Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 7 May 2007

HOW'S MY EDITING?

Please review me!

Note

If the number of 'good' edits outweighs the number of 'bad' edits, Misplaced Pages improves. (from Spiral Wave)

Meanings of things

Hi, A.Z. Since you haven't taken up my invitation to come to my talk page, I'm coming to yours.

I have to admit a lot of confusion about what your position is, because it seems to change often. You previously agreed that comments should be on contributions, not on the contributors themselves. You won't get any argument from me about that. But now you say "I am the one defending that comments on the contributors should be allowed". Which is it?

I also have a lot of difficulty in coming to terms with your proposition that opinion X about subject Y, held by person Z, is not a comment on subject Y, but a comment about Z himself. Let me think aloud here for a moment or two -

• Andy says "The Earth is round". (Let's call this Statement X)
• Brian says "I disagree".

Is Brian saying:

• (a) "I disagree that Statement X is a true statement" or
• (b) "I disagree that Andy has made a true statement" or
• (c) "I think Andy is mistaken", or
• (d) "Andy is mistaken" or
• (e) "Andy is a fool if he thinks that" (or various other personal attacks), or
• (f) something else?

I suppose, technically, only response (a) could be regarded as a comment purely about Statement X. All the others, to greater or lesser degree, involve a kind of comment on Andy. Responses (b) and (c) are fine. Response (d) is slightly marginal, but I don't think most people would consider it unacceptable. Response (e) is definitely a personal attack. But we'll never know which of these was what Andy was thinking when he wrote "I disagree". And we don't need to, and shouldn't try to, because all we can ever do here is work with the words people say, not with the people personally, and certainly not with their thoughts.

Given that statements don't make themselves, they are always associated with their authors. That's as it should be, otherwise nobody would ever know who's saying what, and chaos and war would ensue. But that's as far as it goes, unless the person is actually talking about himself (eg. "I am a Brazilian").

If I make a statement that is clearly about a preceding contribution (whether it's agreement, disagreement or something else), and doesn't include mention of the user, it is not a comment about the user, nor is it a comment about me, other than "I'm the person identified as the one saying this statement".

If I agree with someone, I'm not saying "I think you personally are a wonderful human being", and if I disagree with someone, I'm not saying "I think you personally are an arsehole". We are in no position to impute such things, which is why WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:Civil are so necessary.

There's nothing wrong with commenting on oneself, as long as it's relevant to the topic, eg. introducing an anecdote from your own life in order to illustrate a point you're making. But to classify virtually all comments as being comments on the user who made them goes nowhere. That might be fine for a philosophy debating class, but it is unuseful - and can even be damaging - in this environment, because people see it as an argument about argument itself, not an argument about the topic at hand. It disrupts the flow of the argument about the topic, which is the only thing we're interested in. If you want to debate polemics or the philosophy of inter-personal communication, there are plenty of places to do so, including others users' talk pages.

I welcome your response to this. -- JackofOz 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that "opinion X about subject Y, held by person Z" is not a comment on subject Y, but a comment about Z himself. I said that the sentece "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" is a comment about Z himself. That's the case of your sentence "The opinion that Rockpocket's view is right is held by Jack." Opinion X could be something like "the argument is right" or "the argument is wrong". None of them make sense in a discussion. "This argument is right" and "This argument is wrong" are just pretty much meaningless things to say in a discussion, if you say them alone. If you add a proof that the argument is either right or wrong, then it means something. If you think that the opinion of person Z is so important that we should actually believe that it is true even if person Z doesn't prove it, then you are implying that person Z has opinions that we should believe to be true even if we don't have a proof of it. And that would be a comment on person Z. In your case, the comment would be "Jack's opinion is worth something even if it adds nothing whatsoever to the debate itself." But there are other reasons why you would make your comment, besides the belief that we should believe your opinion is right even though you did not prove it. Those reasons are stated on this very post, below.

Statement (a) is the same as the statement "Brian disagrees that Statement X is a true statement". It doesn't matter who made the statement, it will always mean the same thing, whether it was Brian himself or another person who wrote it. If I am having a discussion, and then I say "Someone disagrees that this argument is right", I am most probably not adding any information about the whether the argument is true or false. In fact, anyone can't even respond to me, since it is completely off-topic what I just said. It is like saying "blah". But you don't have to agree with me yet. Continue reading.

Let me show you how is a true comment on a topic. Two people are having a discussion:

Mark says: The Earth is not flat (conclusion). I saw some photographs taken by a Russian man who went on a space travel, and they showed a spherical Earth (premise).

Andy says: Your argument is false because the photographs are false (premise).<--- (here is the comment on the topic)

Hidden premise on Mark's argument: the photographs are not false.

Every argument is made of premises and conclusions. If everyone agrees that the premises are right and everyone agrees that the logical process is not flawed, then everyone will agree that the conclusions are right. Every thing that adresses one of these two things is a comment on an argument:

• The premises(people have to deal with the fact that some of them are not provable by logic, since logic only creates new premises from previously existent ones)

• The process that departs from the premises to arrive at the conclusions (The logical part of it. Any disagreement with a logical process is agreed upon by all humans once discovered, and those are the logical fallacies)

Anything else is not a comment on the argument. Anything that is neither a comment on the premises nor a comment on the logical process is not a comment on the argument.

Anything else means to the argument the same thing as saying "blah".

Another discussion:

Mark says: every man is an animal (premise) and every animal is mortal (premise). Therefore, every man is mortal. (conclusion)

Andy says: not every man is an animal (premise), so your argument is not right.<---(comment on the topic)

Mark could ask now "why would you say that?" and Andy could answer that he has faith that men are actually souls that live forever, not animals. That's it! The END! The discussion is over because both of them disagree on such a basic premise, a premise that is only a matter of faith, not a matter of logic. There is nothing else to be said. They disagree that every man is mortal and logic has no place there anymore. Logic had done it's job and found out what is the basic premise with which Mark and Andy disagree. Now logic will say "good bye" because all that logic has to do with the premises is to get them, put them together and discover the conclusion. Logic doesn't build the premises themselves, faith does.

If I, you and Rockpocket somehow found out that we have faiths that disagree with one another, there's nothing logical that any of us could do to convince the other person of our views! We would have discovered our most fundamental disagreement, our premises that are different and therefore will be taken to different conclusions.

Mark says: I like the color red. And I like walls painted in colors that I like. Therefore, I like red walls.

Andy says: I disagree with your view on what color of walls Mark likes.

Andy has added nothing to the debate yet. Mark could ask "how come?" and Andy could answer "I believe that Mark doesn't like red at all". We don't know if what Andy said is true or not, but he does now have a reason why we should consider the argument to be wrong. He added something new to the debate, no matter who said it. It could have been Andy or anyone. It could have been a monkey or a computer. But there is a new premise now, the one that "Mark doesn't like the color red." Now they can continue talking and see whether the statement "Mark does not like the color red" is true or not. They may never really find out the Truth, and logic is not about finding out the Truth! Logic is about taking premises and making them into conclusions, nothing more than that. And every one of us agrees with the laws of logic, every single person in the world. We can only disagree when it comes to our premises (either because we have different faiths or because we ignore what are the right premises), but no one, even the most religious of men, disagrees that "if every man is an animal and every animal is mortal, therefore every man is mortal". There is no disagreement to that. There's no disagreement to "if a equals b and b equals c, then a equals c." There's no disagreement to "if every a is a b and x is an a, then x is a b." What you insert in the place of the letters may be different to each person.

Another discussion:

Mark says: If my brother got home already, then the alarm went off. I forgot to turn off the alarm and every time when I forgot to turn off the alarm it goes off whenever anyone gets home. My neighbor said that she was on the street near our house and she saw someone who looked a lot like my brother heading in the direction of our house. My neighbor could not have recognized the person correctly, but nevertheless there is a great possibility that the alarm went off.

Andy says: Your brother just called me from your house. He said he got home. <---(comment on the topic)

There are A LOT of premises above that could be dead wrong, but nevertheless somethings are right: It is true that:

"If every time I do X it causes Y to happen and I did X, therefore Y happened" Of course that someone could have exploded an atomic bomb in the city and there would be no alarm and no house and no brother anymore. Nevertheless, the sentence is still true.

So, Rockpocket had made a statement. I can say "Rockpocket, I don't feel that you are right, but I have no idea why." I am not commenting on the contribution yet, I am commenting on myself. I am looking inside me and discovering a fact: that I somehow have a bad feeling about that. I could find out eventually that actually my feeling happened only because I didn't like Rockpocket and didn't want to admit that he is right and I'm wrong, for instance. Or I could find out that I disagreed completely with some of Rockpocket's premises.

