Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:40, 15 July 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #98

Care In The Community

I have no wish to take this further. Pedro :  Chat  23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do, but I won't without Web Hamster's permission. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no beef here. But having spent time with people who were affected by that act (due to mental illness and degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's) I find that using it in refernce to an IP on Misplaced Pages making stupid trollish edits is simply - well - wrong. And I'm not talking some bullshit third party opinion here - my gradmother died shortly after the state decided community care was for the best. So apologies for being over sensitive, but WH - you need to consider that just because you find it funny (as you stated) that doesn't mean it's actually still ok to post it. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We've all been affected by the daft "care in the community" ideas Pedro, your experience is nothing special. As part of my psychology course I had a placement in a hospital for what was then called the "mentally subnormal". Those hospitals have all gone now, but I wonder to this day what now happens to all those I saw in there who couldn't possibly have survived elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

People who actually have a sense of humour can find anything funny. As someone who was a paramedic for 10 years I'm well aware of what "care in the community" actually means. I also have personal experience of it, yet I can still find a laugh somewhere. That just leads me to believe that you are suffering simultaneously from a piousness overdose and a humour deficiency. I recommend that you don't use your own beliefs to lecture others as they maybe lacking in certain areas. Now as far I'm concerned you've had your say, I've had mine. The rest is up to you. Either way I won't be withdrawing anything. --WebHamster 12:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no beef with you personally. Pedro :  Chat  15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Consensus only matters among those making an effort to work toward it. Your only contribution to the discussion so far has been to contradict, and distort the actual points. The refs don't support the statements. Also, the refs aren't neutral or factual. Noloop (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You require consensus to remove a long-standing and referenced section of text. Refs do not need to be neutral, all they have to do is support the text they are being used as a reference for. They are factual, what they don't do is support your POV. The refs do support the text, you just can't see through your own biases. My contribution, as you call it, is to maintain the status quo against a POV warrior trying to remove parts of the article when he has no consensus to do so. Get consensus and I'll stop reverting you. --WebHamster 09:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What's required is an effort to work toward consensus before you invoke consensus to block changes. Name-calling and refusal to address the basic points shows antipathy toward consensus. Misplaced Pages should be neutral, which doesn't happen when refs are one-sided. Refs have to do more than support what is said: they have to be reliable and factual. Opinion pieces published by the US military are neither. At the very least, Misplaced Pages should report opionated refs as expert opinion, not fact. But, the fact is, the refs don't support what is said. Why don't you QUOTE the part of the refs you think support this article, as a starting point for working toward consensus? Noloop (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you start an RFC if you think you can gain the required consensus? Whilst you're at it see if you can find another editor that shares your belief that the refs don't support the prose. If it's as obvious as you suggest then you shouldn't have a problem. --WebHamster 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just answer the question? Can you quote the parts of the refs that actually support the statements? It should be easy. Noloop (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is easy, I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about. --WebHamster 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus. Nobody is objecting except you. You don't count as being against consensus, because telling people to fuck off means you aren't participating in the consensus process. Noloop (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Which only goes to show that you don't have a clue what consensus is let alone how it works. Currently there is you and I. You don't have consensus on your side. I told you what to do. Open an RFC and let a wider audience decide. You seem resistant to that idea or is it because you are concerned that your interpretation will be discounted as I have done. Now stop whinging and whining all over the place. Go get other editors to support your potty ideas. I'm sick of explaining this to you. --WebHamster 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted

I probably would have missed that Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"my" page / "my" talk page

Question of terminology here for you. Here you say there is "no such thing as 'my' page". While I totally agree with you, and have been wondering for some what one should say.

To say e.g. 'See User:SimonTrew' to refer to 'my' user page seems ugly, and could lay false scent since discussions entries are signed at the end, so it may not be immediately apparent I am referring to 'my' page. It is excaserbated that other things on the Misplaced Pages banner are listed as e.g. 'my talk page', 'my watchlist', my contributions, encouraging the idea that it would be 'my user page' (though of course that is simply listed with the user name, not 'my').

I can't see any way around this without excessive circumlocution, and in most cases it is simply a convenient fiction to call it 'my user page', and not controversial.

I should appreciate your views.

SimonTrew (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it seems you missed the bit that qualified my statement. I said there was no such thing as "my page" in article space. So it doesn't take much to interpolate that sentiment to "my page" in user space. --WebHamster 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps that distinction was too subtle for me. Nevertheless, since "Nobody owns any page" it would appear that it is not "my user page" in any sense of ownership; though it seems the most convenient way to say it. SimonTrew (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil

Hi. Your comment on my talk page did not appear to be civil at all and I have removed it. Your accusing me of such things as "sticking my nose in" was very rude and quite offensive. The situation may not have concerned me, but an incident concerning you was posted at ANI, a place for uninvolved editors to look at a situation and help to resolve a problem. That was exactly my intention, as is every time I have discussed issues with fellow editors on ANI. FYI, accusing me of not knowing the history was quite daft, if I'm being honest, because, as proper editors do when resolving issues at ANI, I did look at the significant history of the situation. And even if I hadn't, there is no excuse for telling an editor that you just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. While it may have been your true feelings at the time, it wasn't a very nice message to leave to that editor. Even if it wasn't intended as a personal attack, it was still uncivil and you were warned accordingly. There was no need to launch at an uninvolved editor who was trying to resolve a problem in which you were involved.

Now, please don't take this message the wrong way. Instead, please do WP:AGF because I like to promote the idea of civil editors working together to help build an encyclopedia. Incivility between countless editors has burdened the growing of Misplaced Pages for years, and still will in years to come, but the more we are civil to each other, the more we can achieve. When an editor is in need, offer a helping hand. When you are in need, ask around. In other words, as Misplaced Pages editors we should all try to help each other out and try to get along with each other. I like to get along with everyone. I'd get along with you too if you'd let me...

