| Revision as of 13:33, 28 June 2010 view sourceZythe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,876 edits Reverting a valid reply is poor form← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:36, 28 June 2010 view source TreasuryTag (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,645 editsm Doing what you just did suggests either trolling or ignorance of WP:DRC and WP:BLANKINGNext edit → | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
| ::::::Vile and pitiable.~<b><font color="purple">]</font></b><sup>]</sup> 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | ::::::Vile and pitiable.~<b><font color="purple">]</font></b><sup>]</sup> 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Well, at least you're ] and embodying the principles you clearly expect others to exemplify. <font color="#7026DF">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | :::::::Well, at least you're ] and embodying the principles you clearly expect others to exemplify. <font color="#7026DF">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ;Donna Thing | |||
| No. Plus, you're the one using OR now -- especially when the Doctor explicitly SAYS he has left a defence in his best friend's head.~<b><font color="purple">]</font></b><sup>]</sup> 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:36, 28 June 2010
|
TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Misplaced Pages, between April 14 and April 19, 2009, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer. |
Just to fix the formatting...
_on_Capybara.jpg)
Cattle tyrant and capybara
Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp
Civility
Please be careful when using edit summaries, especially in article space where non-Wikipedians may view them. I understand your frustrations, but this was over the line. The Wordsmith 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can actually think of no good-faith reason for an experienced editor to list so-called information which they admit to be "contentious" in an article, backed up by a so-called source which they know says no such thing. It was an absurd and solely disruptive thing to do. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was bad faith, but there is a reason that even our final warning templates maintain at least a basic sense of professionalism. A neutral edit summary could easily have been used. That said, I do understand your frustrations, particularly on Doctor Who articles. The Wordsmith 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair do-s, point taken. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was bad faith, but there is a reason that even our final warning templates maintain at least a basic sense of professionalism. A neutral edit summary could easily have been used. That said, I do understand your frustrations, particularly on Doctor Who articles. The Wordsmith 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I must say I am quite offended by your use of profanity towards me, coupled with "What's the matter with you?". Poor form for someone who aspires to be a respected editor.~Zythe 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I refer the honourable and learned Gentleman to my comment of a few moments ago. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- ...your "honourable and learned Gentleman". Your tone in your previous comment and indeed your directing me to it are BOTH, I would say, somewhat offensive and your presumption of bad faith stings. I had simply been intending to stimulate discussion as to the inclusion of River Song; I am as familiar with Misplaced Pages sourcing policies as you are, and signiifcant 'disruption' was not the intention. It was a minor change that I expected would be reverted back and forth (the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle") while we discuss the level of pedantry required for listing in-universe details. I am of the opinion that where the role is clear-cut, the editorial decision in listing is no more severe than an editor's choice as to wording in a plot summary.~Zythe 18:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, let's take this in stages. One—you knew the fact was contentious, because you mentioned this in your edit-summary. Two—WP:V and WP:CITE both explicitly require that "contentious" facts are backed up by references. Three—you are an experienced editor and doubtless familiar with these policies. Four—you did include a reference, but it did not refer to the point you were using it to verify; you obviously knew this but used it regardless, and thus behaved in a deliberately, or at least knowingly, deceptive way, as well as the addition of the so-called fact itself.
- Where has my logic broken down, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- ...your "honourable and learned Gentleman". Your tone in your previous comment and indeed your directing me to it are BOTH, I would say, somewhat offensive and your presumption of bad faith stings. I had simply been intending to stimulate discussion as to the inclusion of River Song; I am as familiar with Misplaced Pages sourcing policies as you are, and signiifcant 'disruption' was not the intention. It was a minor change that I expected would be reverted back and forth (the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle") while we discuss the level of pedantry required for listing in-universe details. I am of the opinion that where the role is clear-cut, the editorial decision in listing is no more severe than an editor's choice as to wording in a plot summary.~Zythe 18:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I refer the honourable and learned Gentleman to my comment of a few moments ago. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Zythe, he has been warned by an administrator. If he does it again, further action can be taken. However, I don't think he will, so can we maybe agree to discuss the content now and not the contributor? The Wordsmith 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wordsmith, I am not trying to debate the editor. I am offended by a persistent defensiveness that does not yield to the need to apologise. The citation was an original citation that simply moved with the lazy transition; I am sorry, too (SEE). Again, I was not being deliberately deceptive and I do not care about the veracity of a "so-called fact" to debate it so vigorously as to become insulting to another editor. Like Wordsmith advises, the only relevant discussion is the character; this can go on the episode page, or anywhere else, and we can cease to speak. While the "BOLD, revert, discuss" strategy has more-or-less succeeded, I regret that I had not been adequately forewarned of the "experience fuming rage from other editors" stage. I will accept an apology when you cool down.~Zythe 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's been fourteen hours, I am now cool. I stand by what all of what I said and make no apology. How's that? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 07:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Vile and pitiable.~Zythe 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at least you're setting a good example and embodying the principles you clearly expect others to exemplify. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Vile and pitiable.~Zythe 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's been fourteen hours, I am now cool. I stand by what all of what I said and make no apology. How's that? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 07:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wordsmith, I am not trying to debate the editor. I am offended by a persistent defensiveness that does not yield to the need to apologise. The citation was an original citation that simply moved with the lazy transition; I am sorry, too (SEE). Again, I was not being deliberately deceptive and I do not care about the veracity of a "so-called fact" to debate it so vigorously as to become insulting to another editor. Like Wordsmith advises, the only relevant discussion is the character; this can go on the episode page, or anywhere else, and we can cease to speak. While the "BOLD, revert, discuss" strategy has more-or-less succeeded, I regret that I had not been adequately forewarned of the "experience fuming rage from other editors" stage. I will accept an apology when you cool down.~Zythe 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Zythe, he has been warned by an administrator. If he does it again, further action can be taken. However, I don't think he will, so can we maybe agree to discuss the content now and not the contributor? The Wordsmith 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)