Revision as of 02:42, 4 January 2025 editLardlegwarmers (talk | contribs)452 edits →Replying about behavior in Lab Leak talk: moved it to my user page insteadTags: Manual revert Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:44, 4 January 2025 edit undoActivelyDisinterested (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,412 edits Undid revision 1267207421 by Lardlegwarmers (talk) Don't do that on my user talk page. Your comments have been replied to so you shouldn't remove them, and you should remove other editors comments without their consent.Tag: UndoNext edit → | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | ||
|} ] (]) 22:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |} ] (]) 22:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
== Replying about behavior in Lab Leak talk == | |||
I was referring to the consistent and ongoing issue of editors using bullying language and ad hominems to disparage the other editors on this topic (not the comments by ]). I am not sure if you have been watching this talk topic for very long, but if you have, then you probably already know exactly who and what I'm talking about. I was leaving it vague and general because it was already obvious and didn't need to be specified, just called out. I already contacted the user directly and they steamrolled me on their user page. And no, I am not going to go through initiating a disciplinary process. ] (]) 20:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:If there are issues and you have diffs to prove them then you should take them to ], if you can't you should drop it. You can't decide to not start "disciplinary process" but slight editors who disagree with you by saying they are uncivil and fail to assume good faith. They likely feel the same about you. It's all to easy to get into snipping back and forth, it's why I'll be avoiding the page for a few days. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for your input. This is more than just POV-pushing. An editor was making outright rude and derogatory comments on a daily basis. Would you like me to provide diffs? By the way, 107.115.5.100 got blocked from Lab Leak talk, and their harassment wasn't nearly as pronounced. It seems as if their getting involved with WP:ANI ''contributed ''to the block. (See: ]). I'm not excited about the idea of getting sanctioned partly because I reported obvious badmouthing. At any rate, the user with the most egregious edit history seems to have left the page right after I made that post, which I would take as a sign that my topic was a good contribution. ] (]) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::The ] page states: {{tq|All content and ''conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article'' or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} (emphasis added) ] (]) 22:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::No I don't want diffs, why would I? Don't make accusations at talk pages, discussion maybe but not accusations. If you discussed it with the user then you should stop at that. The section can read as you asking "When did you stop hitting your wife?", you but the presumption of guilt before the question of it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::The IP and the other editors were blocked for edit warring other SPA tags, a dumb argument in a thread that is full of dumbness. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::What's your sense of the distinction between discussion versus accusations? I assumed that leaving out the editors' names made it too vague to be an accusation. ] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::It really doesn't, it just spreads it around to anyone who seems to not be on your side in the argument. Also please don't point other editors to my talk page to discuss third hand matters. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:44, 4 January 2025
Archives | |||||
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Good one
"one day I hope to upgrade Misplaced Pages's perceived reliability from meme worthy to just unreliable."
Ok, this made me chuckle. Good comment, which hits the spot pretty good on the standard of Misplaced Pages today.
Good luck. Though I fear the effort is futile. Laddmeister (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah definitely not meant to be taken seriously, there no way a single person could accomplish such an impossible task! ;) The work will never be done, there will always be more improvements that can be made. Realistically the goal is contributing to that effort, rather than any hope of seeing it completed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, of course not. But just the fact that you're recognizing the current problems with wikipedia (political activism and edit-warring) is enough for me to give you two thumbs up. Laddmeister (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
nomination
I have nominated History of Christianity - again - please take a look and criticize at will. Here: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have some free time tomorrow, so I'll sit down and read it through. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the sake of posterity this relates to this discussion about this edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025! | |
Hello ActivelyDisinterested, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Abishe (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Replying about behavior in Lab Leak talk
I was referring to the consistent and ongoing issue of editors using bullying language and ad hominems to disparage the other editors on this topic (not the comments by user:107.115.5.100). I am not sure if you have been watching this talk topic for very long, but if you have, then you probably already know exactly who and what I'm talking about. I was leaving it vague and general because it was already obvious and didn't need to be specified, just called out. I already contacted the user directly and they steamrolled me on their user page. And no, I am not going to go through initiating a disciplinary process. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If there are issues and you have diffs to prove them then you should take them to WP:ANI, if you can't you should drop it. You can't decide to not start "disciplinary process" but slight editors who disagree with you by saying they are uncivil and fail to assume good faith. They likely feel the same about you. It's all to easy to get into snipping back and forth, it's why I'll be avoiding the page for a few days. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. This is more than just POV-pushing. An editor was making outright rude and derogatory comments on a daily basis. Would you like me to provide diffs? By the way, 107.115.5.100 got blocked from Lab Leak talk, and their harassment wasn't nearly as pronounced. It seems as if their getting involved with WP:ANI contributed to the block. (See: User_talk:107.115.5.100#c-331dot-20250102092500). I'm not excited about the idea of getting sanctioned partly because I reported obvious badmouthing. At any rate, the user with the most egregious edit history seems to have left the page right after I made that post, which I would take as a sign that my topic was a good contribution. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The WP:ANI page states:
All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.
(emphasis added) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- No I don't want diffs, why would I? Don't make accusations at talk pages, discussion maybe but not accusations. If you discussed it with the user then you should stop at that. The section can read as you asking "When did you stop hitting your wife?", you but the presumption of guilt before the question of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP and the other editors were blocked for edit warring other SPA tags, a dumb argument in a thread that is full of dumbness. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's your sense of the distinction between discussion versus accusations? I assumed that leaving out the editors' names made it too vague to be an accusation. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It really doesn't, it just spreads it around to anyone who seems to not be on your side in the argument. Also please don't point other editors to my talk page to discuss third hand matters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's your sense of the distinction between discussion versus accusations? I assumed that leaving out the editors' names made it too vague to be an accusation. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)