| Revision as of 07:21, 4 April 2007 editThe Behnam (talk | contribs)6,824 edits →Cease your stalking: re - silly accusation← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:22, 4 April 2007 edit undoArmenianJoe (talk | contribs)112 edits do not remove warningsNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| It's clear that you're stalking me on several articles you've never edited or shown interest in, such as ] or ]. I'm asking you stop this harassment immediately, before I take any further action. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | It's clear that you're stalking me on several articles you've never edited or shown interest in, such as ] or ]. I'm asking you stop this harassment immediately, before I take any further action. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | ||
| That is quite an accusation there! Contribs pages are public, and it is perfectly acceptable to see what certain users, such as those who revert blindly and shirk discussion, are up to. This helps catch poor editing elsewhere, such as more blind reverts at Koryun. As far as Persian Gulf goes, I saw that the page is protected and realized that this is because they are ignoring ]. Policies and guidelines are always a good place to start. I quote the ArbCom decision mentioned in ], | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| "''It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.''" | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| I suspect bad faith because you blindly reverted and did not constructively discuss the dispute. You demonstrated that you do not care about actually cooperating with other editors to ''work out'' disagreements and that you prefer to blindly revert articles. With this in mind I looked at some of your contribs to see if you did the same elsewhere, and indeed, I found you doing so at ]. You were taking out cited information without any real argument whatsoever, simply claiming that a modern source (unnamed) shows that those people are wrong. I asked you to support your claim by adding information instead, but you did not heed this advice. Such behavior is, to quote you, "''contrary to the collaborative spirit of wikipedia, where users are acquired to reach consensus with opposing parties.''" So, I suggest you retract your silly accusation and improve your editing habits instead, or else ''you'' may be the one facing a report. I rest my case. ] 07:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:22, 4 April 2007
Hey Behnam
We had an awkward discussion in RFCN regarding the fart guy . You were of course right, I should have disallowed in the first place, because that particular excretory function (fart) may be offensive. However, my point about other excretory functions which are not offensive, still stands. There was no OR involved; as I linked both articles (tears and sweat). I think we should reword the policy to allow common sense come into play for such names. I propose we reword "are included" to "may include". The other option would be to list the offensive excretory functions only (which I find WP:CREEPy, but would also work). What do you think? NikoSilver 11:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I think it is worth discussion. It needs clarification; obviously 'fart' is bad and 'breath' is alright. My preliminary suggestion actually sides with the 'creep' option, but I'm willing to consider others. But maybe you can hold off until that troll is gone? If you look at the talk pages I think you will see what I mean. I'm afraid our attempt at resolving the matter would be disrupted by him. Tell me what you think. The Behnam 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- In defense of the 'creep' idea, I think that it is important for us to actually get the specifics forbidden in this case. So many people showed up pretending 'fart' is not an offensive or rude word in English that it really made a mockery of the RFCN. Perhaps if we get it to be explicitly worded it can't happen again. The Behnam 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, looking at the 'non-creepy' instruction properties at WP:CREEP, it appears that specifying in this case will prevent problems and actually agree with those three rules entirely. But maybe I misinterpret. The Behnam 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fart is only one aspect of a greater problem, I'm afraid. A similar example would be that of "TortureIsWrong", which is a "real world violent action" but may be interpreted as non-offensive (in my view at least -and regardless of other issues which you note). Same goes for the rest of the bulleted list there:
- Acceptable/debatable excretory IMO: Sweat, tears etc (well -not always, but depending on context)
- Acceptable/debatable violent actions: TortureIsWrong, NoMoreDeath...
- Acceptable/debatable illness: IgotTheFlu, NoChickenPops... (if you disagree with a particular example don't make an issue, I'm sure we can think of more)
- I'm afraid that list goes on and on in virtually all ban-able examples, and I still believe that our best defense is simple: Common Sense. However, I will still endorse the ..."creepy" solution :-), if it is comprehensive, but if something is specified in violation of 'common sense' I still think we should allow it in practice. I also think we should disallow something that is not specified which again we find offensive with our common sense. What do you think? NikoSilver 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fart is only one aspect of a greater problem, I'm afraid. A similar example would be that of "TortureIsWrong", which is a "real world violent action" but may be interpreted as non-offensive (in my view at least -and regardless of other issues which you note). Same goes for the rest of the bulleted list there:
- In fact, looking at the 'non-creepy' instruction properties at WP:CREEP, it appears that specifying in this case will prevent problems and actually agree with those three rules entirely. But maybe I misinterpret. The Behnam 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- In defense of the 'creep' idea, I think that it is important for us to actually get the specifics forbidden in this case. So many people showed up pretending 'fart' is not an offensive or rude word in English that it really made a mockery of the RFCN. Perhaps if we get it to be explicitly worded it can't happen again. The Behnam 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to go so I'll be more thorough later, but I was thinking more on the excretory point just specifying. Basically, things like 'fart' and 'vomit' don't have acceptable forms. I mean, we will never allow User:FartingIsWrong or its vomit/upchuck equivalent. I am thinking that such things could be specified, though I wonder about things like hurl, which I believe is a vomit synonym but may have reasonable acceptable meanings depending upon context. I'll get back to you later. The Behnam 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
TIW to AN
Behnam, see the conversation that was moved from here to here. Cascadia 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR
I believe you have broken the 3RR on the article 300 (film). Agha Nader 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- I'll revert myself if possible. The Behnam 23:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- At second glance that last one appears to be spam (a guy promoting his own article) so I'm inclined to think that it doesn't qualify under 3RR. The Behnam 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Bolding
There is no policy whatsoever to prevent editors from bolding their comments for effect. The fact remains that they ignore the fact that it is a fictional work and the film makers have acknowledged this. If Arcayne doesn't like the bolding, tough luck. They cannot ignore the facts. Khorshid 04:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've crossed the bolding because it is generally fine and I myself use it on occasion. I do maintain that YELLING should be avoided. See your talk. The Behnam 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Cease your stalking
It's clear that you're stalking me on several articles you've never edited or shown interest in, such as Koryun or Persian gulf. I'm asking you stop this harassment immediately, before I take any further action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmenianJoe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC).