OccultZone (talk | contribs) →AE: new section |
|||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
::::Fine, I was too quick to revert you in the first place as well. If I written my comment first, I would have realized the policy part was OK and would have left it. I am telling you removing the <s>policy</s> guideline section before people have had a chance to comment on it going to create a hostile environment. Frankly changing it from policy to guideline is also asking for hostility. It says I do not need to wait I already know what is right. Even people who support the eventual removal won't want to participate because they won't want to part of the hostility. You decide if it should be put back. I have done my part. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
::::Fine, I was too quick to revert you in the first place as well. If I written my comment first, I would have realized the policy part was OK and would have left it. I am telling you removing the <s>policy</s> guideline section before people have had a chance to comment on it going to create a hostile environment. Frankly changing it from policy to guideline is also asking for hostility. It says I do not need to wait I already know what is right. Even people who support the eventual removal won't want to participate because they won't want to part of the hostility. You decide if it should be put back. I have done my part. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::I appreciate that you are this concerned towards preventing contention (at a topic covering slurs), if some one would revert the article scope part again, I wouldn't editwar with them and let it be till the end of the RFC though I would contest the revert and consider them to be editwarring (if you really insist, just assume [[WP:IAR]] and put that part in till the end of the RFC and remove it when it is closed.. but do ask yourself if you really want to do a pointless exercise when we've both come to clarify our concerns without contention - and it may be taken by some editor that you favour the status quo)... but as I said, it's just a way to assert that [[WP:CCC|things need to be changed]] by removing them... a fairly common practice on wikipedia (esp. [[WP:BOLD|the first instance of removal]]). For the policy part, I strongly object to it, it's plain out misleading that a wikipedia policy exists on an ''article talkpage'' to not change it to a different version from that of the one who put it there. It is worthy of atleast a behavioral check on the person who put it there in the first place to see if other concerns about the user's editing are there because I do not find it a good sign when editors claim fake policies, call themselves admins when they are not and so on (you may get the picture). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 09:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
:::::I appreciate that you are this concerned towards preventing contention (at a topic covering slurs), if some one would revert the article scope part again, I wouldn't editwar with them and let it be till the end of the RFC though I would contest the revert and consider them to be editwarring (if you really insist, just assume [[WP:IAR]] and put that part in till the end of the RFC and remove it when it is closed.. but do ask yourself if you really want to do a pointless exercise when we've both come to clarify our concerns without contention - and it may be taken by some editor that you favour the status quo)... but as I said, it's just a way to assert that [[WP:CCC|things need to be changed]] by removing them... a fairly common practice on wikipedia (esp. [[WP:BOLD|the first instance of removal]]). For the policy part, I strongly object to it, it's plain out misleading that a wikipedia policy exists on an ''article talkpage'' to not change it to a different version from that of the one who put it there. It is worthy of atleast a behavioral check on the person who put it there in the first place to see if other concerns about the user's editing are there because I do not find it a good sign when editors claim fake policies, call themselves admins when they are not and so on (you may get the picture). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 09:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
== AE == |
|||
Check [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Topgun]]. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 12:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:36, 11 December 2014
Manual archives: Semi-automatic (filtered) archives: Automatic archives: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4166.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers. |
If we were already talking on this page but the conversation is gone:
you'll find our conversation in one of the archives unless you were rude. You can revive it by creating a new discussion here and linking it to the archive and you can even move it back with attribution in edit summaries with a civil note (if you're comfortable with wiki markup).
If I have left you a message on your talk page, you can reply there, but remember to add a {{tb|replace this with your username|ts=~~~~~}} template to my talk page because I might not be watchlisting your talkpage if we don't interact regularly. I will do the same for you if you ask me to or if you have not recently commented on my talkpage in the discussion.
Note that it is 3:32 PM (+5 UTC), where I live.
- Chess, everyone!
TopGun vs. World | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chessboard | Moves | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TopGun to move... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Carpocoris purpureipennis is a species in the shield bug family, Pentatomidae. With a length of 11–13 millimetres (0.43–0.51 in), its body color varies from purple or reddish-brown to yellowish. The pronotum angles are black and the pronotum usually shows short longitudinal black stripes, while the scutellum may have some contrasting black spots. The insect's antennae are black and its legs are orange. Both the adult bugs and their nymphs are polyphagous. Adults mainly feed on juices of Cirsium arvense and nectar of Leucanthemum vulgare. These images show top and bottom views of a C. purpureipennis nymph.Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus
Nomination of GIK Institute Clock Tower for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GIK Institute Clock Tower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIK Institute Clock Tower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do you keep attacking me when I am trying to help.