You said "Jack's view is the same view than Rockpocket's", that's the meaning of your statement. You said that you felt that his premises were all right and his logic was right. That may be very useful in the discussion. I, for instance, may dislike Rockpocket but I may like you. So I could stop and think "is there really anything wrong with what he's saying?". I might find out that he is actually right, but that would only worth anything if the goal of the discussion was to convince me! The fact that I am convinced or not doesn't change anything about the truth or falseness of Rockpocket's view. What you made was not a comment on the contribution. If you had added any proof that his premises are right or any evidence that his logic is perfect, that would be a comment on the topic. What you made was a comment on you and that is OK and that may be good because the discussion involves people and it does involve feelings. And knowing what you feel may be really good for the discussion, but your statement is not about the topic, it is about Jack! If I say "I feel all of this is crap because I think Rockpocket is acting in bad faith", I'll reveal an important fact, not about the topic (Rockpocket's view, for instance), but about myself. Then you, Jack, could try to change my feelings about Rockpocket, for instance. Changing my feelings about Rockpocket has nothing to do with finding out the truth about his view, but is matters, it is important! My feelings matter because we are not only trying to find out the truth: we actually care about what other people think, about their intentions and thoughts, we don't only care about the topic of the discussion. If you are right that Rockpocket's view is right, you have no reason to say it unless you care about what other people think. Otherwise you would be more than happy with the fact that you yourself alone know the truth.

I hope I made myself a little bit clearer, but I hope you tell me any and all the points which you might not understand about my view. I'll explain everything and if you can show me that I am wrong, I'll try to not be so proud and retract from my words. I'm not happy with the fact that I know the truth. I'll not be happy alone in my room knowing the truth and believing that Jack is acting based on something that I consider to be a lie. (please no one respond to this post before JackofOz, as I would find it rather irritating) A.Z. 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, A.Z. There's a lot to comprehend in what you say, and I don't pretend to have comprehended it yet. I’m not in your league when it comes to abstruse philosophical discussions. Maybe it's just me, but I often find it hard to follow what you say.

For now, I'll cut to the chase and talk about how this started.

• Rockpocket said "Comment on contributions, not contributors"
• I said "What Rockpocket just said is exactly, precisely my view"
• You and I had some discussion, then you said "If you had said anything new either in favor or against our arguments, then we could debate about this new argument that you'd have brought into the discussion. But you only stated "I agree" and I think that to just come here and say "I agree" is ridiculous and makes no sense. Now, why do I think that? Because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion! But you didn't just say a nonsense thing that does not harm and no good. You actually did harm." (my highlighting)

That last sentence was a statement to which I took particular exception.

Later, you said that I had acted in bad faith, but tempered that charge with the possibility that I may not have intended to act in bad faith.

Later still, you said "I did not think that statement of yours was bad. I think an appeal to majority is unspeakably harmful, but I care about what you think and I was back then trying to defend your right to say that. I don't know whether you were trying to harm Misplaced Pages or not, but if you were I would like to help you."

Can you see my dilemma? First, it’s

• you actually did harm, then
• I did not think that statement of yours was bad, then
• I was ... trying to defend your right to say that, then
• I don't know whether you were trying to harm Misplaced Pages or not (which doesn't alter your position that I did harm, whether or not it was my intention).

Nothing you have said so far convinces me that I did any harm. You're the only person who seems to be troubled by this possibility. Policies and guidelines are often forgotten by users, and people use a variety of means to remind others of them. They may not conform to your idea of how a discussion should proceed; but we're not all philosophy/logic students. You may argue that my statement added nothing to the debate, or was an appeal to the majority - but the majority here matters. WP works by consensus. I came to WP long after the core policies were decided, so I had nothing to do with their establishment. I happen to like them, because they're sane and workable, but even if I didn't like them I would still support them.

Now that a week has gone by, do you still think I did harm? And if I did, why did you not only not think my statement was bad, but also try to defend my right to say it? This seems to be saying that it’s defensible and good to say bad things.

I don't remember you having withdrawn the charge that I acted in bad faith. More to to the point, I didn't. You are the only person who seems to be of this view.

Best wishes. -- JackofOz 07:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. I don't really have a lot of time right now to respond to you, but I think I understand most of your doubts and I'll be able to make myself clear enough so you know exactly what I mean. I hope you don't mind if it takes some time, though.

It is defensible and good to say bad things because it is defensible and good to be honest. Your statement could've shown us that there is a bad thing either in your feelings or in your intentions or in your beliefs, but bad things exist and hiding them will do no good. If everyone is honest about what everyone feels, we may understand each other better and people may help us to understand ourselves. Being polite is just being false, as is assuming good faith just because this is the policy, even when you actually think the person is actually acting in bad faith. If you are honest and tell the person what you think of them, both of you will be able to work things out, something that would be completely impossible if both of you were always pretending that you think the other person is acting in bad faith.

In the last sentence, did you mean "acting in good faith"? JackofOz 06:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, Jack, I have a hard time using words (let alone English words) to express my thoughts. I'm sorry about that. This happened when I was talking to you on the talk page of the reference desks: I did not express myself well. I know you may find this just an excuse and somewhat weird, but you can read my sentences as if I were immitating another person (just these sentences, the others are me speaking for myself). Read them as if I were immitating Rockpocket, because as I understand it these sentences are a consequence of his view that comments should only be on the contributions, never on the contributors. The part that is an immitation of Rockpocket is supposed to be over right after I said "this is a fallacious appeal to majority". I did not realize until now that I had given almost no indication that it wasn't supposed to look like it was my opinion. I must have thought that you could somehow hear my ineer voice and be able to tell that I was actually talking as if I were either Rockpocket or someone that agrees with him.

(start immitation) If you had said anything new either in favor or against our arguments, then we could debate about this new argument that you'd have brought into the discussion. But you only stated "I agree" and I think that to just come here and say "I agree" is ridiculous and makes no sense. Now, why do I think that? Because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion! But you didn't just say a nonsense thing that does not harm and no good. You actually did harm. What is my argument to support my opinion that what you said is harmful? I assume that you think your personal opinion is of inherent importance. I assume you are just coming here to "vote" and so you are saying "not only Rocpocket is saying that, there is one more person that agrees with him and I think this adds importance to his opinion." This is a fallacious appeal to majority. (end immitation) According to the philosophy of "Comment on contributions, not contributors", I would simply not be able to express my concerns about your comment, since they´re based on assumptions I have about you that are not explicit in your behavior, as someone could argue you were just talking nonsense and you didn't really intend to act in bad faith and appeal to the majority. (I'm going to sleep now, as I need to wake up in a couple of hours)

I was defending the right of a person, any person, to say that they think you are harming Misplaced Pages. I was saying that your comment makes no sense as a comment on the argument, and it is true. But I also was talking as if I agreed with Rockpocket and thought that the fact that your comment was not on the contribution meant that it was worth nothing and as against policy. Your comment really makes no sense as a comment on the arguments, but it makes sense nevertheless. It makes sense in the sense that it allows other contributors to know how you feel about the discussion. As I explained above, people are often biased because of their feelings, and disclosing them may be very useful to become aware of your biases and avoid being lead by them to beliefs that are not true. Also, you may actually be able to eventually solve any bad feelings that you have, I mean, to stop feeling like you do, if you talk to other people about it. I think you were not trying to harm Misplaced Pages, but I know you have contradicted yourself, and you will continue contradicting your own beliefs every time you say that you agree that comments should be only on the contributions, not on the contributors. You made a comment on yourself, a comment that added nothing to the arguments. A comment on the contributor.

You just told me that the majority here matters. I think this is just an excuse, Jack. Saying that all that we are doing there is to try to gain votes is the same as disregarding the entire discussion and saying that the contributions are worth nothing. Saying that the votes are what actually matter is saying that you don't care about what people really think, because you won't try to convince the minority that you are right. Saying that the minority or that one only person who votes against something is not important is saying that you do not care about the feelings of anyone here, only about their votes. Saying that the votes are what actually matters is saying that the truth does not matter, that you don't care why that person voted against you, you only care that you won, no matter how, no matter if it was deceiving people or manipulating people. The votes are not what matters. You would not force anyone to vote, Jack. You would try and convince people that they should vote to something. You would not force people to vote for your proposal because you care about them. OK, you can say that you would be blocked if you tried to force people to vote for a proposal that you support. But if there were no blocks and no punishment, you would still not force anyone to vote, because a vote in itself matters nothing. People matter and the truth matters. Saying that the majority is what matters is saying that the vote of the contributors are all that matters: the vote of the contributors is not the truth, it is just their opinion at that time. The vote of the contributors is not the contributors either, as people may vote wrongly to something that they don't really believe. The vote of the contributors has no meaning, Jack. The Misplaced Pages article on appeal to majority explains that. It explains that the votes mean nothing, and they really don't. The real reasons why you told your opinion remain obscure. I have an idea about what could be the reasons, but I'm not sure which reasons were your reasons. Do you get it? If I asked you "what is the importance of telling your opinion on that thread?", what would you answer? The discussion was trying to determine whether it was OK for Lewis or anyone to criticize other editors on the talk page of the reference desk. Rockpocket thought that it was not OK and he wrote an argument. I thought Rockpocket was wrong and I wrote my argument. You went there and wrote nothing about my premises or his premises. You presentend no new evidence that any premise was either right or wrong, you brought nothing new that could help us determine the truth about whether it is OK to criticize other people on the reference desk. You just said "Jack's opinion on Rockpocket's argument is that it is right". Why did you say that? You apparentely on you last post above have used the same answer that David D. used: that the votes are what really matters and telling your opinion and making people tell their opinions may make my opinion become more marginalised by the time, since the less votes an opinion has the less importance it has. His exact sentence was:

The more people that agree with Rockpocket the more marginalised your own opinion becomes. Hence voicing agreement with an opinion alone is warranted and nothing more needs to be said. (David D.)

