Revision as of 06:40, 13 July 2008

Archives

I confess that I tire of foolishness quickly (even my own). At this rate, I'm going to need hourly archives..

01 ǁ 02 ǁ 03 ǁ 04 ǁ 05 ǁ 06 ǁ 07 ǁ 08 ǁ 09 ǁ 10 ǁ
11 ǁ 12 ǁ 13 ǁ 14 ǁ 15 ǁ 16 ǁ 17 ǁ 18 ǁ 19 ǁ 20 ǁ
21 ǁ 22 ǁ 23 ǁ 24 ǁ 25 ǁ 26 ǁ 27 ǁ 28 ǁ 29 ǁ 30 ǁ

Sandbox

• /Ref practice
• /Zordrac
• /silver lining
• /odd creature
• /tmp
• /Block Log

New Stuff

See AN/I where I mention you

I've made a complaint about Kossack4Truth's recent edit of your comment at the Talk:Barack Obama page to complain about K4T. Here's the link: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Your report on ANI is very reasoned and calm, and I appreciate that you are working toward a good article and willing to consider compromises. I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, which I first saw a minute ago. I guess this note is pretty ironic, then. I took another look at your comments about WorkerBee74 on that page (based on Kossak4Truth's unblock request messages) and looked further and found quite a few comments worth apologizing for. I posted them under Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LotLE's recent behavior. I was asked what should be done about it, and I've just replied I'm not sure but perhaps a civility restriction of some kind, otherwise a topic ban, but I'm totally flexible about what should be done. Please comment there. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true that other editors had a worse record for incivility than you. Your comments, when they were uncivil, were the most uncivil, although sometimes some other comments were just as bad. Other people commented more, including me, and if you piled up all the uncivil comments of just about anyone active on that page, the pile would be higher than yours, but that's only because you didn't comment much in those controversies. When you do make uncivil comments, they may be fewer, but they're bigger deposits into the bank. My own comments were not nearly as bad as yours, they were in response to some pretty outrageous statements and when I looked back on them and found some were impolite -- which is even less of a problem than incivility -- I went back and apologized.

Unfortunately, though I'm sure you imagine it the case that your comments were less uncivil, that is certainly not my perception, and I am quite certain it is not the perception of any other editors who read them. It's easy to imagine that your posts were "in response to some pretty outrageous statements", but your own are just responses... it doesn't look that way from the outside.

Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that you respond to me here on my talk page by trying to provoke things rather than calm them. Worth noting. LotLE×talk 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have nearly the problem you do with self-restraint, although I would say that many months ago I came close. I think I've mentioned your behavior three times on AN/I, each time including diffs and restraining my language, which is what I think you're alluding to as "gentle" and "escalating conflict while pretending not to". I wouldn't characterize my reports that way at all. I was clearly pointing out your behavior and also trying to do it in a way that didn't add another layer of drama on it, the way WorkerBee74 has been doing at AN/I. When I thought you were turning away from uncivil behavior I didn't escalate it by mentioning the last attack. If you think I'm making the Talk:Obama page more uncivil, please feel free to report me to admins -- maybe you'll find some horrible comment of mine I've forgotten about. I do think I was pretty snide in some of my first comments responding to you on Talk:Obama (around the time of my posts about the "fat farm" for articles like Harry S. Truman that I suggested could go in it). Please accept this late apology for that. If you find anything else, you could also tell me on my talk page -- I've responded constructively when other editors have done that. I told you why I reported your comments; I didn't like doing it; when you apologized I put your comment on the AN/I page. Don't call my trying to be fair to you, even after you've insulted me (something far worse than sarcasm), as somehow phony. I'm trying to be fair even when I think I'm being treated unfairly. As far as I'm concerned, you're forgiven for any comments you made about me and the slate is wiped clean. I can work with you, agree and civilly disagree with you without any rancor. And if you disagree with anything I've said in this post, feel free to tell me, although I don't think it's worth arguing about. I've said repeatedly that I don't know what sanctions administrators need to impose on editors, and when MastCell pressed me, I gave some ideas on what to do with you, but I said I'd be satisfied with what more experienced editors had to say, and I will. There was nothing phony about that, either. If you're civil, you and I shouldn't have any big problems with each other. I notice that when we stick to specifics we seem to be able to come to agreement. Noroton (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your last comment: Feel free to disabuse me of any misperceptions on my part, but that is the way I see it. I'm not trying to provoke -- I'm responding exactly to what you wrote and stating my disagreements with it where I think they're important. First you said (provocatively?) I was "escalating conflict while pretending not to", which sounded to me as if I were being called a phony, so I gave you a plain-spoken reply, which you tell me is "trying to provoke things", although it included an apology, an offer to listen to complaints and an observation/suggestion about how we best work together. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

I didn't restore your edits, which inexplicably removed the key phrase "although not accused of any wrongdoing." It's moot though; I'm in the process of retiring my account, so please allow my User_talk page to remain deleted from this point forward. Shem 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ejscript

After helping with this software-related AfD, would you be able to check out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/InterModule? Thanks in advance :). Ironholds 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I voted and agree with you. I wonder if this not borders on WP:CANVASSing though. I guess it's fine, you're neutral in your presentation, reserving any arguments for the relevant page; and I've shown an interest in the subject area. Maybe I'm a little walking-on-eggshells because of some of gross canvassing on another `ongoing AfD I've voted in. LotLE×talk 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote

Nice work. :o) --Clubjuggle /C 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral headers, please

Would you please look at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages, where it says "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."? Could you please change "Guilt by association" to something neutral sounding? Thanks, Noroton (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Like what? The header exactly describes the topic discussed under it. 06:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)