User talk:GoldenRing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:52, 15 September 2014 editThe Rambling Man (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits →Your ITN proposal: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:54, 5 November 2014 edit undoJehochman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →Not a rational argument: new sectionNext edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:

	Good stuff. ] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)		Good stuff. ] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

			== Not a rational argument ==

			A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Nothing I've said is remotely a personal attack. On Misplaced Pages we are free to critique contributions rather than contributors. Arguments could be "not rational" because they are based on wrong facts, they are conclusory or they involve logical fallacies. There's no reason to mince words when explaining why an argument is defective. For instance "This is not ITN/R" is not a rational argument, because we don't require ITN items to be listed on ITNR. "This is something of only lilliputian interest, and a purely parochial matter" is conclusory and contradicts the obvious fact that the election is making headlines around the world. "POTUS may not be the only office that matters, but we generally only post the result of an election that determines who occupies the highest seat in the government" is a reasonable oppose. We can look at more, but I think three examples suffice for the moment. At the time I posted there were 12 supports and 7 opposes, so even if you want to accord full weight to all the votes, when in fact about half of them were irrational, it's still within admin discretion to post the item. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:54, 5 November 2014

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam 01:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah ha! We have you now, minion of Sauron!

So, you boldly admit you are an 'engineer' in a somewhat 'controversial' field of endeavor... and your username is 'GoldenRing'....

Talk about WP:COI violations -- I know who you are.

One ring to rule them all,
One ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.

You are the blacksmith producing more Rings Of Power! All your edits on wikipedia clearly are pushing this evil POV! You must be stopped! Elbereth!

(please note this *entire* post is in jest. I do not really believe you are a minion of The Great Red Eye. You just commented on WP:COI over in one of the threads about paid-advocacy, and mentioned usernames as an indicator, and, well, see above. If you have not read the books, or at least seen the movie, none of the above may make any sense whatsoever... if so please disregard. Thank you for your time :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Well, we must not have you now, then, dern it. Go on about your wiki-business, minion of sauron, we may have you yet. Wait, which part exactly was wrong? Oh, nevermind. :-) Anyways, I appreciate you taking my odd sense of humour in stride, and more importantly, for your sensible position on WP:COI. See you around; thanks for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, since when did any minion of Sauron know so much about rugby union... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Martinevans123, everyone, even the balrogs, need to put their feet up with a beer every now and then. GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, even Brian is ... here!! Martinevans123 (talk)

Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates#LA Clippers owner banned for life

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates#LA Clippers owner banned for life. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

ITN

Hi, thanks for paying attention.

I wanted to explain that I try to avoid chiming in with everyone else. If there are twelve supports and I support I won't comment. When I do comment, I like to make people think, rather than just going with the current. And you also need to look at context. On the Bob Hoskins nomination, one the opposes had been on the basis that he was being posted, while more worthy nominations were being kept off. I could have gotten in an argument with that editor. I thought pointing out the absurdity in another way would be less confrontational and more effective, at least for those not on autopilot. Same thing with the Tornado Outbreak nom. As usual, we got a bunch of "the usual suspects" complaining about American bias and how this happens all the time. Rather than saying, "You, MistookEditor" are mistaken", I thought a little irony would lighten the situation.

I prefer Cash's theorem to Poe's law.

μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination). Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Your ITN proposal

Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a rational argument

A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Nothing I've said is remotely a personal attack. On Misplaced Pages we are free to critique contributions rather than contributors. Arguments could be "not rational" because they are based on wrong facts, they are conclusory or they involve logical fallacies. There's no reason to mince words when explaining why an argument is defective. For instance "This is not ITN/R" is not a rational argument, because we don't require ITN items to be listed on ITNR. "This is something of only lilliputian interest, and a purely parochial matter" is conclusory and contradicts the obvious fact that the election is making headlines around the world. "POTUS may not be the only office that matters, but we generally only post the result of an election that determines who occupies the highest seat in the government" is a reasonable oppose. We can look at more, but I think three examples suffice for the moment. At the time I posted there were 12 supports and 7 opposes, so even if you want to accord full weight to all the votes, when in fact about half of them were irrational, it's still within admin discretion to post the item. Jehochman 13:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)