ends of the reasonable scale. Maybe you can swap them? I am fairly sure that your blood pressure and the quality of your social interactions will profit. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::Malleus, you seem to be using two instruments for measuring abuse, calibrated at opposite ends of the reasonable scale. Maybe you can swap them? I am fairly sure that your blood pressure and the quality of your social interactions will profit. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::No, I am using the same measure of abuse for every editor, a strategy that I think others might usefully consider adopting. Perhaps when you get blocked for using the word "sycophantic" you'll begin to understand. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::No, I am using the same measure of abuse for every editor, a strategy that I think others might usefully consider adopting. Perhaps when you get blocked for using the word "sycophantic" you'll begin to understand. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
(outdent) This would usually be a cue for one of my longish wikiphilosophical essays, but I don't have time to write on at the moment at the moment, which is probably just as well. However, I strongly believe that: |
|||
(1) This is a collaborative project, which means we need to treat each other with respect and refrain from gratuitiously insulting each other. This particular refers to editors who adopt that sort of tone as part of their everyday discourse, as opposed to someone losing his or her cool once in awhile, which happens to everyone. |
|||
(2) Editors should not be blocked unless there has been serious misbehavior. There is some tension between my view that incivility and personal attacks are a serious problem and are damaging the project, and my view that blocking should always be a last resort. |
|||
The tension between these two points would dissipate if people would voluntarily tone down excessive rhetoric and the flinging of insults. This would be a Good Thing for all concerned, administrators and otherwise, but I don't suppose that my calling for it to happen will make it so. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad#top|talk]]) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Re - Userpage == |
== Re - Userpage == |
Revision as of 16:53, 17 January 2011
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
G'day brad
And thanks for your thanks on my talk page - I think it's quite likely my early support was significant in your re-election, so you can love me or hate me for that at your leisure and inclination ;-) - I also recently asked Lar if he knew anyone with a broadly watched talk page and who might be interested in a very narrow, but important in my view, policy proposal at Wikipedia:Sexual_content - on the off chance that you might also know of someone who'd be interested, I thought I'd drop this in here :-)
Hope you're enjoying the winter - it's all hot and sticky down here, so I'm heading back to the sea..... Privatemusings (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Question
I hope this is the right place to put this. I tried my 1st editing and being a Wikipedian! On the GCT page I left a message on the discussion pages using four tildes (RonRice (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC));I did check out Wikipedia:Questions, and NOW I am asking for help on a talk page, welcome! Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2011
Can you please see if my pages make sense on GCT? I don't know how to add a reference so I put it in the text. Sorry.
Finally, Is there a Cheat Sheet page I can use, and can you help me to create a page for James Monroe Hewlett and can you link it for me from the GCT text I added? How do I put a divider line in to separate my text from the next person's text or a section? Thanks, Ron RonRice (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Friendly (and new) talk page stalker Hello, it seems your question is directed at Newyorkbrad, but here is a 'cheat sheet' for editing Wikipedia (if I understood one of your questions well) : Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 04:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Completely off-topic
... I was curious what you think about this. It sounds like the job market for newly minted J.D.s is pretty poor, although interestingly it hasn't seemed to slow applications to law school. I'm curious what you think the implications are for the legal profession 10 years down the line, because if you lose a generation of brand-new lawyers today, then presumably there will be a lack of experienced, prime-of-their-career lawyers a decade or so from now. The same sort of thing is happening in academic medicine, although perhaps to a lesser degree: with the substantial and ongoing contraction of federal research funding, it's nearly impossible for a novice researcher to secure the sort of funding necessary to develop a career. We're probably adequately supplied with independent researchers at present, but the same is unlikely to hold true in 10-20 years.
Medical-school debt is equally, if not more, substantial as law-school debt, but it sounds like law-school graduates are much more hard-pressed to pay it back, especially in the current economy. Medical-school graduates benefit from what is essentially a 100% employment rate, starting salaries that are sufficient to pay down debt, and federal loan-forgiveness programs for people who practice in underserved areas or stay in academia. It sounds like law-school graduates are pretty much completely at the mercy of the market, which is pretty harsh considering the price tag of a legal education. Anecdotally at least, there seems to be a proliferation of law-school graduates with crushing debt and little or no prospect of paying it back. Anyhow, perhaps this isn't an appropriate topic to discuss on Wikipedia, but I was curious to get the opinion of someone with more first-hand experience of the situation. MastCell Talk 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Content dispute or not?