Well, was that your reason Jack? That you think that what really matters and what all of this is really about is nothing but the votes? If this really was your reason to voice agreement without even explaining why, you are wrong and you may be not intentionally harming Misplaced Pages, but you are bringing something bad to Misplaced Pages, a fallacy that you do not really agree with, a fallacy that you only think you agree with. It's OK to bring bad things to Misplaced Pages, there are bad things in people and in the world, and there's no way to solve them if you don't acknowledge them, and there's no way we can acknowledge them if we hide them. We should not hide the bad things as if they were not there, but now that I saw a bad thing it is my duty to tell you that you are wrong and to try and make you realize that. A.Z. 03:19, 21 April 2007(UTC)

"Being polite is just being false, as is assuming good faith just because this is the policy, even when you actually think the person is actually acting in good faith."

I disagree. Being polite is always a good policy. In this environment, divorced as it is from body language, we never really know for certain that a person is acting in bad faith (the obvious exceptions excluded, eg. outright vandalism). We may strongly suspect it, but that's all. It's far better to question the user on what they meant, wait for their response, and go from there. Simply accusing a person of acting in bad faith, as a first response, is not useful in itself, and also it's not useful because such an accusation can itself be interpreted as a personal attack. This is how vicious circles start, and all they do is drag everyone concerned into the maelstrom of darkness and away from our primary purpose here. No matter how much people may differ in their views or opinions about an issue, and no matter how passionate a debate might become, it's never ok, in my opinion, to cross the line.

"I was defending the right of a person, any person, to say that they think you are harming Misplaced Pages."

• I agree that such a right exists, and it's fine to defend that right. But you went beyond that, you accused me of actually harming Misplaced Pages. You didn't just say you thought I was harming Misplaced Pages. Your words were "You have harmed Misplaced Pages", and you're maintaining that stance.

"I think you were not trying to harm Misplaced Pages, but I know you have contradicted yourself, and you will continue contradicting your own beliefs every time you say that you agree that comments should be only on the contributions, not on the contributors. You made a comment on yourself, a comment that added nothing to the arguments. A comment on the contributor."

• We've discussed this before. I disagree that what you just said is the case. I suspect you're as stubborn about this as I am, and I can't see any purpose in thrashing it out any more.

"Saying that the votes are what actually matters is saying that the truth does not matter, that you don't care why that person voted against you, you only care that you won, no matter how, no matter if it was deceiving people or manipulating people."

• It has nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. I did not say "the votes are what actually matters". I said "the votes matter", which is a very different thing. It allows for other things to matter too. Your premise as to what I said, or meant by what I said, is flawed, and hence your conclusions have no relation to what I said.

"You would not force anyone to vote, Jack. You would try and convince people that they should vote to something. You would not force people to vote for your proposal because you care about them."

• It has nothing to do with whether I care about them or not. I simply can't force anyone to vote one way or another, and I'm sure you know that. If I have a strongly enough felt position about something, all I can do is try to influence the outcome using whatever powers of persuasion I have. Then, it's up to them, and I will abide by the outcome. If I have a very strong view that a certain outcome is unjust or unfair or will not work in practice, I will do whatever I can to have it changed - particularly if I had not been aware of the debate until after the vote had been taken, and nobody had expressed a similar view prior to the vote. But until such time as it is changed - if that ever happens - I might not actively support it but I will certainly not intentionally undermine it, breach it myself, or advocate that others do so.

" ...the vote of the contributors is not the truth, it is just their opinion at that time. The vote of the contributors is not the contributors either, as people may vote wrongly to something that they don't really believe. The vote of the contributors has no meaning, Jack."

• To the extent that votes have little if anything to do with "truth", I agree with the 1st sentence. But you take your argument too far. All we have to go on is how people actually vote. We have no insight into why they ultimately voted that way, and we should not even try to second guess their real motives. It's possible that some are voting against their consciences, but we'll never know, so that goes nowhere. If the vote of the contributors on some issue has no meaning, why do we bother trying to reach consensus as our main guiding principle here. Of course it has a meaning. I never said it was "the truth".

"Saying that the majority is what matters is saying that the vote of the contributors are all that matters"

• I never said that, and I've never thought that. I said it matters, I didn't say it was the only thing that matters.

"You just said "Jack's opinion on Rockpocket's argument is that it is right". "

• Again, you put words in my mouth, A.Z. My post made no mention of "right" or "wrong". I agreed with Rockpocket's statement, and in so doing, provided my support for the policy. I support it because, in my opinion, it works, not because it's "right". I long ago abandoned the "right/wrong" paradigm, in favour of the "what works/doesn't work" paradigm.

"Well, was that your reason Jack? That you think that what really matters and what all of this is really about is nothing but the votes?"

• No, I don't think it's all about votes, and my answers above reveals why.

"If this really was your reason to voice agreement without even explaining why, you are wrong and you may be not intentionally harming Misplaced Pages, but you are bringing something bad to Misplaced Pages, a fallacy that you do not really agree with, a fallacy that you only think you agree with."

• I don't understand what the last bit is about (a fallacy that you do not really agree with, a fallacy that you only think you agree with) - what you're talking about here is not my argument but yours (ie. that I've harmed Misplaced Pages). Since I've made it very clear that this is one issue on which we differ, I don't agree with it nor do I even think I agree with it. I profoundly disagree with it. But you seem to remain convinced I've harmed Misplaced Pages. You have the right to think that. I simply don't see any purpose in debating this any further, so let's just agree to disagree.

Just one final thing, though. I perceive all your arguments made to me in the past few days, here and elsewhere, as having been made in good faith. I've never doubted that for a moment, even if I've been outraged by some of your claims. What I would like in return is your acknowledgement that my statement agreeing with Rocpkpocket's statement was also made in good faith, whatever you may think its effects may have been. Best wishes. JackofOz 06:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a purpose in debating this much further. I could just go and state the purpose, but you would not grasp it because any answer I gave you today would have been a lazy answer. Since you don't agree with me that there is a purpose, I would have to convince you that there is, and I don't think I'm capable of doing that right now, I'm only capable of vaguely saying why we should keep debating. I can't convince you of that. Our discussions can continue for quite a long time, you see. The discussion about whether there is a purpose in debating this further can be a very long discussion, but I think you see no purpose in debating any further whether we should continue debating our previous subject any further. All of this makes me sad, but there is no purpose in saying why, because I don't know the proper way to show you why it would be saddening. You said the following to Lewis (with my highlights):

"If I could remake history, there’s one comment I made recently that I would say differently - "There's really nothing in the foregoing that's worthy of any response". That was poorly worded, and it led to your opinion of me being lowered. I’m sorry for that outcome. It’s not that I didn’t care that you felt you were being wronged by previous goings-on, but that I didn’t see it as my personal responsibility to fix the problem. I was annoyed by the "Leave! For the love of God leave!" heading and what initially followed it; which is why I said you couldn’t have it both ways. Meaning, either leave and stay away, or remain here and contribute in a positive manner."

After that you said:

"That’s what my post was about, but I was just over it by that stage and didn’t have the mental energy to say any more. (Yes, even I, your personal guru, get tired and depleted sometimes)."

Mental energy seems to be exactly what I do not have to respond to you further now that I know you do not wish to continue the debate. If it's already hard enough to find the best way of debating even when both people wish to debate, it is to me tireing and mental energy consuming to try and keep debating when the person I am debating with doesn't even wish to continue the debate.

I could start to think about a way to persuade you right now that we should continue the debate, but I have no mental energy to do that either, as it would be an extremely difficult task that would require large amounts of thinking (and therefore a lot of time) to be completed. Anything that I could produce right now and within the following days would be but poorly worded and it would most probably not lead to your understanding of what I mean. I can't even tell you why I have highlighted the other things you said and I didn't comment in this paragraph, because it would take so much mental energy, more than I will have during a long period of time. A.Z. 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to respond to somethings that you said... But not right now. Right now, I have mental energy enough only to address your first point:

"In this environment, divorced as it is from body language, we never really know for certain that a person is acting in bad faith (the obvious exceptions excluded, eg. outright vandalism)."

We never know for certain that a person is acting in bad faith! Body language cannot tell us if a person is acting in bad faith or not. This belief of yours is rather awkward. It would be a valuable talent to teel someone's intentions just by looking the body language, and very useful to choose which politicians to vote for. But, even if it were true that the body language of someone could reveal their intentions, this fact would not mean anything to my argument, as my argument is not based at all on the premise that everyone can tell for sure the intentions of another editor. But we can suspect them! And you seem to agree, since you said:

"We may strongly suspect it (that someone is acting in bad faith), but that's all. It's far better to question the user on what they meant, wait for their response, and go from there."