Before I could even write a comment on why I reverted you, you reverted it. Am I your enemy. Do you not want my help in improving that article? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Where did I attack you? A revert is not an attack! I said the template incorrectly claims to be a wikipedia policy which is blatantly incorrect and requested you to not to blanket revert even if you disagreed on the core issue being discussed. And I gave a separate reason of NPOV for removing the other part. Please assume good faith while interacting with other editors. I know you want to help make the change, but also be advised that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I do not have to wait for a formal RFC close for something so obvious as this. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- That you make changes and revert without discussion feels like an attack. Never mind your justifications. You could keep your finger off the button long enough to talk. Right now I feel like I am wasting my time trying to create a consensus that will establish lasting change. I spent a lot of time reviewing policy and past discussions to start this RFC and your actions will derail it. Just making changes and claiming your interpretation of policy trumps anyone else's opinion will not result in lasting change. That will lead to the same argument as to what policy is over and over for years to come. Getting a lot of people on the RFC to voice their opinions will be something something to refer back to and say all these people thought the same thing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mean to derail the discussion; it was evident from my revert that it was in support of the discussion. What I said was such incorrect template didn't need an RFC to change esp the policy part. My second revert was mainly because you also reverted back in the claim that this was a policy of wikipedia defined at a talkpage of an article which is neither a venue for policies nor has enough community wide consensus. The only reason I hadn't changed it before was because I hadn't seen it until you started an RFC. That said, if you had only reverted the the article scope part I wouldn't have reverted you back then just for that and waited for the RFC. As for opinions, that's how wikipedia works, consensus comes after policy; it would have been a different thing if some one was even considering an opinion that the policy allows it and the consensus is now to decide what to do. Anyway, would it make sense for you to editwar with me over something which we both oppose in the same way? I am fully in support of your method to let the RFC run its course and have a massive consensus to further back the fact stated by NPOV and my original removal did not ask for a WP:SNOW RFC close, just a WP:SNOW removal. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine, I was too quick to revert you in the first place as well. If I written my comment first, I would have realized the policy part was OK and would have left it. I am telling you removing the
policyguideline section before people have had a chance to comment on it going to create a hostile environment. Frankly changing it from policy to guideline is also asking for hostility. It says I do not need to wait I already know what is right. Even people who support the eventual removal won't want to participate because they won't want to part of the hostility. You decide if it should be put back. I have done my part. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)- I appreciate that you are this concerned towards preventing contention (at a topic covering slurs), if some one would revert the article scope part again, I wouldn't editwar with them and let it be till the end of the RFC though I would contest the revert and consider them to be editwarring (if you really insist, just assume WP:IAR and put that part in till the end of the RFC and remove it when it is closed.. but do ask yourself if you really want to do a pointless exercise when we've both come to clarify our concerns without contention - and it may be taken by some editor that you favour the status quo)... but as I said, it's just a way to assert that things need to be changed by removing them... a fairly common practice on wikipedia (esp. the first instance of removal). For the policy part, I strongly object to it, it's plain out misleading that a wikipedia policy exists on an article talkpage to not change it to a different version from that of the one who put it there. It is worthy of atleast a behavioral check on the person who put it there in the first place to see if other concerns about the user's editing are there because I do not find it a good sign when editors claim fake policies, call themselves admins when they are not and so on (you may get the picture). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine, I was too quick to revert you in the first place as well. If I written my comment first, I would have realized the policy part was OK and would have left it. I am telling you removing the
- I don't mean to derail the discussion; it was evident from my revert that it was in support of the discussion. What I said was such incorrect template didn't need an RFC to change esp the policy part. My second revert was mainly because you also reverted back in the claim that this was a policy of wikipedia defined at a talkpage of an article which is neither a venue for policies nor has enough community wide consensus. The only reason I hadn't changed it before was because I hadn't seen it until you started an RFC. That said, if you had only reverted the the article scope part I wouldn't have reverted you back then just for that and waited for the RFC. As for opinions, that's how wikipedia works, consensus comes after policy; it would have been a different thing if some one was even considering an opinion that the policy allows it and the consensus is now to decide what to do. Anyway, would it make sense for you to editwar with me over something which we both oppose in the same way? I am fully in support of your method to let the RFC run its course and have a massive consensus to further back the fact stated by NPOV and my original removal did not ask for a WP:SNOW RFC close, just a WP:SNOW removal. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- That you make changes and revert without discussion feels like an attack. Never mind your justifications. You could keep your finger off the button long enough to talk. Right now I feel like I am wasting my time trying to create a consensus that will establish lasting change. I spent a lot of time reviewing policy and past discussions to start this RFC and your actions will derail it. Just making changes and claiming your interpretation of policy trumps anyone else's opinion will not result in lasting change. That will lead to the same argument as to what policy is over and over for years to come. Getting a lot of people on the RFC to voice their opinions will be something something to refer back to and say all these people thought the same thing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
AE
Check Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Topgun. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)