I would like you or a "fully uuninvolved adminstrator" (page lurker) (as the formulaic request goes) to examine WP:Activist and its talk page to examine whether the content is related to Arbcom rulings about editor participation, or whether essays in projectspace are exempt from any Arbcom rulings about disputatious topics (including, but not limited to, Prem Rawat, Scientology, Eastern Europe, and Climate change as covered by Arbcom decisions involving groups of editors). I tried cleaning up the essay to make it neutral and non-polemic, but the banter on the talk page and the weird edits on the essay seem to indicate a potential problem therewith. Sound sufficiently carefully phrased? Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not really, no. The page is obviously an outgrowth of ARBCC, but Cla keeps pretending otherwise, so everyone else is playing along. If the pretence has become too thin to be believed any more, then it would be best to put the thing under ARBCC formally, or (better) just delete it as a WP:WASTEOFTIME William M. Connolley (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Curiously enough, I am not CLA, nor have I ever been. See, moreover, [1] for the tenor of his talk page comments, and [2] and [3] injecting the CC case indirectly himself. And again, though WMC seems to think I am CLA, I am not. Collect (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also note Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Activist and the strong delete !vote "per nom." Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course you aren't CLA. You aren't Cla either. What are you on about? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Myzsterious Mizster Jones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not notable enough as a stand-alone article. Fails WP:NSONG. Information can be included in album's article.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 11:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Little Sheila has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not notable enough as a stand-alone article. Fails WP:NSONG. Information can be included in album's article.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 11:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
General question
Am I misinterpreting WP:CFRD? 28bytes (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm also confused. RevDel only applies to the edit summary, not the actual edit, right? Does an admin need to scrub the actual edit from my talk if the edit summary wasn't offensive? And I posted to ANI because it sat on my talk for the longest time with no action, and was reverted at ANI with no action. Since I don't do IRC, I don't know how to handle such issues in the future to avoid spreading them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
To 28bytes: application of criterion 2 is a judgment call: one person's "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material" is another person's "ordinary incivility or personal attacks," and I don't think it's possible to define a sharp dividing line between the two. I personally favor erring, if at all, on the side of removing highly offensive remarks, particularly where they appear to be the interpolations of a banned troll who probably should be under a court order forbidding him from editing, as opposed to a good-faith editor who lost his or her cool in an isolated instance.
To SandyGeorgia: in general, the revision-deletion criteria apply to edits themselves and to edit summaries. However, many administrators will consider an offensive summary more in need of deletion than an offensive edit without the problematic summary. The reason is that when the edit is reverted, no one will see it the text of the edit again unless they happen to click in the history on that particular version, which usually no one will have any reason to do; whereas the edit summary, unless oversighted or rev-del'd, remains visible in the page history permanently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, NYB ... that gives me enough info to know what to do in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, NYB; I was under the impression that the "grossly insulting" etc. applied to other editors, not just to BLP subjects, but was confused by the AN/I comment that seemed to suggest otherwise. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you, it's better to err on the side of removing it if there's no encyclopedic value to it; editors shouldn't have to see that sort of attack every time they check a page history. 28bytes (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It applies to other editors or BLP subjects. That is, it applies to everyone. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create a place where people can be randomly and offensively insulted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Except by administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 10:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That appears to be mostly the prerogative of hammers. — Coren (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Once again confirming what anyone with eyes to see already knew. Abuse is OK as long as you're an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That appears to be mostly the prerogative of hammers. — Coren (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Except by administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 10:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It applies to other editors or BLP subjects. That is, it applies to everyone. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create a place where people can be randomly and offensively insulted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, NYB; I was under the impression that the "grossly insulting" etc. applied to other editors, not just to BLP subjects, but was confused by the AN/I comment that seemed to suggest otherwise. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you, it's better to err on the side of removing it if there's no encyclopedic value to it; editors shouldn't have to see that sort of attack every time they check a page history. 28bytes (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) This would usually be a cue for one of my longish wikiphilosophical essays, but I don't have time to write on at the moment at the moment, which is probably just as well. However, I strongly believe that:
(1) This is a collaborative project, which means we need to treat each other with respect and refrain from gratuitiously insulting each other. This particular refers to editors who adopt that sort of tone as part of their everyday discourse, as opposed to someone losing his or her cool once in awhile, which happens to everyone.
(2) Editors should not be blocked unless there has been serious misbehavior. There is some tension between my view that incivility and personal attacks are a serious problem and are damaging the project, and my view that blocking should always be a last resort.
The tension between these two points would dissipate if people would voluntarily tone down excessive rhetoric and the flinging of insults. This would be a Good Thing for all concerned, administrators and otherwise, but I don't suppose that my calling for it to happen will make it so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Re - Userpage
Thank you for your nice comment :) And also thank you for your postings on the Volokh Conspiracy that got me interested in the first place. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)