I think you really agree with me, Jack. What I'm saying is exactly that: we may strongly suspect that someone is acting in bad faith. If I suspect that someone is acting in bad faith, do I still assume that the person is acting in good faith? I thought that "assuming good faith" meant that you would think that the person is acting in good faith and you would treat the person as if they were acting in good faith. I think that's what assuming good faith means and I think this is wrong. I think that, if I suspect that someone is acting in bad faith, I should treat the person as someone who I suspect to be acting in bad faith, and anything else would be lying. I don't think that means that we should treat the other person using bad manners, that we should call the person names, that we should try to offend the person. This is not necessarily the way that I treat people that I suspect to be acting in bad faith. We should be honest. And being honest may lead to the solution of problems: being honest with the person and telling them that you think they are acting in bad faith may ultimately, after a lot of talking, lead to the discovery that the person was acting in good faith after all. Being honest and telling the person that they may be acting in bad faith may ultimately lead the person themselves to realize that they were acting in bad faith and to stop acting in bad faith.

As to whether there is such a thing as "outright vandalism" that we can be sure that it is an act of bad faith, the answer is no. What looks like outright vandalism to you may be an act of good faith. For instance, someone once offered five dollars to the first person who wrote "reality is a commodity" in the article named Reality. The person could do it in good faith and donate the five dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation to help Misplaced Pages, and yet the edit would have been seen by most people as an act of bad faith. A.Z. 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about the vandalism and the body language, A.Z.. I concede those points to you. Which brings me to these statements from your post above:

• "(A) We never know for certain that a person is acting in bad faith!"
• (B) "I think that, if I suspect that someone is acting in bad faith, I should treat the person as someone who I suspect to be acting in bad faith" and
• (C) "Being honest and telling the person that they may be acting in bad faith may ultimately lead the person themselves to realize that they were acting in bad faith and to stop acting in bad faith."

So, we've made some progress.

• 1. We agree that one may suspect another of acting in bad faith.
• 2. We agree that it's ok to tell them that you suspect they're acting in bad faith.
• 3. We agree that we never know for certain that a person is acting in bad faith.
• 4. We agree that, without an admission of bad faith from the other person, the most we can know is that they may be acting in bad faith.

So I return to my point from yesterday. You didn't say that I may have been acting in bad faith, or that you suspect I was acting in bad faith. You said that I did act in bad faith (which directly contradicts Agreement 3). You directly accused me of acting in bad faith. The only qualification was that I may not have intended to do so - which does not in any way alter what you allege that I did. So, since I have denied that I was acting in bad faith, and I will continue to deny it till the day I die, where does that leave you? You must accept my word that I was not acting in bad faith. You have no alternative. Unless, of course, you want to change any of the above agreements. If you were to do that, I don't think I'd be interested in debating this matter with you any further. But that's your call.

I still want you to acknowledge that I did not act in bad faith, and to apologise to me for asserting that I did so. -- JackofOz 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Jack, because I said you acted in bad faith. Jack, I just read again what I said and it seems that it was "you actually did harm" and not "you acted in bad faith". You may harm Misplaced Pages without acting in bad faith, surely... Anyway, I am sorry because I responded agressively to you, instead of making it clear that I only thought you were mistaken to try to marginalise my opinion (because that's what I thought you were doing, and I felt threatened by it). I should have tried to explain myself better, as I am trying to do now on this thread. A.Z. 04:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote at Wikiversity the following:

And I'm really sorry for what happened to Jack... I don't know what it is... That's what scares me the most, Lewis. I wouldn't mind 1000 mad idiots if I were sure that one sane person would always be there, but I'm afraid something like that could one day happen to you as well!! a.z. 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because I was so disturbed when I read your response to Rockpocket asking you to stop engaging in discussion with me (my highlight):

Hi Rockpocket. I had already asked A.Z. to continue any further discussion on my talk page. However, his latest post was just screaming out for rebuttal, which was too tempting to ignore. I'll be good from now on. Cheers.JackofOz 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I don't think I did anything wrong at the talkpage. Indeed, I am and was most scared by the way Rockpocket suddenly gave up to discuss with me and started to warn me and to ask people to stop discussing with me and to say that I am becoming disruptive. I am really sorry all of this happened, but I never meant to offend you when I said 1000 mad idiots. I was just scared because it looked like you had chosen to stop thinking for yourself and had stopped caring about me and Lewis.

If you called me a mad idiot, but you said that you cared about me and that you would continue discussing and talking with me until you showed me exactly why you think I am acting like a mad idiot, and you would hear me and pay attention to me if I had any objection to be called such a thing, I would not be offended by that. I am being honest with you here and it's being very hard for me to do that, as I am pretty scared that you may just stop talking to me because of what I said, instead of trying to understand me. I care about you a lot. A.Z. 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, A.Z. I care about you too, which I why I've always taken you seriously (even if I struggle to understand what you write about sometimes). I care about Lewis too, and always have, whether or not he believes that right now. If that were not the case, I certainly would not have spent the amount of time that I have spent of recent days in writing posts to him and to you. I believe my record speaks for itself in this regard. I spent 6 hours (yes, 6 hours) writing a message to him the other day, by far the longest message I've ever written on any talk page. I took particular care to not have him see it just a rant. He had written to me expressing his concern about my recent activity, and some other things - and it deserved a comprehensive response. If that's not caring, "it'll have to do till the real thing comes along" (Sandy Denny).

However, caring does not mean being permanently lovey-dovey and touchy-feely. I've had to take a very firm line with Lewis about the baseless accusations he's made about me - but that was simply to rebut them. After all, silence is usually interpreted as acquiesence. Had anybody else made such accusations, I would probably have reported them to an administrator. I've never done that to anybody in 4 years here - I've never even come close to having to even consider doing so. And I hope I never do. But my firmness should not be interpreted as lack of caring - rather, the precise opposite. That's certainly where I've always come from. Of course, being human, we make mistakes. In that long message, I apologised to Lewis for an ill-considered remark I made a little while ago. He has yet to acknowledge that apology - but he did find time to make a further baseless attack on me. This time, I've asked him to be the one to make the apology. And so it goes. I hope this circus can end really soon. I would like the outcome to be win-win. I hold that hope in the palm of my hand. Feel free to pass that on to him. I really want him to know that whatever he may say about me, nothing will alter the care I feel for him. We established a bond when we first came into contact with each other, and as far I'm concerned, that bond remains intact.

Just one thing, though - and I made a very similar point to Lewis yesterday. Just because I choose to maintain friendly relations with other users with whom you or Lewis have had disagreements (or worse), does not mean that I've stopped thinking for myself, nor does it mean that I've sided with them versus you, or anything else. I associate with whomever I choose, and my aim is to be on friendly terms with everyone with whom I come into contact, no matter how briefly or how long-term, both here and in real life. I just don't know any other way of operating. I don't understand how anyone could possibly have any objections to that. That jovial camaraderie is intensely important to me, and I sometimes manifest it in a little light-hearted humour. I've had awful scoldings in the past when Wikipedians have taken my humour the wrong way - I sometimes forget that others can't tell that I'm being humourous, because they can't see the twinkle in my eye as I'm typing it. I agree with Mel Brooks when he says that there is no situation where humour is inappropriate - which was his explanation for "Springtime with Hitler" from "The Producers". I know that some would not agree with that, and I respect their position. My well-intended humour can sometimes be interpreted as being a little flippant, which is all that "I'll be good from now on" was. Nothing more; certainly nothing sinister. I hope to hear from you soon. JackofOz 13:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting here so far, because I expect my contributions are neither welcome nor needed. Though I have been reading your exchanges, mainly because it has become obvious to me that I have offended A.Z. (which was not my intent) and I hoped to learn if there could have been a better way to handle our exchanges, and have avoided that. However, that is somewhat beside the point. I think I can be constructive in noting that I interpreted JackofOz's "I'll be good from now on" as a subtle and good-natured jibe at me, indicating that he concurs with intent behind my request, but that he is more than capable at making his own decisions about who he discuss issues with and that its not my position to dictate that to him. I took the comment in exactly that good-humoured manner and entirely accept its validity. He is right, of course, that I have no authority to tell him who to discuss what with, and I appreciated the gentle way he acknowledged my request while making that point. I certainly don't think he was indicating subservience. That said, and having spent a fair proportion of my life communicating in another language, I realise how difficult it is to interpret such subtleties in a second tongue and even more so when it is in raw text form. Anyway, thats just my tuppence worth. Rockpocket 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for edit

I made this edit because I felt that the new wording improved the tone of that guideline, without altering its meaning. 'Mess up' is a very casual choice of phrase—perhaps a bit too casual for a policy document. 'Interfere with' is a bit more formal, but not so formal as to be stuffy. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. A.Z. 04:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Reference Desk Guidelines

This has already been addressed, since the order was swapped two weeks ago, after a brief discussion. I agree with that decision wholeheartedly, since my initial impression of the RefDesk was that it was for answering questions, without any bias against, or any exclusion of reliable information from outside the confines of Misplaced Pages. My comment was made in the context of the RefDesk purpose stated at the time, which suggested the RefDesk be a guide to Misplaced Pages itself, rather than as a generic guide to any information and knowledge. I assumed that the sudden shift in the (apparent) focus of the RefDesk had already been discussed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mallanox

I indented one of your two votes . —AldeBaer 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you !

