Guidelines for my talk page:
- Please include your comments at the bottom of any existing discussion.
- Be civil at all times;
- Fix any mistakes I make;
- Give me at least 24 hours to a few days to respond. I edit Misplaced Pages sporadically.
- Please do not put substituted warnings on my talk page - I have edited Misplaced Pages for years, mostly as an unregistered user. Such warnings are condescending and will be removed.
- Any messages should be in English, and as clear and as legible as possible. As long as I know what you're saying to me, it's okay.
- If you have a request for me, please be aware that, unless dictated by policy or behavioural guideline, a member of the Arbitration Committee or Wikimedia Foundation (either paid employee or advisory board), or Jimbo Wales, I am not bound by your request, but will take it into consideration.
- I reserve the right to remove any threads or revert any edits that I percieve to be in bad faith.
- Violations of these guidelines may result in your post being removed or ignored.
|
|
Please
Zen, please don't post any off-wiki content here. It's a bad idea anyway you look at it. I realize that there is an issue, but please remember that any such post can be altered, so it's not reliable. In addition, it will open up a huge can of worms because it's not actionable and can only cause strife for all involved. the_undertow 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is what you say true? For instance, as I understand it, any and all relevant information can be used by administrators. It just so happens that it's usually only Misplaced Pages edits. In the case of something like WP:COI, outside information is critical.
- I don't want to dig up any can of worms. Since IRC logs are not actionable, how should I write the posting to WP:ANI? I re-included the post but removed the quote from IRC. Is merely mentioning the IRC discussion okay? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the Wikimedia IRC channels are a separate project, not part of the English Misplaced Pages and therefore complaining to people here isn't likely to help. You should instead pursue the IRC dispute resolution system, which ends with me.
- James F. (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, you're the one I should speak to, then.
A lot of sysops on your IRC are rude and immature, in general. I don't think there's very adequate oversight over the stuff they do and it's fairly like that they've done a lot of stuff you might not agree with. Or perhaps you do. I don't know. I'm not going to contest my ban, since I don't think it would do much good. Plus, by deciding to not contest my ban, it sort of gives credibility to the FACT that I'm not just some wild troll. Generally, trolls wouldn't particularly care about anything other than being able to get away with more bad behavior.
With that said, you might find the following information useful:
NotASpy aka User:Nick blocked me for "racial and religious bigotry," in Misplaced Pages-en for 6 hours -- thinking it was 24-hours or 7 days or something like that, since after I initially asked about it, I got conflicting responses about how long I was banned for and Gambit said to Nick that he did something wrong. I was banned for saying that that I hate Japanese language and culture, except their religion, which is neither racially or religiously bigoted. That summary -- the part about "religious bigotry," demonstrates that it was a knee-jerk reaction. When I tried to seek some kind of IRC dispute resolution in wikimedia-ops and wikipedia, Nick checked the bot's ban summary for me (since he apparently screwed up and entered something wrong). It was at this point that I saw the part about "religious and racial bigotry." After seeing the the IRC's bot pop out the ban summary "religious and racial bigotry," I told Nick he should read more carefully and called him a nitwit. A second later, I realized how foolish it was for me to say that, so I apologized. Wasn't good enough. His ego had already been damaged. He upped the ban from Misplaced Pages-en to 7 days for comments made in a totally different room. In further discussions, him and Gambit were subtly taunting me.
Later, Nick seemed to revise his assertion for why he accused me of "racism," by bringing up the fact that I said German Misplaced Pages was the most efficiently-run -- essentially an absurd assertion that I'm a Neonazi. Then somebody made this account . God knows why, but somebody else in the IRC discovered it and posted it and I sort of got the distinct feeling from it that Nick or somebody created it as "false" evidence or something. Maybe that's just paranoia.
I see now how I have to "step more lightly." But still, the sysops in IRC act like corrupt policemen. It would be a good thing if any of their bans required actual IRC conversation clips and not just self-authored summaries which can be pure fiction. And it would be good, for transparency, if they could not issue bans through private msg's to the bots, so that people could see if any ridicule summaries are made, like the one above. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A simple note
I've had very few (if any) involvements with you during my time involved with Misplaced Pages. So, as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that it may be time for you to strongly consider whether or not to continue participating in this project. From your recent comments and actions on this wiki, it seems to me that you no longer wish to be involved in a helpful manner. I'm referring to some of your posts on Jimbo's user talk page, WP:ANI, and elsewhere.
