| Revision as of 04:55, 8 November 2010 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,596 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:02, 8 November 2010 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,596 edits →Diff pleaseNext edit → | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
| :::How is it a misrepresentation? I think saying of a group: "Misplaced Pages is better off without them, because otherwise they will cause too many problems." is equivalent to shaming that group. That's my personal opinion. If you think it is misrepresenting the intent of Cla68, I invite you to present your alternative interpretation. ] (]) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC) | :::How is it a misrepresentation? I think saying of a group: "Misplaced Pages is better off without them, because otherwise they will cause too many problems." is equivalent to shaming that group. That's my personal opinion. If you think it is misrepresenting the intent of Cla68, I invite you to present your alternative interpretation. ] (]) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Since you're quoting things from my talk page, I'd say you're seriously confused about Cla's intent. I think you need to retract your polemical wording. You want an alternative interpretation? Battlefield behavior is bad, and activists who engage in it do so to the detriment of the project, and ought to be encouraged to leave. That may not sit well with you since you give every appearance of being an activist yourself, ready to fault others for the same behavior you yourself indulge in. To that end I strongly suggest you never again complain about any outing until you've made amends for your own activities. ++]: ]/] 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | ::Since you're quoting things from my talk page, I'd say you're seriously confused about Cla's intent. I think you need to retract your polemical wording. You want an alternative interpretation? Battlefield behavior is bad, and activists who engage in it do so to the detriment of the project, and ought to be encouraged to leave. That may not sit well with you since you give every appearance of being an activist yourself, ready to fault others for the same behavior you yourself indulge in. To that end I strongly suggest you never again complain about any outing until you've made amends for your own activities. ++]: ]/] 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::Your interpretation does not indicate to me that Cla68 was not trying to shame anyone. Now you're trying to shame me. I'd recommend you quit with this agent-provocateur role. It's only a matter of time before your personal attacks against others |
:::Your interpretation does not indicate to me that Cla68 was not trying to shame anyone. Now you're trying to shame me. I'd recommend you quit with this agent-provocateur role. It's only a matter of time before your personal attacks against others catch up with you. Moreover, if your final crack about "outing" means you intend to use your treasured role as a checkuser to punish me, you really won't be long for the wikiworld. The culture here will stand that kind of behavior for only so long. | ||
| :::And, while you're at it, Lar, please don't post on my talkpage uninvited again. Thanks! | :::And, while you're at it, Lar, please don't post on my talkpage uninvited again. Thanks! | ||
| :::] (]) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | :::] (]) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:02, 8 November 2010
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
|
This user is block free - (see my block log here!). |
Vanguard Editor
and is entitled to display this
Unobtainium
Editor Star
with the
Neutronium Superstar hologram.
Misplaced Pages NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program and Misplaced Pages Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
General announcement re:Climate Change
If any topic-banned users would like to let me know about particular concerns they have regarding climate change articles (especially specific climate change articles I may not have noticed), please let me know by e-mailing me. Apparently, only off-wiki discussions are allowed — a braindead approach to Misplaced Pages collaboration, but one required due to the arbitration committee's blunt-instrument approach to surgery. ScienceApologist (talk)
Ice core plagiarism issue
- How about ? Given the plagiarism of Wegman, I'd say the true source is liekly to be Bradley William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did Wegman plagiarize Misplaced Pages? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, Ed Poor plagiarized Wegman. . Hmm... This could get interesting. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha, that is funny. TS has fixed the immediate problem but the diff you've dug up deserves thought. More likely that text is from Bradley; see etc William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I rewrote the text to avoid compounding plagiarism. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha, that is funny. TS has fixed the immediate problem but the diff you've dug up deserves thought. More likely that text is from Bradley; see etc William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy note
Just FYI, I've refrenced the above section here: WT:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#What_does_topic_banned_mean.3F. I don't mean to sound like I'm declaring it problematic, but rather that ArbCom needs to clarify what is or is not "officialy problematic" before the AE reports and requests for clarifications start rolling in.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is an issue that should be dealt with post-haste, I agree. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's one very, very dead horse
Regarding the Weston Price discussions: As you may not have noticed, I stopped even noting the misleading statements, the strawmen, etc. Hopefully the BLPN will get them to back off the ad hominems. I don't see anything useful coming from the discussion when editors are unwilling to actually discuss what is being proposed. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please stop? --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom clarification request
I've opened the case we discusses here. please add your comment when you get a chance. --Ludwigs2 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I responded. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! And I was just referring to dead horses... I guess this is always going to be a problem. Though we may differ on approaches, I'm glad you're around, ScienceApologist, to address these continuing problems. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier feedback discussion.
Your talk archives
May I ask why you chose to delete all your old talk page archives except User talk:ScienceApologist/Archive 4? You may be surprised to learn that people do read these, and certain discussions were linked to from various other parts of the wiki. Just seems a shame to break these links. -- œ 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- There was some sensitive information that I thought best not to keep accessible except through the history. If you have particular concerns about broken links, let me know and I can replace them with diff links to my history. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh no that's ok. If there's some personal things there that you'd rather not have public then that's reason enough. -- œ 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
TUSC token bb2b743368e349d032635fafda8c0022
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
As we near the end of this phase of the SAQ project . . .
. . . what do you think of these suggestions?
I think it would fulfill the spirit if not the exact letter of the directive you laid out in March. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It's raining thanks spam!
- Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
- There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Misplaced Pages Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
- If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Diff please
Please provide a link to where Cla says he wrote it to "shame" people, or please strike it. ATren (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's what this feels like to me. Of course, one might argue that he doesn't want to "shame" these groups, only that he doesn't think they're good for Misplaced Pages. But whether fingers are wagging or just pointing still seems like shaming to me, and I'm having a hard time thinking of any other explanation. If you can provide one, please do! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Representing that quote as Cla saying he wants to "shame" other editors is a complete misrepresentation. Please retract it or reword it. ATren (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- How is it a misrepresentation? I think saying of a group: "Misplaced Pages is better off without them, because otherwise they will cause too many problems." is equivalent to shaming that group. That's my personal opinion. If you think it is misrepresenting the intent of Cla68, I invite you to present your alternative interpretation. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since you're quoting things from my talk page, I'd say you're seriously confused about Cla's intent. I think you need to retract your polemical wording. You want an alternative interpretation? Battlefield behavior is bad, and activists who engage in it do so to the detriment of the project, and ought to be encouraged to leave. That may not sit well with you since you give every appearance of being an activist yourself, ready to fault others for the same behavior you yourself indulge in. To that end I strongly suggest you never again complain about any outing until you've made amends for your own activities. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your interpretation does not indicate to me that Cla68 was not trying to shame anyone. Now you're trying to shame me. I'd recommend you quit with this agent-provocateur role. It's only a matter of time before your personal attacks against others catch up with you. Moreover, if your final crack about "outing" means you intend to use your treasured role as a checkuser to punish me, you really won't be long for the wikiworld. The culture here will stand that kind of behavior for only so long.
- And, while you're at it, Lar, please don't post on my talkpage uninvited again. Thanks!
- ScienceApologist (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Representing that quote as Cla saying he wants to "shame" other editors is a complete misrepresentation. Please retract it or reword it. ATren (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)