Hello, A.Z.! Misplaced Pages thanks you for offering to help in the capacity of an administrator. Sadly, your nomination has been withdrawn as the nomination would likely not have succeeded. Major reasons for this are the limited time you have spent editing Misplaced Pages and the relatively low number of edits you have made to date; nothing personal. Please don't be disheartened - this was only done to reduce any ill will that might have been generated by the process.

If you wish to help Misplaced Pages in the capacity of an administrator in the future, you will need to be able to demonstrate why people can trust you with these very powerful tools. To do this, you may wish to help out with maintenance work - here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Misplaced Pages Backlogs
• Deletion Debates
• Administrators' noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages Policy
• Requests for Adminship
• The NoSeptember Admin Project Statistics Site

Once you've spent several more months both creating new content and helping administrators out behind the scenes, you may be ready for another request to become an administrator. You might wish to try an editor review before another request to become an administrator; this is often useful before a new request for adminship and can help you decide if you are ready to stand again. Please remember that whatever happens, many of the administrators you see today on the administrator's noticeboard went through the RfA process at least twice before the community promoted them; one admin notably made seven attempts before succeeding.

Please don't take any RfA criticism personally; rather, look on the process as a constructive way to help you become a better editor. Please don't rush to become an administrator, but take your time and allow the community to take the time we need to be able to judge that we can trust you and your judgement. Look through the various policies and above all, have fun and enjoy yourself building Misplaced Pages. Once again, Misplaced Pages thanks for your nomination and we all hope you won't be too upset at the result. Best wishes. Majorly (hot!) 10:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I responded on Majorly's talk page. A.Z. 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse

Majorly decided to put an end to my request for adminship. When I went to talk to Majorly about it, Majorly decided not to respond. This is irrational and I would restore my request if I could, and I would block Majorly if they continued doing this sort of thing, if I could block other users. Then again, I can't do any of this.

The following section (copied here verbatim) was deleted by Majorly (hot!) from their talk page. I won't complain about them to the other administrators because I think most of them became corrupt and started to have contempt for other people when they became administrators. I urge all honest and good willing Wikipedians to try and change the process for selecting administrators as soon as possible! One idea that I think is promising has been posted here. If you want to comment on this, please do so by creating new sections. Don't edit this section, please. A.Z. 23:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you explain how I abused my administrator privileges? Did I block you? No. Did I lock the page so you couldn't edit it? Nope. Did I delete the comment? I removed it because it was cluttering up my talk page. It's still available to look at. So, in summary, I've abused what? Majorly (hot!) 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You refrained from explaining yourself because you are more powerful than I am. Can I restart the very same request that you decided to finish? A.Z. 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA would've failed if it kept going. If you do another one it will fail. Majorly's right, just drop it and save yourself the embarassment.--Wizardman 23:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be far from embarassing for that request to fail. If those people started voting for me, I would have to sit down and think for some time about what kind of person I am being. A.Z. 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., you're completely wrong yet again! :) I am no more powerful than you are! I just have extra privileges because I'm a trusted user. How can you say I'm abusing my admin privileges? I'm not even using them... Yes please restart your rfa. I'll start writing my oppose comment now. Majorly (hot!) 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I will do so, I only have to learn how to restart the RfA. I would like an apology as well. I don't trust you. You don't have to press the button to abuse your powers, the same way a king doesn't have to actually cut someone's head off to abuse his powers. The king can just tell people what to do and they will obbey him as if they were liking it. A.Z. 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't trust you either. Just create another request and stick a 2 on the end of the title (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/A.Z. 2). Remember to write a message telling no one to close it (they'll be even more inclined to do so after seeing my oppose). I'd apologise, if only I knew what for. You're the one who's been trolling me with false claims of admin abuse, only to have been proven wrong. I just did as any editor including yourself could do. Majorly (hot!) 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., please take this advice on board. I'm telling you this not as a "more powerful" editor, but as someone that thinks you have extremely good intentions and who thinks you have a lot to contribute. Please do not restart you RfA. I say this for two reasons, firstly WP:SNOW is regularly used in situations like yours. Majorly was simply trying to be helful in sparing you an avalanche of criticism and oppose votes. It is certainly not an example of abuse. You indicated that Clio made you cry over a comment. RfA's can be brutal (trust me, I went through one) and if you are sensitive to others' opinions of you this is very probably the best thing for you - the editor review will serve the same purpose and is much less traumatic. Secondly, if you restart another RfA, others will inevitably find this thread, you will get even more criticism and someone else will remove it per WP:SNOW. You will almost certainly be warned for trolling, and possibly even blocked. Then you will be in exactly the same position as you are now, but feeling even more angry - how will this help you or the project? Please think about this, or at least seek the opinion of some one you trust (like StuRat or Jack) before going down this path. Rockpocket 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, let him run, A.Z. clearly knows best... Majorly (hot!) 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You have convinced me, Rockpocket. I already knew that there was going to be some abuse, but I would be able to take it if it were restrained to the RfA comments. Now that I know that they will block me and that I'll have to face irrationality and the absurd of Wikipedian administrators again, I think I'm just gonna give up and stop torturing myself. Of course, the natural corollary of such a decision is actually suicide, and I don't want to kill myself. What I mean is just that I'll give up on this specific strategy to improve Misplaced Pages and I'll try other strategies. Thank you. A.Z. 00:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not improving anything. Edit the encyclopedia, and quit shouting "Abuse!" whenever an admin does something you don't agree with. Majorly (hot!) 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Now even you realize your arguments are over. When you did something that I disagree with, I went to your talk page. I was honestly thinking that you would just restore my request, as I saw no reason whatsoever for you not to do that. Your justification for finishing the request early was that it would cause me emotional pain, according to the text that you left on my talk page. So I just told you that I didn't mind about the pain, I wanted really bad for the request to progress all the way to the end. I only started shouting "ABUSE!" when the abuse started. By the way, I actually shouted "ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE", but you changed it. A.Z. 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read a word I wrote. Just stop with this nonsense, please, for the sake of us both. Majorly (hot!) 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read a word I wrote. Just stop with this nonsense, please, for the sake of us both and everyone else. A.Z. 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ive dealt with many trolls in my time, and I'm pleased to announce that you are the winner of Majorly's Worst Troll competition! Congratulations. You win yourself a doughnut. Don't eat it too quickly now ;) Majorly (hot!) 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA failed

(All the following and the title are a verbatim copy of the content of a section on Majorly's talk page before being erased. Do not edit this section)

Hi, Majorly. You wrote on my talk page that my nomination "has been withdrawn as the nomination would likely not have succeeded" and "this was only done to reduce any ill will that might have been generated by the process." I don't know what "ill will" you are talking about here but, if it means that I could have been emotionally hurt by the process, I really don't mind. In fact, I don't think that less than one day is time enough to say that the nomination would likely not have succeeded. Even if it is, I would like to see the comments of other people and the true amount of opposition and support that I have. Please, I would like the process to continue. A.Z. 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is standard procedure. You had no supports whatsoever, plenty of opposition and two suggestions to withdraw. If you want feedback, get an editor review. Majorly (hot!) 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to get an editor review, as you suggested, but I still think that those few hours were not enough to reach any kind of conclusion. A.Z. 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I, and probably everyone who participated think differently. Just by doing this shows you have a lot to learn. Majorly (hot!) 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

