| Revision as of 17:02, 12 March 2006 editAntaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs)17,763 edits The author of is no authority on what "flames" and "ad hominem" are and aren't.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:07, 12 March 2006 edit undoTomstoner (talk | contribs)252 edits removing ad hominemsNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| Jeez Louise, I said the comment was incorrect. This was a proper edit and I explained it in the Naked Shortselling Talk page. Note my response and further comments.--] 14:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC) | Jeez Louise, I said the comment was incorrect. This was a proper edit and I explained it in the Naked Shortselling Talk page. Note my response and further comments.--] 14:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Was , editing ] to hold proponents of "the campaign against ]" up to ridicule, was that a "perfectly proper edit" in your opinion? Because in mine it's rather blatant POV pushing. -- ] 22:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I thought it was a proper edit. I wouldn't have added it if I thought otherwise. What has that got to do with the naked shortselling page? --] 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Because ''you'' may think it's a "perfectly proper edit", and ''you'' may think that what you were removing "borders on vandalism" or was "near vandalism" -- but the fact that ''you'' think it so doesn't mean anything unless ''you'' have an accurate sense of what is and is not proper editing on Misplaced Pages. And if you think that it's perfectly okay to use ] to make a personal attack on opponents of naked short-selling, suggesting that they are paranoid conspiracy theorists, then you ''do not'' have that accurate sense. -- ] 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK, great. Thanks for sharing. Stop by again -- I enjoyed your ad hominems, which obviously added greatly to the credibility of your "opinion." Bye. --] 16:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm afraid you're reversing the burden of proof. You're accusing me of "ad hominem", saying in effect "how dare you suggest that the credibility of my accusations of "vandalism" and "near vandalism" and "borders on vandalism" is at all diminished by my own behavior?" The burden of proof in fact goes the other way: why should anyone give any credibility to your judgement that edits you don't like are "near vandalism", when that judgement requires a good sense of what Misplaced Pages policies on the matter are and you yourself not only violated Misplaced Pages policy, but affirmed afterwards that you thought "it was a proper edit"? If someone tries to give a medical opinion, it's not ad hominem to point out that they're not a doctor; if someone tries to give a legal opinion, it's not ad hominem to point out that they're not a lawyer; and when ''you'' try to justify your own edits by saying "I'm removing ''vandalism''! Well, something ''near'' vandalism. Well, I've read other people saying 'borders on vandalism' and I think ''this'' must be what they were talking about!" it's not ad hominem to point out that you yourself not only violated basic Misplaced Pages policy but didn't even realize afterwards that you had done so. -- ] 16:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You know, it's one thing to make a mistake. It's another thing to not even recognize afterwards that it ''was'' a mistake. And it's another thing yet again to ''refuse'' to believe that you could ''possibly'' have made a mistake, accusing anyone who tries to communicate to you that you ''have'' made a mistake of "flames" and "ad hominems". Tell me -- is there ''any'' way in your world that someone ''could'' communicate to you, that you can't edit an article about an archetypical symbol of insanity to say "Hey, you know who's associated with this symbol of insanity? The people I disagree with, that's who! And you know why? Because normal straight-thinking people like me think they're insane conspiracy theorists!" '''without''' you accusing that person, the person trying to communicate that such an edit violates ], of "flames" and "ad hominems"? If not, then it really has no meaning at all that you've thrown such an accusation at me, does it? -- ] 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 17:07, 12 March 2006
Welcome
Hello, Tomstoner, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Deepak|वार्ता 02:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Deepak. I wish the even-handedness and dedication to NPOV of the editors on the Indian Cities Project page, where I believe we met, was shared univerally! --Tomstoner 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Vandalism"
Be careful throwing the word Vandalism around as you did here; we have a pretty specific definition of it that I don't think applied in this case. (ESkog) 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
More precisely I would "borders on vandalism" -- a description I have seen used by others before in describing similar skewing of the page. The discussion page gives a fuller explanation of the reason for the revert. --Tomstoner 17:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
ESkog is giving you good advice; you would be well-advised to pay attention. "Vandalism" has a particular meaning on Misplaced Pages and if you accuse others of it when it does not apply the consequences may be serious. I in fact had just been looking at exactly that edit and wondering whether you should be reported for using a bogus edit summary: removing content that you did not agree with and masking it by saying you were "removing vandalism". I'd advise you to read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and let that be your guide as to when something is "vandalism". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeez Louise, I said the comment was incorrect. This was a proper edit and I explained it in the Naked Shortselling Talk page. Note my response and further comments.--Tomstoner 14:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:PAIN
I've looked over the contributions by User:Mfv and found some very mild incivility, but no personal attacks.
brenneman 00:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, well his last comments were toned down, so hopefully we can proceed civilly here. --Tomstoner 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)