Rules for this Talk Page
- DO NOT LEAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY ARTICLE OR ANY EDIT THAT I HAVE MADE. I watch all articles that I edit (and some that I haven't). If you have an issue, be mature and post it to the article's talk page, where all editors might participate. Violate this rule, and I just delete your complaints, rants, or even polite suggestions with no comment whatsoever. Deal with it.
- Do not come to this page to say hi, because no one is a friend of mine here–any attempt in being friendly is fairly annoying. If I want to drop by and be friendly, I have Twitter and Facebook that are part of my skeptical and personal life. I don't know any of you here, and I probably wouldn't want to know any of you. Nothing personal, but Wikipedia is not a social website (I believe that's a rule).
- Do not come here to criticize anything I've done, because I'm uninterested in anything but editing.
- Do not drop barnstars, pictures, or anything on this page, because those are just lame.
- Don't warn me about anything, because other than editing, I don't engage in any other discussions. Unless you're an official admin. Then I might listen, as long as I respect you. If you're a 15 year old, you don't deserve or warrant any respect whatsoever, even if you're an admin. Besides, any 15 year old wasting time as an admin, ought to go get exercise before you turn into a fat, diabetic, atherosclerotic 20 year old. Moreover, what can a snot nosed 15 year old teach me? How to play video games? Unless you're a Stephen Hawking prodigy, once again, go get some exercise. In other words, get off your lazy ass and leave Wikipedia to educated adults. Who am I kidding? Kids could care less what this old fart says.
- If you don't like my edits, revert them with a valid explanation, I'll probably fine tune it or move on. I have no emotional concern about any article, but if you do, I will enjoy making you appear to be the biggest ass and fool on Wikipedia. I've already done that recently.
In conclusion, just stay away from my page, because I just am uninterested in engaging in conversation with anyone. Again, unless you're a mature, respectful admin. From my observation, that's about 10 of you.
|
Archives
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
None of your business
...it seems you wish to continue reverting edits concerning the Homeopaths v Homeopathy without discussion. Hence me having to talk here :) Can you please continue discussing on the talk page, thankyou Cjwilky (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be here for my weekly water delivery. Thanks. Please set the bottles over in the kitchen. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you discuss on the talk pages rather than persist in the reversions that you have been. Its far more constructive that way. Simple and direct question here - is "skepticalraptor" your first wiki editing user account? Cjwilky (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The question above remains unanswered by you.
- It seems that despite requests for you to discuss, you don't, having had yet another blitz of revertions on the homeopathy page since my last post. This is unhelpful to the editors on the page. What problem do you have with discussion? It seems that your story goes "skepticalraptor is right, so f*** you"... you've as good as said that here - is this how the future lies with you?
- And I'm still waiting for an apology for your incorrect accusation of me breaking the law.Cjwilky (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be careful with edits like this one? Whatever you think about Behe's credibility as a scientist, he is a living person and WP:BLP does apply on discussion pages as much as anywhere else. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong. I'm right. Case closed. Go away. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't go away. You're wrong. I'm right. If you do this again I shall block you. Do as you wish. Act wisely. --John (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Threats? Well, I've always found threats to be the tool of the intellectually and morally weak. Not being a coward, but understanding how the game is played, Michael Behe is off my watch list. Ken Ham too. Now go give your fellow Admins a high five that you got the best of another editor, because I'm crying over here. Really sad. I'll stick with the geology articles, ok? Thanks for straightening out my simple mind. Besides, probably shouldn't write about Ken Ham, since we're having an ongoing flame war over the internet. I'm winning. He's losing. Case closed. :) OK, enjoy the beers. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2] and [3] are all well over the line as far as maintaining a professional editing atmosphere is concerned. I'm not going to bother linking you to the relevant policies (in the usual trite fashion), because I am quite sure that you have read them already, but please bear in mind that sympathetic as I am to the goal of keeping pseudoscience promotion off Wikipedia, we have to maintain some pretence of collegiality, because otherwise the end result is lengthy arbitration cases full of tears, mass bannings, and neglected articles. There's nothing wrong with detachedly telling people that their nonsense is nonsense, but "Your opinion means what? Oh, I don't care", or implying that people are "delusional anti-science jerks" - really, no thanks. Please bear this in mind. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point out these rules, what you call policies. You do realize that they're 1000's of them, people use them to get their way, and no one knows them all. I promise to read them. I promise not to call lame-ass anti-science cretins, lame-ass anti-sceince cretins. I'll find a better euphemism. "Sweet individuals who are slightly mistaken on what makes science." How's that? By the way, throwing a bunch of diffs--Do you think I'm an idiot who doesn't know what I'm doing? Do you know how insulting it is? Oh, right you have to do that because you have to prove to everyone how you treat another editor, and because you have that ADMIN power that makes you GOD!!!!! Don't reply. I'll find the 4000 conflicting rules myself. While I'm defecating. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise that I am actually trying to help you here? Instead of responding to my post with a diarrhoeal discharge of rudeness, perhaps you could have stopped to think and consequently realised that I am not trying to play God, but prevent a future situation where you step over the line again and get blocked, causing (doubtless) vast drama on WP:ANI, hurt feelings all round, and an enormous amount of wasted time. I am very well aware of the problems that pseudoscience promotion causes on Wikipedia, and indeed many years ago I set up Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard as a place for people to talk about and discuss issues concerning fringe theories/pseudoscience/other BS, and to work on establishing a good way for Wikipedia to deal with them and their promotion. But acting like a bully and a jerk causes more problems than it solves, and if you thought about it for more than 5 seconds you would see this. Now, 5 seconds is an awfully long time, and thought is a precious commodity, but you really should see that being rude is simply superfluous and it is perfectly possible to politely dispose of the purveyors of nonsense without resorting to overheated rhetoric.
- Grrr. Alright, that's that off my chest. Apologies for the snark, but please, please realise that I really do value the work you are doing and would like to see you carry on, just with slightly more light and less heat. You'll be both more effective in discussion and will have no problems in the future from anyone reporting you to my more trigger-happy brethren.
- As for what to read, there are many different interpretations of WP:CIVIL, but the best is probably User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism, which I highly recommend. Best, Moreschi (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll stick with the fun articles. That way you don't have to threaten me too. Going into my most passive aggressive personality and say, "oh it's so painful what you've done. I promise, I'll listen to you Admin Gods."SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SkepticalRaptor! You've deleted RS edits from several different users at the acupuncture page without giving a rationale (stating that you find them POV doesn't count, I'm afraid). Please don't. Please let us to discuss your objections at the discussion page instead. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've noticed lots and lots of similarities between your edits (mainspace, talkspace, you name it) and User:Orangemarlin's. Are you a sock of the latter? If so, hello, and you need to talk to the admin who banned you before editing any more. If not, then I've confused you with another editor who was habitually uncollaborative, hostile and sometimes careless, and you need to stop being all those things. Thanks. Middle 8 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|