People who have a lot to learn can't be administrators? A.Z. 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I don't suppose you've read the guide, the admins page or any successful RfAs and the standards people like. By doing this, you are clearly unaware of common procedures round here, and with that I wish to end this discussion. Majorly (hot!) 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you share your feelings about continuing to discuss with me. But you are wrong about me being unware of the common procedures here. I'm well aware of them: people who can respond vague and meaningless questions like "when should one ignore the rules" without saying something that unpleases other people get elected. People who claim to understand the rules are elected. People who have a lot of edits are elected, and people who just want to help Misplaced Pages without having to lie and to be manipulative and dishonest do not get elected. I am honest and that would be a good reason to elect me. However, the whole idea that an administrator should be elected is wrong: this is a wiki, it is an "open" encyclopedia and all people should be administrators, just like all people can edit articles. There should not be a club of the most populars that have more power than the others: popular people are a minority with nothing special that would make them the best for the job. A.Z. 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss this. They aren't elected anyway, so yet another thing you are unfamilar with. Majorly (hot!) 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a conversation with Majorly and I'd think Majorly's talk page would be an appropriate place for doing so. By the way, I'd like it if you left a comment on my editor review. No-one participated yet. As to the election thing, I still think they are elected, even after your denial of it. A.Z. 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're discussing how admins should be made here. Nothing to do with me, about me, or of interest to me. What are you trying to achieve by interrogating me like this? They are not elected, and never have been. Majorly (hot!) 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who started the conversation, on my talk page. Your opinion was that the process of my request for adminship should be finished early, and I disagreed with you. So I came here and explained my reasons to disagree and now we are trying to reach some sort of agreement (at least I am). A.Z. 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, unfamiliarity. I left you a standard message {{RfA withdrawal}}, as courtesy, and did not want to start a conversation about it. I've closed many RfAs before, who were in a similar boat to you (i.e. not a snowball's chance in hell of passing), and as an experienced admin, who is very familiar with the RfA process, I can tell you that if I had not closed it, another user would have done soon. Why? Because to leave it open is a complete waste of time when the result is painfully clear from the start, and there are more important things to do than oppose a request that simply has no need to be there. Majorly (hot!) 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You just told me a lot of your opinions. You say your opinions, you justify them with arguments and then you tell me that you do not wish to discuss anything nor do you wish to have a conversation with me. If you don't want to, then why do you even bother to type anything? Just stop responding once and for all and stop leaving messages on people's talk pages and stop closing RfA's if you are not willing to accept the responsability for your actions. A.Z. 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I accept responsibility. My actions were completely correct. I wish I'd never bothered to tell you I'd closed it now, so much for being courteous and helpful. Majorly (hot!) 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am here saying that your actions were incorrect. If you accept responsability for them, doesn't that imply that you have to talk to me and respond? You seem to be wishing that I just stop talking to you and shut up. You want me to go away and you want to continue acting without having to explain to anyone why you did what you did. So much for being responsible. More specifically, you said: "You're discussing how admins should be made here. Nothing to do with me, about me, or of interest to me." If it is not of your interest how administrators are made, then why on earth do you keep meddling with requests for adminship? A.Z. 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation has lost me. What do you want Majorly to do? – Steel 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My original request was: "Please, I would like the process to continue." A.Z. 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Open another request and fail again. Your choice. I wonder how long it'll take for it to close a second time? Majorly (hot!) 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It had zero supports and nine opposes - no chance of passing. What purpose would reopening it have? – Steel 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely none whatsoever. Unless his purpose is to waste people's time. Majorly (hot!) 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset) I must say that Majorly did not respond to my last post before Steel came into the discussion.

I told on my original post some of the reasons why I'd like the process to continue. Certainly none of them is to waste people's time. People are not forced to vote and to express their opinions if they don't want to: I'm sure this is voluntary. By the way, saying that my purpose is to waste people's time violates a lot of policies. However, I don't agree with these policies anyway, as you can see on my talkpage. I'd just like to ask if you are like me and you admit it when you are not assuming good faith. A.Z. 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am nothing like you, and I wish you'd stop trolling me. I'm removing this pointless discussion to my removed stuff page. Majorly (hot!) 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Majorly's opinion that there wasn't a chance that it would have passed. Not a reflection on you, personally, just an observation based on my experience watching RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator changing other people's posts without even telling them!

Majorly changed the title of the discussion above. It was originally "Administrator abuse" and now it is "Abuse". That's what I call ************* abuse. A.Z. 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For goodness' sake... I removed administrator because I did not abuse my admin position. I don't want false accusations made against me. As I said, stop shouting abuse when you don't agree. Majorly (hot!) 00:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You did abuse your position. As I said above, abusing your position doesn't require pressing the button. When you think that you can't abuse your position without pressing the button, you'll just come up with an excuse and press the button. Your excuse now for abusing is that you did not block me. Your excuse then will be probably that I violated some policy. A.Z. 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not abuse my position. I closed an RfA. They get closed every day. You weren't going to pass, and hopefully you never will. Once it's closed, it's closed. You don't re-open it, and it would be utterly pointless. You're making a mockery of the entire process. You've been disruptive, trolling, and I'm simply sick of you at this point. It's 2am here, and I'm going to bed. No doubt I'll see more whining about non existent admin abuse when I return, but so be it. Whine all you like. You'll get nowhere with it. Majorly (hot!) 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, both you folks cool down. Majorly did not use their admin bit here, so it's a fairly innocent correction (though I can understand if you're heated, it doesn't look that way :-) ). --Kim Bruning 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy

You're aware that your conduct today has been nothign but detrimental to wikipedia, correct? Your rfa failed, instead of whining about it, improve yourself. Your attitude after it has basically cost you trust from everyone who you cam in touch with. Read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:SNOW. I recommend that you log off for today and cool down, else you will be blocked, maybe idefinitely, soon.--Wizardman 01:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm going to leave a message for my fellow Wikipedians to read in a few years. By the way, your post is so absurd that it's just... I mean, it's absurd.

Behold, Wikipedians of 2027! When I am an administrator, when all of us are administrators, if no-one deleted for good this post over the next two decades, do behold what you humans were capable of, and acknowledge that you still are! Do watch yourselves everyday and think twice of every edit you make, for inside each one of you there is a little of this one above!

OK, now I am going to ask my friends Lewis and StuRat if my attitude after my RfA failed cost my trust from them. A.Z. 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to their reply :)--Wizardman 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked

I have issued you a 24 hour block for incivility and harassment of Majorly on his talk page. Please, cool down a bit and come back after this block and let the issue go. Your RFA would have failed if it were allowed to continue. Sean William 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, your blocked. I was coming here to tell you that you've got two options. You either shut up and got on with the job in hand - building a 💕, or you keep up your trolling and you'll be blocked. Anyway, when your block expires, them's the options. I hope you'll choose the "I'll shut up and go edit" option as it would be a shame to loose a lively editor such as yourself. -- Nick 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right: I have been incivil. Although I do not agree with the policy saying that we shouldn't be incivil, I don't think that the policy is so harmful that I should not follow it. I can do my work on Misplaced Pages without being incivil. I can try to change the policy without being incivil.

Good job, Sean William. I think blocks are such a good tool for dealing with problems that I suggested that every one should be able to block other people. I just think that it is wrong for people to be able to unblock themselves, as it destroys the whole purpose of blocking. A.Z. 02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., on the chance that you're in earnest, no admin could get away with unblocking himself wrongly. To do so would be a serious breach of trust. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, a whole bunch of editors have now written you off as troll. Since we're already talking about the elephant in the room, I'll admit I've wondered several times whether or not you're just trolling. If you are, ha ha, very funny, now go away. If you're not, you should really spend some time thinking why your actions would be seen by many as trolling, and change your approach accordingly. Friday (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not trolling, Friday... You could just have asked me. I'm going to say it again, but not to joke or anything: I am not trolling, Friday!

I care about Misplaced Pages and I try to help it the way I think is the best. I am still trying to find out what I can do here. I do think about it. Editing articles is not the only thing that one can do for Misplaced Pages and the fact that I don't do it much means pretty much nothing as to my real contributions to the encyclopedia.

Since I am not a troll and some people see my actions as trolling, I do agree that I should think about it and try to change my approach. And I am! That's exactly what I am trying to do right now, by showing people a decent and workable way out of the current administrator problem. Yes, I think much of the problems that are happening here would be pretty much solved with the new approach that I suggested on StuRat's talk page. I am aware that a lot of other people have had the basic same ideas before, but I presented some true solutions to a lot of objections that people could have to the new system.

But, anyway, just a part of the editors have written me off as a troll! And doing so was a bad contribution to the encyclopedia, as they will all realize if the new system for adminship becomes real accordingly to my ideas. Lewis, Rockpocket, Nick, JackofOz, StuRat and other people whose name I don't remember now do not think I am a troll. A.Z. 06:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(** clears throat **) A.Z., I said to you recently that I've always taken you seriously. I still do. I think you are genuine in everything I've ever seen you write. However, I seriously think you're on the wrong track. You're relatively new to Misplaced Pages - not that there's anything wrong with that - yet rather than work within the system and take some considerable time to learn about what works and what doesn't around here, and then try to improve what you see as wrong, I see you being a crusader for righteousness almost from the start. You've advocated that every user should be an administrator, and everyone should be able to block everyone else - yet you fail to see why others might be very wary of a person with such views having a position of some power (if that's the right word). Compounding the caution that some obviously feel around you was your nomination to become an admin, where you didn't make a credible case as to why anyone should support you. You may have thought it was credible, but the results speak for themselves. You have to accept that is the way it is, for now at least. If some people felt, "this guy is advocating something tantamount to anarchy, but simultaneously wants to be in a position of power over others", I think it's not too hard to understand why they'd be a little sceptical of your nomination. Doesn't this explain why you had no supporters at all? Having long and heated debates about the outcome will only serve to entrench the views of others about you, so you're doing yourself a huge disservice. They think you're wasting their time - if you were seeking support from others to become an admin, you can't then act as if their views about your subsequent activities don't matter. Do you see the inconsistency here?

As for being a troll, I actually don't think that is your intention - but can you blame others for believing that's what you seem to have become of late? I think that would be a reasonable opinion, based on what I've read. In the end, intentions don't count, actions do.

