| Revision as of 00:11, 20 April 2007 view sourceFriday (talk | contribs)19,776 edits →Editing others' comments: an important difference← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:51, 20 April 2007 view source Loomis51 (talk | contribs)4,197 edits →Editing others' commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::Lewis, an important difference is that you've been showing really bad judgment on what is or isn't appropriate to delete. If you think this is a double standard, you're right. Misplaced Pages has a double standard on purpose: reasonable actions are treated differently than unreasonable actions. ] ] 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | ::Lewis, an important difference is that you've been showing really bad judgment on what is or isn't appropriate to delete. If you think this is a double standard, you're right. Misplaced Pages has a double standard on purpose: reasonable actions are treated differently than unreasonable actions. ] ] 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Does this somehow account for why Clio (amongst others) is basically allowed to dish out the most vile of personal attacks upon me without even the slightest of criticism, whereas eric is allowed to delete an entire post of mine that disagreed with hers, yet never either explicitly nor even implicitly consisted of any personal attack on her in any shape or form? And now ''you're'' preaching to ''me'' about "bad judgment"? | |||
| :::For example, just the other day, in response to a post of mine, Vranak responded with three simple words: "You are boring." How would you describe that statement? Is it just me, or was that pretty much the very definition of a personal attack? If you caught that one, yet decided that ''in your judgment'' it didn't amount to a personal attack and didn't warrant a comment on his talkpage, I'd say that it is ''your'' judgment, not mine, that is sorely deficient. But maybe you missed it because it was just so short and so unimaginative. That's perfectly understandable. However, now that it's been brought to your attention, I would only expect that it would be a mere matter of common sense for you to bring to his attention the fact that he was clearly in violation of ] and insist that he refrain from such personal attacks in the future. As I said, it's a mere matter of common sense. Yet should you decide not to act, it would be equally a matter of common sense as well as the clearest of proof that you actually consciously condone personal attacks upon me. | |||
| :::Put yourself in my shoes. Can you honestly tell me that if you were expected to be civil and polite at all times, yet the admins openly condone others making the most blatant of personal attacks upon you, you wouldn't be any less frustrated by it all than I am? And what do you think is driving all this admittedly disruptive behaviour of mine but the sheer frustration of it all? C'mon Friday, be honest with me. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The answer is so incredibly simple. All I ask for is to be treated with a minimum degree of respect, and only that same minimum that I'm expected to treat others with. What I just can't understand is why that simple, modest request is considered so unreasonable. Hopefully you'll acknowledge and understand, and as a responsible admin, put in your best effort to let the rest of the know that they're expected to treat me with the esame degree of respect as I am expected to treat them. Otherwise, can you really blame me for being deliberately disruptive in an environment where the admins openly condone and perhaps even encourage others to treat me with no respect whatsoever, yet where I'm expected to behave in a completely respectful manner towards all others? Of course you can't. I'm sure you'd react in very similar fashion. ] 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:51, 20 April 2007
Please delete my account. I realize that my edits will remain in history and have no problem with that whatsoever. I simply no longer have any interest in contributing to Misplaced Pages. Lewis 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Editing others' comments
Please do not delete the comments of others from talkpages. If you believe a personal attack has occurred, you can ask the individual to retract them or, if serious enough, you can replace them with <personal attack removed>. Thank you. Rockpocket 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just curious, does this "directive" of yours apply to everyone or just people you disagree with? How about we make a deal. Copy this post, go to eric's talkpage, paste a copy there, and I'll gladly do as you suggest and never delete another's post. Should a policy apply equally to everyone, I'll observe it with enthusiasm. Otherwise, if it's applied unequally, I have no respect for it, and see no purpose in paying even the slightest bit of attention to it. Lewis 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lewis, an important difference is that you've been showing really bad judgment on what is or isn't appropriate to delete. If you think this is a double standard, you're right. Misplaced Pages has a double standard on purpose: reasonable actions are treated differently than unreasonable actions. Friday (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Does this somehow account for why Clio (amongst others) is basically allowed to dish out the most vile of personal attacks upon me without even the slightest of criticism, whereas eric is allowed to delete an entire post of mine that disagreed with hers, yet never either explicitly nor even implicitly consisted of any personal attack on her in any shape or form? And now you're preaching to me about "bad judgment"?
- For example, just the other day, in response to a post of mine, Vranak responded with three simple words: "You are boring." How would you describe that statement? Is it just me, or was that pretty much the very definition of a personal attack? If you caught that one, yet decided that in your judgment it didn't amount to a personal attack and didn't warrant a comment on his talkpage, I'd say that it is your judgment, not mine, that is sorely deficient. But maybe you missed it because it was just so short and so unimaginative. That's perfectly understandable. However, now that it's been brought to your attention, I would only expect that it would be a mere matter of common sense for you to bring to his attention the fact that he was clearly in violation of WP:NPA and insist that he refrain from such personal attacks in the future. As I said, it's a mere matter of common sense. Yet should you decide not to act, it would be equally a matter of common sense as well as the clearest of proof that you actually consciously condone personal attacks upon me.
- Put yourself in my shoes. Can you honestly tell me that if you were expected to be civil and polite at all times, yet the admins openly condone others making the most blatant of personal attacks upon you, you wouldn't be any less frustrated by it all than I am? And what do you think is driving all this admittedly disruptive behaviour of mine but the sheer frustration of it all? C'mon Friday, be honest with me. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The answer is so incredibly simple. All I ask for is to be treated with a minimum degree of respect, and only that same minimum that I'm expected to treat others with. What I just can't understand is why that simple, modest request is considered so unreasonable. Hopefully you'll acknowledge and understand, and as a responsible admin, put in your best effort to let the rest of the know that they're expected to treat me with the esame degree of respect as I am expected to treat them. Otherwise, can you really blame me for being deliberately disruptive in an environment where the admins openly condone and perhaps even encourage others to treat me with no respect whatsoever, yet where I'm expected to behave in a completely respectful manner towards all others? Of course you can't. I'm sure you'd react in very similar fashion. Lewis 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)