| Revision as of 05:17, 21 January 2013 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,202 edits →prior accounts← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:29, 21 January 2013 edit undoThe Editorial Voice (talk | contribs)100 edits →prior accountsNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| :::::Thank you. Let me be equally clear: I've reviewed your edit history, and I see that you only put this question to new accounts that express opinions that you disagree with. What's more, you just admitted that your question was intentionally deceptive, and that my perception that it was a veiled accusation of wrongdoing was accurate. I view your behavior here as an intimidation tactic, which, IMO, violates ]. Please knock it off. ] (]) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | :::::Thank you. Let me be equally clear: I've reviewed your edit history, and I see that you only put this question to new accounts that express opinions that you disagree with. What's more, you just admitted that your question was intentionally deceptive, and that my perception that it was a veiled accusation of wrongdoing was accurate. I view your behavior here as an intimidation tactic, which, IMO, violates ]. Please knock it off. ] (]) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Intentionally deceptive? And you say I am violating CIVIL? No, it was not intentionally deceptive; it was a straightforward yes or no question. But since you've managed to review thousands and thousands of edits in the short time youve had this account, Ill get to work reviewing in more detail the ones that you have made with this account. Toodles, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | ::::::Intentionally deceptive? And you say I am violating CIVIL? No, it was not intentionally deceptive; it was a straightforward yes or no question. But since you've managed to review thousands and thousands of edits in the short time youve had this account, Ill get to work reviewing in more detail the ones that you have made with this account. Toodles, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :::::::Asking one question ("Have you ever used a prior account?") when your intention is something else ("I suspect you're violating Misplaced Pages policy; are you?") ''is'' intentionally deceptive. And I didn't claim to have reviewed your entire edit history; I stopped after finding and . When may I expect my ARBPIA notice? ] (]) 05:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:29, 21 January 2013
Welcome!
Hello, The Editorial Voice, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Main page errors
Thanks for contributing to checking over DYK. I have responded on the main page errors page -- in summary, the source supports the stronger formulation of the hook. If you'd like to help out in this area in future (and more eyes are always welcome), you might like to check over upcoming DYKs in the queue and prep areas. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
prior accounts
Have you ever used a prior account on Misplaced Pages? nableezy - 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't answer to you, friend. The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Im not asking you to answer to me. nableezy - 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was idiomatic. Let me put it differently: I'm suspicious of your motives for asking that question, and I'm not obliged to answer it. The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well then, let me state my motives in the interest of allaying your fears. When I see a "new" editor demonstrate an odd tendency to, in rapid succession, edit a series of articles in multiple topics that I had recently edited, I on occasion get the suspicion that this "new" account is not actually a "new" editor. Then I look at their edits, and that suspicion is either lessened or heightened. If heightened, I ask the user in question if they are in fact a "new" editor. If the answer is no, I ask them what their prior accounts were. If those prior accounts do not make the use of this new account a violation of WP:SOCK I go on my merry way. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that people think they are smarter than they actually are and either lie or try to bluster it out, as though not answering a simple yes or no question makes it soooo much more difficult to figure out what that past account was. But its up to you if you dont want to answer, of course. nableezy - 04:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let me be equally clear: I've reviewed your edit history, and I see that you only put this question to new accounts that express opinions that you disagree with. What's more, you just admitted that your question was intentionally deceptive, and that my perception that it was a veiled accusation of wrongdoing was accurate. I view your behavior here as an intimidation tactic, which, IMO, violates WP:CIVIL. Please knock it off. The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Intentionally deceptive? And you say I am violating CIVIL? No, it was not intentionally deceptive; it was a straightforward yes or no question. But since you've managed to review thousands and thousands of edits in the short time youve had this account, Ill get to work reviewing in more detail the ones that you have made with this account. Toodles, nableezy - 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Asking one question ("Have you ever used a prior account?") when your intention is something else ("I suspect you're violating Misplaced Pages policy; are you?") is intentionally deceptive. And I didn't claim to have reviewed your entire edit history; I stopped after finding this this this this this this and this. When may I expect my ARBPIA notice? The Editorial Voice (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Intentionally deceptive? And you say I am violating CIVIL? No, it was not intentionally deceptive; it was a straightforward yes or no question. But since you've managed to review thousands and thousands of edits in the short time youve had this account, Ill get to work reviewing in more detail the ones that you have made with this account. Toodles, nableezy - 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let me be equally clear: I've reviewed your edit history, and I see that you only put this question to new accounts that express opinions that you disagree with. What's more, you just admitted that your question was intentionally deceptive, and that my perception that it was a veiled accusation of wrongdoing was accurate. I view your behavior here as an intimidation tactic, which, IMO, violates WP:CIVIL. Please knock it off. The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well then, let me state my motives in the interest of allaying your fears. When I see a "new" editor demonstrate an odd tendency to, in rapid succession, edit a series of articles in multiple topics that I had recently edited, I on occasion get the suspicion that this "new" account is not actually a "new" editor. Then I look at their edits, and that suspicion is either lessened or heightened. If heightened, I ask the user in question if they are in fact a "new" editor. If the answer is no, I ask them what their prior accounts were. If those prior accounts do not make the use of this new account a violation of WP:SOCK I go on my merry way. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that people think they are smarter than they actually are and either lie or try to bluster it out, as though not answering a simple yes or no question makes it soooo much more difficult to figure out what that past account was. But its up to you if you dont want to answer, of course. nableezy - 04:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was idiomatic. Let me put it differently: I'm suspicious of your motives for asking that question, and I'm not obliged to answer it. The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Im not asking you to answer to me. nableezy - 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)