I also have to say that I think it was a little unfair of you to simply assert that I do not think you are a troll. You and I have never discussed that matter before now. You weren't happy that Friday came to his own conclusions about your alleged trolling, and said that he should have asked you whether that was the case or not. I expect the same courtesy from you, ie. ask me what my views are, rather than just assume them in your discussions with third parties. Silence on my part would have been seen as agreement, so I really had no choice but to get involved in this discussion. That in itself could be described as a classic example of trolling. Now do you see what I'm getting at?

Sometimes you just have to cop it on the chin, shut up, and get on with life. This is one such case. Have you identified your primary positive purpose for being involved in Misplaced Pages? If not, I strongly recommend you do that, and write it down, to remind you and keep you on track. JackofOz 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Very sage advice (as usual) from Jack. I don't think A.Z. is trolling either - and I'm happy for A.Z. to have noted that since I have indicated my understanding of his intentions elsewhere. But I also see how it might appear that way. I actually feel somewhat responsible for A.Z.'s foray into RfA, I have been urging him to "get involved" with the RfA process if he thinks all users with a certain level of experience should have the tools. My reasoning is that adminship is no big deal and, if enough of the community were to !vote on that basis, then pretty much anyone with a certain level of experience who wanted to be nominated would pass. I feel instead of promoting change with talkpage rhetoric he should engage with the process, get experience of it and be part of making change happen by !voting as he sees fit. What I didn't envisage was that A.Z. would nominate himself immediately. I guess I thought that our understanding of "users with a certain level of experience" was the same. I meant significant experience of contributing to the encyclopaedia, I guess A.Z. felt otherwise. Anyway, that doesn't excuse the reaction to the WP:SNOW removal - which demonstrates the very lack of process experience that I was urging A.Z. to get. I hope A.Z. will continue to contribute at RfA, but as a participant of the community, not as a nominee on his return (as well as getting involved with the encyclopaedia, of course!) Rockpocket 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I read you both. Thank you. I have to think about it. I agree with some things, I disagree with some things, and I'd like to talk about them. A.Z. 00:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikia ?

Hmmm, while you seem to have been around for a while, you don't really seem to have done much about the encyclopedia? I wonder if you'd be happier at one or more of the wikias? They have a similar atmosphere to here (Wikia is run by people who also edit wikipedia :-) ) , but there are many different ways you can write about things, and all-around you might in fact be happier there. I intend this post in the most straightforward useful sense, I wouldn't reccomend wikia if I didn't think they'd enjoy having you around. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Explaining joke

Editing Misplaced Pages seems like an endless task to me. Clarityfiend 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sisyphus written "sissy Phus" was just a word joke. Clarityfiend 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One Year!

Happy 1st anniversary from ~ hydnjo talk  16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!! A.Z. 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, you're quite welcome. ~ hydnjo talk  19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

You seem to be making a big deal out of people opposing your RfA but you only wrote one sentence on the whole request. I am pretty sure that no one would have passed given that approach. This handicap became even greater for you given your experience. A true test of whether people respect your contributions would have a been a more serious application outlining your qualities. The sparcity of your application screamed to the wiki world that it was not a serious effort. Fair or not, I also think it is true that the subsequent squabbles have damaged your reputation in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you came to my talk page and cared enough to type your opinion. I just wish people didn't have to make any kind of "effort" to be administrators, the same way that the effort to become an article editor is zero: everyone already has the tools, no questions asked.

Well, at least, if there's gonna be some kind of effort, definitely the kind of effort required nowadays is not right one: passing a test with people asking deliberately tricky questions as if they were testing the candidate to see whether they can answer them without saying something stupid. People judging whether what other people said was stupid or not. People voting to oppose because they have bad feelings towards the candidate, and making wild rationalisations to justify their vote. That's not what I wish for Misplaced Pages. People who can pass that "test" are not the administrators that I want for Misplaced Pages. A.Z. 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here. I will remind you that no one needs to be an admin to be an efficient and effective editor. I'll also remind you that the best admins are those that can negotiate a situation without using their block capabilities. On the other hand bad admins can really cause havoc if they gratuitously delete and block. The issue here is which is the lesser of two evils? More bad admins or less good ones? David D. (Talk) 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

huh?

Replying here to not clutter Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/guidelines, since you no longer seem to be discussing the guidelines. I don't remember saying Froth is disruptive. I also don't remember reverting content he added. The WP:POINT gives several examples of disruptive behavior- that's why I thought it might clarify. Perhaps the language barrier is a factor. Friday (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably the language barrier is an issue. If I got anything totally wrong, please tell me. Here is my reasoning:

You said that you didn't vote for him because he didn't understand the policies and you said that you thought that he didn't understand the policies because he appeared to use Misplaced Pages for forum-like discussions, and what I understood then is that you thought this because of his behavior on the reference desk, providing posts that you thought to violate policy, most specifically NPOV and verifiability. You thought that his posts did not belong here, to Misplaced Pages, and all I'm saying is that those posts and posts like those belong here, and the guidelines must make it clear. A.Z. 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we should protect the right for people to say what they want on the reference desk because it's a free speech issue? Friday (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By no means. I'm saying that a post should not be deleted because it is unuseful in the opinion of a good part of the editors. A.Z. 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter - SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue VI - May 2, 2007 Monthly Challenge: Stand for Deputy Coordinator or support some candidates after May 5... Article News Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other is a Featured Article Candidate. Project News A taskforce dealing with LGBT publications has been proposed. If you are interested in getting involved, consider signing up at the projects' page. Our core topics list is looking good. It's still a bit slim on LGBT history articles, non-American LGBT media, and important LGBT biographies. Do you have suggestions? David Shankbone has done an amazing job taking photographs of LGBT celebrities. Thanks David! People interested in collaborating with him and setting up a photography taskforce should contact him or drop a note at the project's talkpage. The LGBT Portal still needs a bit of love and attention :-). Again, any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles can be added to the gallery here. Volunteers to help out with the Portal are extremely welcome- make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage. Updates to the current news items are helpful. Deputy coordinator elections WikiProject LGBT studies is looking for new Deputy Coordinators to help out with various essential tasks in organising the project. To nominate yourself or contribute to the discussion, please go to: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator/May 2007. The deadline for nominations is May 5 and the elections will last a week after that. Candidates so far are: SatyrTN, Raystorm and Fireplace. The elections will be pretty simple- everyone just endorses their favourite candidate(s). The three with the most votes at the end of the week are the new deputy coordinators, who will assist Dev920 in keeping the project running. Member News Our membership continues to expand. 22 new users have joined the WikiProject (bringing our total membership to 182): Zigzig20s, Qxmagazine, TAnthony, Kbolino, Knorpel, Madman bum and angel, Ponyboy, BenjiBoi, Guy M, Pernishus, Rockdozen, RAShippy, Jaibe, Fshepinc, rglong, Boomboomeve, Undertheinfluence, Kyoko, Catsaki, OsteopathicFreak, smccoy12345, and Alexlovesme. Also Rebecca who rejoins us having previously been a member as Ambi. Please make them feel welcome! To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, just ask Dev920. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let her know.

I have to ask

Perhaps you're only trying to do what you think is best, but do you really think editing guidelines is a good activity for you? You are not understanding a lot of core concepts, so you how to you expect to contribute constructively? You either have a very eccentric interpretation of policy or the language barrier is just too much, or perhaps both. Why not get more experience with how Misplaced Pages works before getting into developing guidelines? What you're doing now seems like you're trying to run before you can walk. Friday (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good activity for me. In fact, I think I'm good at it. I think I understand the policies. I think you should explain why something is wrong instead of saying that people don't understand the policies. I have seen you say to StuRat that very same thing that you are saying to me now, with perhaps the exception of the language barrier. OK, so you think that my interpretations are an eccentric idea: what about making an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, doesn't that sound eccentric? A.Z. 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interesting in being sucked into a long and winding debate in which you try to reinvent Misplaced Pages. All I can do is refer you again to the five pillars. If you don't understand them yet, consider waiting until you do in order to start trying to improve on them. Friday (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand them. A.Z. 04:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that you do. I see lots of evidence that you frequently don't understand things that are clear to other people, and you almost always put the burden of understanding on others, rather than on yourself. Friday (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, shall we determine which one of us is putting the burden of understanding on the other, rather than on themselves? I must tell you in advance it would be a really long discussion. If you prefer, we can use emails. You tell me how you interpret NPOV and I tell you how I do that, and we try to show why the other one is wrong. Hopefully, at the end the both of us will agree. But there is the chance that we just find out what is the very point that we disagree upon. This way, all those long talks will end, because we will already know where we disagree. If I ever claim that my interpretation is better than yours, you will be able to just go to the talk page of NPOV and convince everyone there to insert something saying explicitly that my interpretation is wrong. A.Z. 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I am not interested in a long and winding debate with you. See my comment below- you're just spitting in the soup. Friday (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are just ( Ctrl + v ) "put the burden of understanding on others, rather than on yourself". A.Z. 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally try to explain myself clearly. I will usually, if asked, clarify. However this cycle cannot go on forever- it would just turn into pointless chitchat or a pissing contest. I have no interest in general chitchat or a pissing contest. I've seen many cases where your interpretation of other's words is very bizarre, so when you don't understand my words, I don't see that the problem lies with my words. You either 1) intentionally read things in a very perverse way or 2) lack the language skills to discuss subtle concepts in English. Neither of these are problems I can fix, so I will not spend my time trying. Good day. Friday (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Run away and call my arguments bizarre while you're running! Say that, because my interpretations are bizarre, (which you didn't prove in the first place, just assumed to be), then, whenever I don't understand your words, the problem lies with me! Say that all of this must be because the way I read things is somehow perverse or that I don't speak English well enough to understand what you say! It's not of your business, any of those problems of mine!

