Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Isotalo (talk | contribs) at 11:23, 18 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

When determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia.

" are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)."

We all tend to take Misplaced Pages much too seriously. It's certainly important to provide a free first-class online encyclopedia for the public, and no one can dispute how central Misplaced Pages has become to people searching for accurate, unbiased information, but there's little excuse for the bitterness, in-fighting and bitchiness with which many people approach editing here, which makes the experience difficult and unpleasant at times. I am generally in favor of removing the worst of those transgressors permanently, which, of course, leaves me open to the charge of not assuming good faith. Actually, I have little trouble assuming good faith, I simply refuse to keep the assumption alive in the face of evidence of misbehavior.

"Beware of the 'innocent' man who plays his part too well."

"Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to let your brains fall out."

"A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."

"He used . . . sarcasm.
Oh, he knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire."

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof
is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

Misplaced Pages is a project to create and improve an online encyclopedia which is as accurate and as useful to its readers as possible. It is not an MMORPG, a debating society or an experiment to create the ideal online community. Activities which do not, in some direct or closely indirect way, contribute to that goal are a waste of the project's resources and should be minimized as much as possible.

- Learn the lesson that collectively, Misplaced Pages doesn't want to be saved, it's not even very concerned about being fixed. It is quite happy being what it is, flawed or not.

- Most importantly: Stay uninvolved, learn not to care.

If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page, as I will be watching it.

If you leave me a message, I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

My notifications are turned off, so "pinging" me will not get my attention.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Edit warring

Reverting EvergreenFir per WP:BRD was all fine and well in terms of policy (even if your opposition is somewhat difficult to understand). When you begin reverting suggestions by a third editor as well, you're not protected by any policy and risk violating WP:3RR.

Content-wise, your arguments aren't stronger than those of Evergreen and you're not showing any support in guidelines. The onus is on you by now, and you can't keep reverting forever with motivations that amount to mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Peter 10:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:V, please provide a source which shows that Camel toe is a condition found in any "female" other than the female human being, and I'll happily concede. In the meantime, the article stays in the status quo ante until a consensus has been reached. With less than 24 hours, and only 3 commenters (the two disputants and you), there is as of yet no consensus. BMK (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, both you and EvergreenFir have now impugned my motivations and/or insulted my intellectual capacity, and I would like it to stop, please. BMK (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Demanding that other editors to "provide a source" that "female" can be used as a synonym for "woman" is absurd. You're demanding huge respect for your own extremely narrow take on things while actively ignoring the objections of others. Get a grip on yourself, please.

Peter 11:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)