User talk:Wee Curry Monster: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 10:59, 15 December 2010 editNarson (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,299 edits →Ahoy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:49, 15 December 2010 edit undoVassyana (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Comment about AE thread: new sectionNext edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:

	:Ok, just take care, ok chap? And you never know. Mood stabilising drugs take the extremes out, but they can take too much, calm the sea too much. Pragmatism is balls (A lesson hard learned by a Lib Dem ;) ) <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 10:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)		:Ok, just take care, ok chap? And you never know. Mood stabilising drugs take the extremes out, but they can take too much, calm the sea too much. Pragmatism is balls (A lesson hard learned by a Lib Dem ;) ) <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 10:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

			== Comment about AE thread ==

			You do not seem to fully grasp the problem with your 'recent' conduct. I am taking history into account, but my actions were based on more recent activity. Let me briefly address the other editors:

			A review of Richard's 'recent' edits indicate a return to civility and focus on content. I thought some of his comments leading up to the recent period were particular problematic and a large part of the degradation of the talk page environment, so I included a named sanction for him. Given the lack of immediate, recent problems, I limited the matter to a warning.

			A review of Imalbornoz's 'recent' edits were generally focused on content. There were some previous outbreaks, but nothing recent to address. An editor to keep an eye on perhaps, but no current matters to handles.

			Addressing your conduct, you made a very bold edit. That in itself is not a problem. However, you continued to revert during discussion and insisted on pushing your after it was clear there was no consensus for that significant change. Your edits and talk page comments were the focus of the mess that happened a month ago. That is not acceptable and part of what landed you in trouble during the ArbCom case.

			Also reflecting your prior troubles, your comments continued to be a problem after everyone else cooled their tone down and focused on the content. Protestations of innocence to the contrary, you have repeatedly expressed bad faith accusations:
			*
			*
			*
			This is recent conduct and continuing over days. It is clearly uncivil and disruptive. I reject that baiting makes the behavior excusable in any way, especially after all other editors were again mostly focused on discussing content. If you have a problem with someone's conduct, leave a polite note for them asking them to tone it down, come to the table, etc. Pursue one of the venues for addressing user conduct. If you don't know where to turn, ask me. I will be glad to offer you a couple of possibilities. ] (]) 17:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:49, 15 December 2010

Home

E-mail

——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ———————————————

Wee Curry Monster is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Please note that it is 4:04 AM (GMT), where I live
I will normally reply to your message on your talk page but will frequently reply here if it is warranted. To be honest, the way I respond is chaotic and haphazard, don't be offended if I forget. For information, I have removed all user pages from my watchlist and the drama boards of WP:ANI and WP:AN, I am not interested in that nonsense.
One of my pet hates is the drive by tagger. People whose sole contribution to[REDACTED] is adding multiple {{cn}} tags to articles but never getting off their lazy backsides to find citations themselves. One aspect of this that is particularly irritating is they're often added in the middle of a sentence ignoring the existing citation, which 99% of the time corroborates the information. If you remove unneeded tags, provide an edit summary to that effect, their usual response is to edit war a tag back pompously spouting off about policy. If you're one of these people coming here to give me a lecture because I removed your tag, well, I strongly suggest you don't. I recommend WP:SOFIXIT ie get off your lazy backside and do the donkey work yourself instead of leaving it to others. I realise this is personal opinion but I consider the only use for tags is A) as a personal reminder to go back and fix something, B) to tag something you're concerned about, intuitively feel is correct but you can't find a cite or finally C) you've tried to find a cite, can't corroborate information but someone is edit warring challenged material back into an article. Do any of those and its thumbs up from me!
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page and don't forget to give your message a heading.
Remember to sign using the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.
Please be civil, if you fail to be civil I will simply ignore you.
As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Misplaced Pages who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting.
If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia.
Repeatedly adding the same message to my talk page will simply piss me off and more than likely just be deleted. Refer to WP:3RR, I can delete comments on my own talk page if I like but you don't get to badger me. Per WP:UP#CMT I am perfectly within my rights to remove comments.
If you're asked not to comment here then please respect that and don't.
There are a number of friendly talk page stalkers, who have my permission to remove comments that are unwelcome. If they do so, please respect my wishes and do not revert.
I do not claim to be infallible, occasionally I'll revert something in error.
I've also noticed a tendency when editing on my tablet to occasionally hit Rollback by accident. If you've spotted what you think is a strange edit of mine, accidental rollback is usually the answer. Feel free to point it out to me but if its rollback I would suggest you just revert; I don't mind people fixing my screw ups.
If you're here because of the revert of a reasonable edit, then may I suggest you first of all ask yourself did you provide an informative edit summary or properly source the edit I reverted. You will find a civil comment will receive a reply (and most likely an apology if warranted).
User:Antandrus some time ago wrote an excellent essay entitled observations on Misplaced Pages behavior. I suggest it as recommended reading to everyone.
I used to do a lot of work on recent changes patrolling to stop wikifiddling, vandalism and partisan changes to the articles on my watchlist. I don't tend to do that much these days but long ago came to the conclusion that most people who post such crap do so because they think Misplaced Pages exists to right great wrongs or set the world to rights. Sorry but, newsflash, it doesn't; its an encyclopedia nothing more. A bed rock policy of Misplaced Pages is to present a neutral point of view. Contrary to popular opinion this does not mean we have to represent ALL views. Rather[REDACTED] represents the predominant views in the literature, this doesn't mean that we represent fringe material with undue prominence. The more advanced POV pushers decide after reading a bit of policy that sourcing makes their edits bulletproof. Wrong again. Sources have to be reliable, so the conspiracy website or the book by a crank doesn't mean your edit is sacrosanct. If you've come to[REDACTED] because you're convinced J. Edgar Hoover was the second gunman on the grassy knoll please jog on. I've pointed you to relevant policy about why your edit was removed in what was intended to be a humorous manner, so please don't bug me any further.
The essay WP:DICK is often trotted out on wikipedia, I try not to refer it to myself anymore. Why? It's my observation that most editors who refer to that essay are complete and utter dicks themselves. It's a sad fact that there are still a lot of arseholes editing wikipedia, it's not worth getting into a spat with them as they're determined they will have the last word and thereby "win" the discussion. Sometimes, best thing is to just walk away and as my grannie used to say "let the baby have it's chocolate".