So many fallacies together! So much nonsense together! Why don't you admit it that, so far, you proved none of my interpretations to be wrong!

When you do prove any of them wrong, you'll prove it to me as well and I'll be pleased that you stopped me from saying fallacious things. Then again, assuming that someone will always say wrong things because someone once said something wrong is yet another perverse fallacy. One thing that you can't say about me is that I didn't let you disprove all my arguments and interpretations! I'm here completely available and you can ask me anything, and I'll be honest when I answer.

You are not available. You are not willing to answer anything. You don't want to know why you're wrong and you don't seem to care about whether I think fallacious things to be right or not. A.Z. 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., differences of interpretation have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong". They are just different. It would be more productive if you could put your obviously very considerable energies into the things that really matter on Misplaced Pages, rather than getting into pointless debates about these other issues. Hear what people have to say, accept that their points of view are as inherently valid as yours, and when they tell you that they're not interested in proceeding down the path that you want to carve out, please be gracious enough to move on. JackofOz 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Other tasks

Well that would depend on if you edit some more articles, for now, I suppose. Hmmm, do you also have an account on the Portuguese wikipedia? --Kim Bruning 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do, with the same nickname. I think I haven't used that account for over a year now. A.Z. 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't read minds.

Please especially avoid doing it badly: . If you'd like to discuss guidelines, policy, or specific actions taken by myself or by other editors, that's fair game. If you want to speculate – wildly, incorrectly, and insultingly – about the motives of good-faith, constructive editors, don't do it where we're trying to have a productive discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to be more constructive. A.Z. 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't spit in the soup

See Misplaced Pages:You spat in my soup! Friday (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn you Friday, and your uncanny ability to find the essay the illustrates perfectly what I wanted to say, but couldn't find! ;) Rockpocket 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A really stupid essay, that one. A.Z. 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

... said the spitter to the spitee. Rockpocket 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a little comment on the talk page of the essay trying to alert people to how fallacious it is. A.Z. 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You could always turn that into an essay of your own: Misplaced Pages:Soup is for spitting in. Rockpocket 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to. There's already an article whose links contain all important information that I could think of. It's called fallacy. A.Z. 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, A.Z. I hope you are not sending me to an article, instead of explaining your position! Why would you do such a thing? Surely not "because you can't explain what it is that you mean; and you can't explain what you mean because you don't know what you mean." ;) Rockpocket 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I wasn't thinking of you, I thought you had suggested that I would write the other essay just to tell people why the first essay is wrong. I already did that on the talk page, but now, thinking about it, I realize that another essay may actually be necessary, to explain how the information on fallacies apply to this case, since not everyone is capable of realizing that on their own.

Anyway, I am happy to tell you what I mean. Let me choose one of your many fallacies and explain a little better to see if you understand. Please note that I am trying to pick just one, but there are many other all over these pages.

Fallacy one, about the difference between a web chat site and an Internet discussion forum. You said:

The ways in which they differ are countless (e.g. ... one has chat in the title, the other has discussion...)

This fallacy is so stupid that I don't even know if there's a name for it. Someone asks you what is the difference between a discussion place and a chat place and you answer that the difference is that one is a discussion place and the other one is a chat place. A.Z. 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That, my friend, was not me being fallacious, it was me being facetious (suitably indicated - I'd hoped - by The Yada Yada). Rockpocket 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So you admit it that your answer to the question "what is the difference between Y and X" was "the difference is that the first one is an Y and the second one is an X, yada yada yada" A.Z. 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) No. The first two examples I gave were genuine and relevent differences to indicate that they are different enough entities to merit, in my opinion, mentioning both to indicate what the Ref Desk is not. The third example was facetious because it essentially reconstituted the question. The reason I wrote that was to demonstrate that the question as it was stated: "what is the difference between X and Y" is in itself facetious. Why? Because there is obvious relevent differences (one of which is described in the intro of the article) but also because the very fact that one is named "X" and the other is named "Y" 'in itself indicates there is a difference. Stating responding as such was pedantic and trivial, but then the question (as it was stated) was no different. If StuRat wished to know whether I thought the differences merited them being mentioned seperately - a much more relevent question - then he should have asked that. In doing so he would have indicated that there were obvious differences, but that he considered them trivial. He didn't do that, he simply asked me to explain a difference. Now, perhaps it is due the the subtleties of the english language, but I have just spent an hour of my life explaining a triviality that is:

1. Completely unconstructive with regards to improving the Ref Desk or the encyclopaedia
2. Apparently obvious to others on the Ref Desk
3. A non sequitur that has nothing to do with the point of the original discussion

With these in mind, can you see why Friday directed you to WP:SOUP? Please stop analyzing every single comment and insisting on debating them in such a reductionist manner. If you can't comprehend something, by all means ask for clarification (on their talkpage) but don't continue to debate the logic of it when the purpose has been explained. We are not here to debate logic we are here to improve an encyclopaedia. I don't know how many times you have been told that, but it doesn't seem to have had any impact. For this reason, I'm not going to engage you in any more tangential discussion. If you genuinly wish me to clarify something I say, then please ask me on my talkpage and I will attempt to be clearer. I will provide an answer, but not engage in discussion. Please respect that. Thank you, and goodbye. Rockpocket 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All I'm doing is asking for you to provide answers. When you chose to stop providing answers and, instead, told us to go check the articles, I went to your talk page ans tried to explain that doing this was not constructive.

We are not done as to what the difference is. I did not even start to discuss whether they are "different enough entities to merit" or not. I was until now just telling you that you did not indicate what is this difference that you talk about. You said before to me that the difference was that one of them required registration and the other one didn't. Fine. But you also said that there are other differences, which we did not discuss yet.

The fact that there are two different words and each one has its own article in Misplaced Pages and the articles are not exactly the same does not mean that the two different words mean different things and does not indicate what those differences are supposed to be. A.Z. 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"That subject" at Jimbo's talkpage

Hi! I was not including you in "the morons" BTW, and if you do find a suitable venue for debating the subject rather than the article on the subject please feel free to contact me to see if I can contribute. I apologise for misunderstanding that you were not misunderstanding me. ;~) Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, Wikiversity seems to be a good place for that, but someone would have to start the topic from scratch. A.Z. 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reason you are here

This edit is very informative, why did you decide to delete it? You did notice Steve's comment "If your primary motivation is your own enjoyment -- there's a good chance you're going to annoy people by distracting from the stated task at hand.", right? Rockpocket 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided to delete it because I did not explain myself well enough and people would —as you just did— misinterpret it. As I did not want to spend hours trying to explain better what that meant, I chose to just let it go. A.Z. 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hope you will consider Steve's very perceptive comments though. Rockpocket 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering about that, too. My own opinion (though this is admittedly highly opinionated) is that if you are trying to help people first and enjoy yourself as a side effect, you're fine. But if you're trying to enjoy yourself first and help people as a side effect, it's very easy to go astray. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Helping people can be a very enjoyable task for some. It doesn't have to be a sacrifice that only provides enjoyment as a side-effect. A.Z. 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely on both points. However, I maintain that it is also very easy to go astray. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Chilling Effect"

I completely agree that we need to reform the RFA process, the questions are "reform it in what way ?" and "how do we get this change to take effect ?". StuRat 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's go to that page that I told you about, where I wrote my proposal. People there are truly willing to change the entire concept of adminship. They are still somewhat afraid, but they seem to be some of the least afraid among us. A.Z. 01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guidelines (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Z. You really need to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. This comment is extremely inflammatory and totally against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Calling anyone "evil" is a serious charge. If you continue to talk about wanting to "bring down" Misplaced Pages's procedures and processes then I will make a note about this at the admin noticeboard, then you can see exactly how well your call to arms will be dealt with. Please take some time to cool off and come back when you are really to work co-operatively rather than in such as combative manner. Rockpocket 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about my inflammatory rethoric, and I am not kidding or being ironic here. I am ashamed of my behavior. There are much better, more moral, intelligent and effective ways to achieve your goals. Thank you, sincerely. A.Z. 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to stop editing for 24 hours, except for my talk page. A.Z. 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thats fine. you are very close to violating WP:3RR, also, which would lead to a block. Just take a while to calm down and come back with your proposals and we can discuss them. Rockpocket 02:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)