All I am asking is that you take a step back and consider your future with this project. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Like MZMcBride I've never interacted with you, as far as I know. I fundamentally agree with his concerns, but I'm unable to match his politeness. I think that reminding you of this is in order right now:
- "Don't be a dick" is the fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along is a special case of it. Although nobody on WP is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick (as this would be an instance of being a dick), it is still a bad idea to be one. So don't do it.
- No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right.
- Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are.
henrik•talk 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Henrik, you are right and I admit that sometimes I am a dick, and I tried to avoid it as much as possible, and try to apologize when it happens. Everything you've said above is correct and I agree with it.
With that said, Misplaced Pages is overrun by dicks who I find it very difficult to collaborate with, because of how unreasonable they are. So many people are unreasonable. I've had two admins state very clearly that they are not required to discuss their reverts with me.
I don't think this just totally random. I think it's because of lack of clarity in policy (see WP:FAIL). I.E., both editors who said they didn't have to discuss their edits both seemed to have the same misunderstanding of WP:BRD. The first called it "just an essay", the second called it "not a policy," and said the discussion part was my responsibility alone. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- They don't misunderstand WP:BRD, they misunderstand people. All you have to do to win against someone who refuses to discuss is to be the guy trying to discuss, and bringing outside opinions. If the other guy won't discuss then, his points don't get heard. You can beat difficult editors by being a better consensus-builder than they are. -GTBacchus 04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Witch
I knew he was a witch all along... :-) Shot info (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Controlling" IAR?
Zenwhat, I'd like to point out some history to you. I've edited the page WP:IAR thirteen times ever.
- 10/19/06 Removing what was either a question about spelling or a dry editorial remark - revert
- 12/12/06 moving some boxes around to make the page render better - not a revert
- 12/31/06 Adding the actual text of the policy when it had gone missing - not a revert
- 1/02/07 boldly trying something, in the midst of a collaborative session - not a revert
- 4/22/07 Editing, rather than deleting, a bunch of text that some user had added (it was later deleted by someone) - not a revert
- 4/22/07 Catching something I'd missed on the previous edit - not a revert
- 4/24/07 Unprotecting the page so people could edit it - not a revert, not even technically an edit
- 5/18/07 Working with yet another version of the page, adding a link suggested by someone else on the talk page - not a revert
- 7/07/07 Adding an interwiki link while the page was protected - not a revert
- 7/07/07 Adjusting formatting per another talk page request while page was protected - not a revert
- 7/12/07 Again, working collaboratively with someone's new wording, rather than reverting to some previous version - not a revert
- 7/14/07 More collaborative editing, in the same vein as the previous edit - not a revert
- 1/21/08 Adding a bullet that had gone missing in the "See also" section - revert
See? I've made two reversions on that page in the last 30 months, and they were both edits anybody would make (anybody familiar with MoS, anyway). My edits are mostly characterized by helping get the page edited when it's protected, unprotecting the page, trying to improve rather than revert others' bold edits, and occasionally making a bold edit of my own. I don't know how you have come to think of me as someone who wants to keep that page from being edited, but I am not the guy you're looking for. I support editing IAR, just as I always have.-GTBacchus 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
GTBacchus, that's really evidence to support my claim. You're not really the main guy, though, no. I did some statistics collecting. See my recent post to Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules. Also, I put in an RFC yesterday, but nobody responded because nobody cares. Also, I put the RFC template in, incorrectly, because WP:RFC is confusing and attempts to ask questions about it on the talkpage didn't get answered, and attempts to clarify it were reverted. Also, look at this nonsense. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- How is that evidence to support your thesis that I try to control the page? I don't revert to previous versions of IAR. I just don't do it. I encourage innovation and boldness there. You are simply wrong about my history. I dare you to provide coherent evidence that I control IAR. You can not.
As for your "There is no credential policy" page, I see you going the same way as others who figured they'd just show up and rewrite policy. You seem to think that you understand Misplaced Pages a lot better than those with more experience than yourself. Such hubris will not lead you anywhere good or useful. Again - I support editing IAR, and you habitually refuse to put your money where your mouth is. I hope you're enjoying all the attention you're getting. If you can't get others to defend your edits when you bring more eyes to the discussion, then it's likely that your edits aren't very good. If you put in an RfC one day ago, then it's premature to complain that nobody cares. If it's true that nobody cares, then your point must be pretty unimportant. -GTBacchus 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would not worry GT, these accusations are not based in fact, and are not being given credibility by anyone. (1 == 2) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not exactly "worried". Maybe it's better if I just walk away, but I find it difficult to refrain from replying. I did find it interesting to learn about my contribution stats when compiling that list. I also wonder what we could do with the policy to prevent others from misunderstanding it in the way that Zenwhat is doing. -GTBacchus 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: About Bishonen.