Hopefully you'll see this message has provided you with words of encouragement, and has strengthened you as an editor. The more civil we are and the more we help each other out, the stronger we are and as Wikipedians, the more we can accomplish. --_{Sky Attacker} 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you keep your garbled word salads to yourself, as I doubt that WebHamster is any more impressed with your gobbleydegook than I am. Go play somewhere else. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mall, I waould say the Sky Attacker is very well spoken and also well within his right on Misplaced Pages to ask to be treated with a certain level of respect. Your response to him was uncalled for. Chillum 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, not you again. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That was uncalled for too.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What has led you to believe that I care what you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was partaialy insulting.a There's also a thing called civilty. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care to explain what "partaialy insulting" means? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a civility warning on Malls talk page. Any further discussion about him should be on his talk page, not here(imho). Chillum 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sky Attacker, firstly leaving a template on my talk page is not going to help any situation, secondly go stick your lecture. I am not going to be lectured by anyone let alone a noobie, not at my age. I also never assume good faith and I firmly believe than anyone who does is far too naive to survive on WP. Now I don't know what you expected to achieve, yet it's pretty bloody obvious you aren't making anything better. You come to my talk page drop a template and immediately start lecturing me on how I should behave. As such I don't feel I owe you any civility so don't expect any from me. So you have the choice of no expectation of civility or fucking off and doing what you came here for, ie editing an encyclopaedia. Your choice. --WebHamster 09:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite your admitting of never following WP:AGF and your uncalled for incivility here, on my talk page and to that other editor, I am going to forgive you for your recent actions. Also, yes, from here on in, I'll try to leave you alone as requested. But seriously, it is sad and somewhat worrying to see that you admit to never WP:AGF and that you have no intention on being civil towards others on Misplaced Pages because if fellow Wikipedians aren't civil, and can't work together, how do we expect to build an encyclopedia?--_{Sky Attacker} 10:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How pious of you yet simultaneously displaying your ignorance of what is in front of you and what things are about here at WP. AGF is not policy, it's merely a guideline. As for my civility, well you didn't get it because you didn't deserve it. You weighed into something that wasn't your concern, you did it in an insulting manner (WP:DTTR) and then regardless of the fact that you've only been here 5 minutes you then proceeded to lecture me. For that alone you were lucky you didn't get a "go fuck yourself". As it is I've saved that for your forgiveness. Go fuck yourself. I don't want your forgiveness, I don't need it as such it is worthless, it's also insulting. Now as a time-served regular I suggest you stay away from ANI until you know what the fuck you are doing. I don't know how you expect to "build an encyclopaedia" but I do it by typing into article edit forms. Not by fucking around with things that don't concern me. You're not an admin, though it's patently obvious you want to be one, so keep your lecturing to yourself, on the other hand I don't accept lectures from them either, but the point is; 5 minutes here does not give you the right to lecture anyone. You might also do yourself a favour by learning how to indent! --WebHamster 11:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility might not be a policy, but Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks is. Telling another editor to "Go fuck yourself" is a personal attack, regardless of their tenure. I strongly suggest that you dial down the rhetoric WebHamster. — Ched :  ?  23:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Go fuck yourself" is NOT an attack, it's a very succinct and meaningful instruction. Now I'd be grateful if you took your patronising lecture somewhere else, or would you prefer I use a more succinct and meaningful instruction? --WebHamster 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't lecture, and I don't take "instructions" from you. If you feel that you can find consensus that "Go fuck yourself" is not an attack, be my guest. Until then, tone down the language. — Ched :  ?  16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what then Ched, I wont lecture/instruct you, and you do the same for me. That way we can both be happy. --WebHamster 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An edit comment like "Please be civil" won't do much for a character like this. It's nice you said "please" to his "fuck off," but not effective. As someone who is likely to be a future recipient of WebHamster's contempt for civility, I vote for a block. I don't understand why we have a civility policy specifying things like "Judgemental tone" as a violation, and then do nothing when somebody repeatedly says "fuck off" and "go fuck yourself" etc. What if everybody did that? Noloop (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Webhamster is a very talented and intelligent editor. He/she is an established editor who has made some valuable contributions to our site. Everyone gets upset at times, and I'd rather not block if it's not necessary. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, but rather a measure taken to stop disruption or vandalism. Let's hope that everyone can just get back to editing in a constructive manner, and that this won't go any further. I hope that if everybody will just stop antagonizing each other, we can do that. — Ched :  ?  18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster is antagonized by the expectation of civility. I don't see how anyone can stop antagonizing him, until that changes. Noloop (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, just like me, is sick to death of hypocrites who whine on endlessly about civility, completely unaware that they are doing precisely what it is that they are complaining about in others. As you have just so ably demonstrated above. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to give you the answer you are obviously looking for, but as your blatant trolling is rather amateurish I'd rather get my block for something/someone more worthy. --WebHamster 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that all of you screeching about blocking go and actually read what the relevant part of the civility policy actually says, particularly "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user", and possibly address the mote/beam disparity here. "He started it" isn't a defence, whichever side you're on – A hassling B is just as bad as B hassling A. We don't block for swearing; we block for harassment. – iridescent 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to getting a block for my version of calling a spade a shovel with regard to my impressions of noloop. --WebHamster 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility is as civility does. -Forrest Gump ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a real shame that admins only ever seem to react to the effect and rarely to the cause. Especially when there's lots of prose following that cause. --WebHamster 19:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to enjoy his Nero complex. Noloop (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it is better than Roxio, now fuck off troll. --WebHamster 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)