Prosfilaes (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
: Oh, please. The 3RR rule is one of the most unambigious rules we have and you've broken it at least twice, with accompaning warnings. You've been warned about reverting; and while many of us have been involved in revert wars, not to our credit, in my experience normal revert wars last no more than 5 to 10 edits. Someone reverting an article 40 times is exceptional, and a problem. More over, even the worst newbie would know that writing "corrected typo" for an edit changing most of the article is dishonest, especially when they know the change is controversial. That's not newbie; that's simple honesty.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
: Oh, please. The 3RR rule is one of the most unambigious rules we have and you've broken it at least twice, with accompaning warnings. You've been warned about reverting; and while many of us have been involved in revert wars, not to our credit, in my experience normal revert wars last no more than 5 to 10 edits. Someone reverting an article 40 times is exceptional, and a problem. More over, even the worst newbie would know that writing "corrected typo" for an edit changing most of the article is dishonest, especially when they know the change is controversial. That's not newbie; that's simple honesty.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
Your POV. Suggests "intent" and "dishonesty" without assuming good faith FIRST. You see, I am learning quite a lot from Jimbo Wales.[[User:Theodore7|Theo]] 19:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:27, 14 January 2006
Note: Please visit Chris Brennan's Talk Page for a record of prior discussions between himself and Theodore7. This may shed some light on what Theo says is Chris' campaign, along with PL - to bite a newcomer. Seems Theo did in fact approach Chris several times with offers to work together, and was rebuffed, as shown by Chris' efforts for an RFC against Theo - going against Jimbo Wales' policy & principles on Wikipedia newcomers like Theodore7.Theo 15:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Alas, the comments listed above reflect directly the sort of thing he has been doing on the Nostradamus article as well. While attempts are currently being made on the associated Talk page to reach some sort of rational accommodation with him, the article has had to be locked and protected first. It may be sensible to request this as well. To my mind, he is a prime candidate for banning from Wikipedia, since (to put no finer point on it!) he seems incapable of observing its rules. --PL 09:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Theo Response: Considering your placing a personal flag that stakes a "claim" on the Nostradamus article PL, and treating me as your "opponent" from the very start - I can see why you would want "Theo" banned from Wikipedia after joining Wikipedia a month ago. That is what started this whole thing. If I had not stumbled onto your extremely negative POV on the Wiki subject, I shudder to think what you might got away with. I consider you very rude, and your edits on Nostradamus some of the worst I've ever seen on this subject. And that is saying a lot, since, as a Nostradamus scholar and expert myself, that never have I seen such a hateful treatment of a primary subject as Nostradamus printed anywhere expect here on Wikipedia, and of course, in your own work Peter Lemesurier. You should be ashamed of yourself. I mean this. For a man who claims to be an "expert" on Nostradamus, your edits, and Talk Page comments on this subhject are some of the most extreme POV I've ever seen as 20-year veteran journalist. It does not do Wikipedia justice. I know people who will not use your own work on Nostradamus because of your hostile treatment. Your prior writings on this subject reflect your similar edits on the Wiki-Nostradamus page. Moreover, your prior history shows that you have alinated Nostradamus scholars whom you've also falsely accused, as you've done here (without proof) of plagiarism. This includes Nostradamus himself. You should be ashamed of yourself.Theo 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Notification of RfC
Please note that the user was not notified of his RfC until 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC) —BorgHunter (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't listed the RfC yet on the main page where they are submitted. I was waiting until the request was finished before posting it officially. --Chris Brennan 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Submit?
So, should I submit this now and post it on the main RfC page, or should I wait for Theo's comments? --Chris Brennan 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- My understanding is you should go ahead and list it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh. I've listed it, I didn't realize you were holding off on purpose. Please change the wording if it's not what you had in mind. But a request in Wikipedia space is official — is "submitted" — anyway; if something's merely a draft, it should stay in your userspace till it's good to go. Anyway, I don't see a problem now. You absolutely don't need to wait for Theo to respond; for one thing, some people never do. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
Ok, thanks for doing that. --Chris Brennan 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Message to Theo about how to post on the RFC
- Crossposted from User talk:Theodore7
Hi, Theo, I see that you are commenting on your RFC right now. I was going to move some of your comments to the right place — i. e. to your own section, "Response" — but I see from the timestamps that you may well still be editing in there, and I want to avoid edit conflicting you. The thing is, though, an RFC isn't like a talkpage: each section is intended for a particular user or users, and experience has shown that if people interject comment and rebuttals in the other sections, the whole thing will soon become impossible to follow or make sense of. That's why the format is pretty strict. Please note where it says "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" at the top of the page. Please write in "Response" only, that section is yours exclusively. The best thing would be if you moved all your comments there yourself, so that you get them organized the way you want them. I think you'll find it works just as well — better, IMO, since it means that your section also will not shredded by interjected commentary — and you can always label different parts of your text "Response to X", Rebuttal of Y", or whatever. For threaded discussions, there's also this talkpage. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
Theo, please try to stay in your own section
Theo, I just moved yet another passage, that you'd posted in my Outside view section. Please try to remember about staying in your own section. And I have a comment about your plaint that the people posting on the RFC need to "walk a mile in newbie shoes". Has it ever struck you that we've ALL done that? Think about it. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed, thanks for correcting that. And to answer your question: yes, it has struck me, and if so, then many have surely forgotten what it's like, considering I've just heard from one Wikipedian who advised me concerning the widespread "revert wars" and just how common they are on Wikipedia. No wonder I've been accused of "reverting" - seems this crew seems to have had much more "practice" with reverts than I. Have you ever considered that I could possibly be telling the truth, and not only that, rather than "milking" the biting newbie line - but, perhaps, just perhaps, Theodore7 might just be the victim here, and maybe some others haven't been assuming "good faith" as the founder states Wikipedians should do? Have you all possibly ever considered that?Theo 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please. The 3RR rule is one of the most unambigious rules we have and you've broken it at least twice, with accompaning warnings. You've been warned about reverting; and while many of us have been involved in revert wars, not to our credit, in my experience normal revert wars last no more than 5 to 10 edits. Someone reverting an article 40 times is exceptional, and a problem. More over, even the worst newbie would know that writing "corrected typo" for an edit changing most of the article is dishonest, especially when they know the change is controversial. That's not newbie; that's simple honesty.--Prosfilaes 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Your POV. Suggests "intent" and "dishonesty" without assuming good faith FIRST. You see, I am learning quite a lot from Jimbo Wales.Theo 19:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)