Not sure why you did that - the bots would have dragged it into the abyss almost immediately, and discussion was ongoing at VPT. Just remember that the incidents noticeboard is just for that - emergency incidents. :-) east.718 at 07:47, January 28, 2008
Because I hadn't slept and have a tendency to read into things. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your candor
I appreciate your candor and level head, and totally sympathize, having done much worse myself. Also, if not too much trouble for you, I would welcome that you consider adding that article to your watch list. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Doubtful. I can't really see me or anyone accomplishing much on that article, heh. It's too political and with too many people watching it. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Other account
Could you please give me the name of your old account? Obviously if there's privacy concerns then I understand, it's just abundantly clear from your contributions that this is not your first. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Nathyn. I lost the password and changed my e-mail address since then (and can no longer access the e-mail account registered with it). ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
German wikipedia.
I am not completely convinced that the German[REDACTED] is doing better.
de:Misplaced Pages:Wikipedistik/Wachstumsprognose implies a linear growth rate, which is fundamentlly different from any considered for the English. WP:NOTFAIL points to de to shows a wiki where FA proportion is not decreasing. FA growth on en. is apparantly linear, so it's portion of[REDACTED] will be decreasing during times when article growth on en. can be approximated with exponential models. Taemyr (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A perspective
Maybe it would help to explain my take on this by analogy. Someday an editor may come to Misplaced Pages who consistently writes good articles and featured articles about sex scandals connected to the Catholic Church. Is that POV-pushing? Not really, if the community approves each of the articles as neutral and balanced. Some Catholic editors might be unhappy, but the way to resolve that is to raise the quality of other material. There's a wikiproject whose whole purpose is to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of saints' biographies. That's really not much different from my offer, except that one religion is older and more established than another. Durova 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If that's all they do, then they are a single-purpose account. People that do that are generally emotional nutcases who could never compromise on anything or follow policy when it leads to edits they don't like, and I can't think of any example otherwise. They may sometimes be forced to compromise out of the fear of being blocked, but their whole modus operandi is to skirt policy in any way that they can in order push a particular point-of-view.
For an idea of my perspective on Misplaced Pages, see M:Conflict-driven view of wiki, M:Factionalism, M:Wikindividualism, and WP:FAIL. Also, see my essays WP:WIARRM and WP:Zombies. If any of that makes you think I'm "anti-Wiki", there is a satirical essay at WP:Anti-Wikipedianism. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
ghthesoap.com
It is just my opinion. To me the blacklist is not a form of censorship but a method of preventing current disruption. If you disagree then the blacklist page is the place to air your views - others may agree. Thanks --Herby 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That does not appear to answer my questions. I do not know how to use anti-spam tools. Is it possible to look into the edit history surrounding that link to find if it has been added, removed, and re-added several times? It was originally added as linkfarming. If it was removed, then re-added multiple times, this would be "disruption," and removing it would not be "censorship." ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you take this discussion to the request you made. Others may well have views and I will be off line shortly. To me the disruption was mostly in 2005 - I can see nothing more recent and - personally - I will not list the site if it is not currently disrupting wikipedia. If you have links showing current disruption that would be good but it would be best to involve others. Thanks --Herby 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
...There's some absurd stuff masquerading as reliable sources. This is really outrageous. Not karmaisking outrageous, but still.--Gregalton (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Because of some pretty idiotic stuff I've dealt with on policy pages, I mostly focus on reforming policy, WP:RSN, and WP:FTN. If you know of any specific articles, though, yeah, point them out and I'll take a look.
If you ever get frustrated and feel like blowing up over it, I suggest doing the same thing. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- maybe parts of this article violate WP:SYN(for example money creation part)? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
your sig
hello Zenwhat -- here is just a friendly observation: I am not sure it is a good idea to link to article space from your sig: it will seriously clutter "what links here" for the article linked (viz, inundate it with links to every talkpage you ever left a comment on). Not a big deal. regards, dab (𒁳) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Links from talkpages can generally be ignored because if something isn't linked from article-space, who cares? When doing searches on User:Zenwhat/Greylist, I filter them out precisely for this reason. I appreciate the comment, though! ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't get that
"If any of you have any examples" at WT:WikiProject Robotics...I don't follow what you're saying. I repeat that I have read your userpage and seen your contributions many places (I've only been hanging around WP about 2 months, but I'm a fast reader), and I have enormous respect for your viewpoints and your contributions to WP. But I'm not entirely sure you get my point...it has nothing to do with robots, per se. It's about improving the quality of robotics articles on WP, and about not offending the people who have the talent to do the work, so that they stop cloistering in their own users groups and come over here and brave the WP-and-sister-sites culture. You may or may not have been calling me a dork for thinking this, I couldn't tell (which is certainly true sometimes.) When I talk in any forum where roboticists can hear me, I attempt to represent their views...partly because I think they don't do that great a job of representing their own views, they tend to simply withdraw, and I'm trying to lead by example. In other forums (like here), I'm more open to different viewpoints. Possibly I might even exhibit a sense of humor. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not a dork. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Your attempt may or may not be successful:
- It might be totally unsuccessful, because good editors do not have greater authority on Misplaced Pages than fairly irrational mobs, provided that the mobs aren't blatantly silly and follow the rules.
