User talk:FT2: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 09:30, 13 November 2004 editTa bu shi da yu (talk \| contribs)32,902 edits →Netoholic - history of vandalism and abuse of policy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:36, 13 November 2004 edit undoTa bu shi da yu (talk \| contribs)32,902 edits →Netoholic - history of vandalism and abuse of policy Next edit →
Line 61:		Line 61:
	:It is reasonable to want a vote page to keep some sense of order. When someone wants to insert a long rant, it is usually because they don't recognize that need. If you look at the history of that vote page, you'll not see long interjections. Vote pages are threaded discussions. The template talk page is for explaining the purpose of the template.		:It is reasonable to want a vote page to keep some sense of order. When someone wants to insert a long rant, it is usually because they don't recognize that need. If you look at the history of that vote page, you'll not see long interjections. Vote pages are threaded discussions. The template talk page is for explaining the purpose of the template.
	:If you have a complaint about someone, please address them directly, and from the perspective of ]. If you discuss rather than angrily revert and interject '''BOLD LETTERS AND SHOUTING''', it will go a long way. Did it ever occur to you to ask me to undo any of the changes you objected to? I have asked you on a number of occasions to do that, so I hope at some point you recognize good faith more easily. -- ] ] 19:42, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)		:If you have a complaint about someone, please address them directly, and from the perspective of ]. If you discuss rather than angrily revert and interject '''BOLD LETTERS AND SHOUTING''', it will go a long way. Did it ever occur to you to ask me to undo any of the changes you objected to? I have asked you on a number of occasions to do that, so I hope at some point you recognize good faith more easily. -- ] ] 19:42, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

			::It is hard to address complaints to Netoholic directly, because he clears his talk page after you post a message that might make him look bad! It's certainly not "archiving" because he has a very old comment on his page that isn't active that he didn't remove! I realise his talk page is his own, but this is bad form. As a result I've been keeping some archives of his talk pages myself. Check my own talk page if you want them. Please not that I'm not interfering with his talk page. I originally moved it, but he didn't like this. So I ''attempted'' to remove the page and then copy and paste it, except he kept moving my subpage to another - ] 09:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:Good faith was when I didnt buy for a long time what some folks said about excessive deletion. Good faith basically means "try where reasonable to assume they mean well". I accept you may mean well. However your motives arent my issue, or your intentions. Your actions are what concern me, and those actions are indopendent of motive or good faith, and too single handed. I accept the good intent (might be right, might be wrong), but the actions need toning down. Ask before seriously editing, mostly, and listen to others opinions more, is all. ] 22:17, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)		:Good faith was when I didnt buy for a long time what some folks said about excessive deletion. Good faith basically means "try where reasonable to assume they mean well". I accept you may mean well. However your motives arent my issue, or your intentions. Your actions are what concern me, and those actions are indopendent of motive or good faith, and too single handed. I accept the good intent (might be right, might be wrong), but the actions need toning down. Ask before seriously editing, mostly, and listen to others opinions more, is all. ] 22:17, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:36, 13 November 2004

Misplaced Pages IRC channel:

Services Link:

Notes

I think I stepped on some of your changes

I made some massive organizational changes to the election controversies page, I think I overwrote some of your changes. I will attempt to clean up the damage now, sorry. Zen Master 02:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, what needs discussing? Perhaps an archiving of most of the current election controversies talk page is in order. Zen Master 02:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus

I've come up against problems while attempting to archive the Talk:... the speed with which the verbiage is being developed. The last addition to your Summary section was more than 400 edits ago. Should another summary be developed? There appears to be little or no actual progress toward compromise as various debaters agree to a compromise, a summary proposal is stated, and is immediately debated again. How should I proceed? - Amgine 23:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

election controversy article

electronic voting machines are actually not the root of the controversy, please stop saying that. They are just one part of the controversy from exit poll data disrepancies to registration percentage vs results. There are even plenty of non-electronic voting machines utilized in areas with suspicious results. Zen Master 00:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Controversy header good idea

Hey, good idea putting a controversy header on the election "controversy" page. Zen Master 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't remove that tag again. Concentrate on addressing the concerns. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi FT2 - there is a question for you on Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic - history of vandalism and abuse of policy

Sorry to dig into your talk history, but I found this particularly amusing:

==disrespect==

DO not re-factor, split apart, insert commentary, or move around people's signed comments. That is unacceptable. You also have made personal remarks about me and my motivations on a page which is supposed to discuss the merits of the article. Please keep the two ideas separate, so as not to pollute the discussion. I do not going around making charges or accusations, and I expect you won't either. If you have negative comments, please move them to talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 23:48, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I feel that you are perpetuating a major disrespect to me. If that is your goal, I feel sorry that you've had to go that far. -- Netoholic @ 00:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that. I've highlighted the hypocritical part. FT2 08:22, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

What is the link to that in the history? I am adding to evidence of Netoholic's vandalism. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic has moved your signed comments on Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion to Template talk:Controversial3 - Amgine 19:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is reasonable to want a vote page to keep some sense of order. When someone wants to insert a long rant, it is usually because they don't recognize that need. If you look at the history of that vote page, you'll not see long interjections. Vote pages are threaded discussions. The template talk page is for explaining the purpose of the template.

If you have a complaint about someone, please address them directly, and from the perspective of assuming good faith. If you discuss rather than angrily revert and interject BOLD LETTERS AND SHOUTING, it will go a long way. Did it ever occur to you to ask me to undo any of the changes you objected to? I have asked you on a number of occasions to do that, so I hope at some point you recognize good faith more easily. -- Netoholic @ 19:42, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

It is hard to address complaints to Netoholic directly, because he clears his talk page after you post a message that might make him look bad! It's certainly not "archiving" because he has a very old comment on his page that isn't active that he didn't remove! I realise his talk page is his own, but this is bad form. As a result I've been keeping some archives of his talk pages myself. Check my own talk page if you want them. Please not that I'm not interfering with his talk page. I originally moved it, but he didn't like this. So I attempted to remove the page and then copy and paste it, except he kept moving my subpage to another - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good faith was when I didnt buy for a long time what some folks said about excessive deletion. Good faith basically means "try where reasonable to assume they mean well". I accept you may mean well. However your motives arent my issue, or your intentions. Your actions are what concern me, and those actions are indopendent of motive or good faith, and too single handed. I accept the good intent (might be right, might be wrong), but the actions need toning down. Ask before seriously editing, mostly, and listen to others opinions more, is all. FT2 22:17, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Here's the deal, dude, your last little notice on the page accuses me of something I did not do. Check the diff of my last edit. Remove that notice. -- Netoholic @ 08:06, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Remember this this by Ta bu shi da yu titled "I don't know how many times you were told not to remove this. You are pushing a POV."?

Or this which purported to be a cleanup of a spuriou VfD but actually removed selectively:

Corrections to your mis statements
Comments on the VfD from "opposing view"
A large number of users comments directly critical of you

You were told not to arbitrarily delete. Many times.

Article snips, template wars, TFDs VFD... do you know you are the most prolific TFD proposer on wiki recently?

You arbitrarily deleted, and you made a really bad choice what to do it to, because it was on a voting page, not just a talk page.

In my book you just made the grade of motivation from "over eager" to "clueless" to "pov" to "vandal". I wish you hadn't. I had never heard of you until this vandalism, and this is what I see with my own eyes.

FT2 08:21, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Dude, do you realize how common it is to move the discussion to the Talk page of a VFD, when it gets too long? What is the basis of your notice just now ? -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

hey, login to chat if you are online now

Zen Master 08:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)