If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages or frequently asked questions. If you need editing help, head here.

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pfainuk for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong 13:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AE Courtesy Note

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster

This is a courtesy note to let you know that you have been mentioned by name at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Wee Curry Monster and a proposed user conduct solution has been posted. You are named in proposed sanctions.

Wee Curry Monster is banned from all discussions about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 7 days.
Wee Curry Monster is banned from editing mainspace articles about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 30 days.
Wee Curry Monster is warned that further disruption will result in escalating sanctions and advised to pursue dispute resolution to resolve any disagreements.

If you have any response or objection, please note it at the request. Vassyana (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahoy

I'll keep responses to th other thing on my page. Are you ok old man? You seem a little off. F--- the daft WP politics and what not, I hope all is well. Oh, and if you fancy writing a paper for me on Britain's preperation for economic warfare pre-1914, that would be grand. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just take care, ok chap? And you never know. Mood stabilising drugs take the extremes out, but they can take too much, calm the sea too much. Pragmatism is balls (A lesson hard learned by a Lib Dem ;) ) --Narson ~ Talk • 10:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment about AE thread

You do not seem to fully grasp the problem with your 'recent' conduct. I am taking history into account, but my actions were based on more recent activity. Let me briefly address the other editors:

A review of Richard's 'recent' edits indicate a return to civility and focus on content. I thought some of his comments leading up to the recent period were particular problematic and a large part of the degradation of the talk page environment, so I included a named sanction for him. Given the lack of immediate, recent problems, I limited the matter to a warning.

A review of Imalbornoz's 'recent' edits were generally focused on content. There were some previous outbreaks, but nothing recent to address. An editor to keep an eye on perhaps, but no current matters to handles.

Addressing your conduct, you made a very bold edit. That in itself is not a problem. However, you continued to revert during discussion and insisted on pushing your after it was clear there was no consensus for that significant change. Your edits and talk page comments were the focus of the mess that happened a month ago. That is not acceptable and part of what landed you in trouble during the ArbCom case.

Also reflecting your prior troubles, your comments continued to be a problem after everyone else cooled their tone down and focused on the content. Protestations of innocence to the contrary, you have repeatedly expressed bad faith accusations:

This is recent conduct and continuing over days. It is clearly uncivil and disruptive. I reject that baiting makes the behavior excusable in any way, especially after all other editors were again mostly focused on discussing content. If you have a problem with someone's conduct, leave a polite note for them asking them to tone it down, come to the table, etc. Pursue one of the venues for addressing user conduct. If you don't know where to turn, ask me. I will be glad to offer you a couple of possibilities. Vassyana (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)