- It might be partially successful, because good editors can sometimes have small wins, here and there, and from what I understand the first person to write an article generally has the most power.
- It might be successful since, to be honest, I can't really see there being that many mobs gathering around anti-technology or anti-robot POVs.
On that last point, though, it certainly is possible and if it happens, I'd like to see diffs. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
RfC possibility
Hey Zenwhat, thank you for your support--it's very much appreciated! I do not like Addhoc's actions here at all, and I do think they are out of line, especially for an administrator. Unfortunately he is allowed to remove content from his own Talk Page, but his WQA actions are definitely not OK. For the time being I'm going to leave it alone, but if the situation continues or another WQA like that is filed, it will definitely be an option to seriously consider. And if an RfC is filed against him by anyone else at any point I will be bringing this up.
At my Talk Page, Iamunknown also brought up the possibility of bringing this issue to Third Opinion--I thought that might be a good option, but after looking at the description on that project page, I don't know if it fits. It seems as though this would be a conduct dispute more than a straight-up editing conflict. So I don't know if it's worth it to file a dispute there. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing comments
I've noticed that you have been reverting the deletion of comments on User talk:Addhoc by User:Addhoc. Please note that WP:TALK explicitly allows a user to remove comments from their own talk page. As such, your reversions of these entirely proper removals by the user are contrary to policy, and constitute vandalism. In the spirit of WP:AGF I assume that you were previously unaware of this policy, and trust that you will desist from restoring comments on user talk pages now that you are aware of this policy. Mayalld (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, please, your accusation of "vandalism" is absurd and absolutely false. "Vandalism" applies ONLY edits made with the deliberate intent to HARM Misplaced Pages. Restoring comments because they were not properly discussed does NOT harm Misplaced Pages and so is NOT vandalism. --Iamunknown 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, do not use WP:AGF to accuse me of ignorance of policy. I am aware of policy and your accusation seems patently absurd, considering how my userpage looks, which includes a number of essays on policy.
What WP:TALK literally says cannot be used to contradict WP:Trifecta:
- Remain neutral
- Ignore all rules
- Don't be a dick
In the spirit of WP:Talk, what Addhoc did here was blatantly inappropriate. A clerk from WP:WQA brought some seemingly genuine concerns to him and he removed the comments, apparently on assumptions of bad faith, and when I tried to restore his comments and even ask him to stop removing them, he engaged in an edit-war. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
They were not duplicates. DanielEng made a comment here that you removed. It was never re-posted on User talk:DanielEng. When you removed my comment here , again, there was never any copy of that remark anywhere else when you removed it. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, the comments were duplicates, the conversation was on the other editor's talk page. Of course, you are entirely free to delete this message if you want. Addhoc (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The conversation was. However, not every comment was. You deleted his first comment without copying it to his talkpage. And you then edit-warred over it. You did not engage in this same behavior regarding other comments on your talkpage (all the other threads there, currently visible and archived). Why this one when it's involving a policy matter, specifically involving you?
If people don't keep full copies of conversations on both talkpages of all parties involved, it can make archives a mess, since looking up an old conversation requires digging through the histories of all users and having to reconstruct the conversations. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:TALK is explicit that users are permitted to remove content from their talk pages. It doesn't come much more simple than that. I'm sorry that you take my assumption of good faith in the way that you have, but even experienced editors are sometimes unaware of certain aspects of policy. Far better to AGF than to assume that you were fully aware of WP:TALK and chose to go against it.
- It appears to me that in your irritation with User:Addhoc you ignored WP:Trifecta yourself! If a user wishes to remove comments from his talkpage, let him. If that user was being a WP:DICK (and I offer no view on that point) it surely come back to bite him. No sense in being a WP:DICK yourself, by reverting his legitimate removals just because you don't like them.Mayalld (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion. You just re-stated it and I can't add anything other than, "I think you are wrong." ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion about possible COI of editors
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Possible_COI_of_two_editors --70.11.142.4 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
|
