User talk:NE Ent: Difference between revisions
→Re: WQA: a spade is a spade, an apple is not an orange, vandalism is vandalism |
|||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Thanks for the reply. I read the instructions more carefully and felt that both incidents, while inappropriate, are potentially one-time events (starting after the end on the user's temporary ban). I consider the personal attacks separate in nature to the vandalism of the discussion page. The user in question has not responded to my initial reply to his personal attacks or (more importantly) acted out further on the AfD discussion page. Therefore, I feel that the WQA should be removed unless another action occurs. Is it appropriate to remove/delete the WQA from the Wikiquette page or should I leave it there and strike it with an explanation for its retraction? What is the correct procedure? Any advice would be appreciated![[User:Luminum|Luminum]] ([[User talk:Luminum|talk]]) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the reply. I read the instructions more carefully and felt that both incidents, while inappropriate, are potentially one-time events (starting after the end on the user's temporary ban). I consider the personal attacks separate in nature to the vandalism of the discussion page. The user in question has not responded to my initial reply to his personal attacks or (more importantly) acted out further on the AfD discussion page. Therefore, I feel that the WQA should be removed unless another action occurs. Is it appropriate to remove/delete the WQA from the Wikiquette page or should I leave it there and strike it with an explanation for its retraction? What is the correct procedure? Any advice would be appreciated![[User:Luminum|Luminum]] ([[User talk:Luminum|talk]]) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Either would be fine, or it could be marked as resolved. I took care of it [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&action=historysubmit&diff=344020336&oldid=344005446]] [[User:Gerardw|Gerardw]] ([[User talk:Gerardw#top|talk]]) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
:Either would be fine, or it could be marked as resolved. I took care of it [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&action=historysubmit&diff=344020336&oldid=344005446]] [[User:Gerardw|Gerardw]] ([[User talk:Gerardw#top|talk]]) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Kary Mullis == |
|||
No, it's not an editing dispute, it's a case of [[Wikipedia:VAN#Types of vandalism|sneaky vandalism]] specifically "adding plausible misinformation to articles" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages". That is not the opinion of "some ip editor" that is the opinion of a retired-administrator with in excess of 60,000 edits, two FAs and multiple DYKs to their credit. Thanks.[[Special:Contributions/163.1.147.64|163.1.147.64]] ([[User talk:163.1.147.64|talk]]) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:23, 14 February 2010
|
Meet The Press
/Archive/2009/January |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Thank you!
Thansk for sticking up for me. This whole mess got started because I tried to do the same for an Anon user, and was then accused of being a sockpuppet. It's nice to know that, while my experience has left me in such a way that I doubt I will ever return to this site, let alone the community, that there are still some good guys left int he fight! Thanks, Srwm4 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome and thanks for the kind words. I really try not to see it so much as a fight so much as trying to keep Wikipedia a pleasant place to work. Except for places like ANI, you really don't have to defend yourself or continue a conversation you don't want, so you might find more pleasant just to fade away while concurrently requesting deletion of your pages via the Right to Vanish process. While you are still here, I think you'll find edit summaries such as this one [[1]] counterproductive overall. Gerardw (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank You re Asperger's/Autism
Thank you for your help with the Asperger's/Autism merge debate. Happy to have that in the past. Though apparently the IP user couldn't leave the Wikiquette alert alone either. (shrug) Anyhow, thanks again! Doniago (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure I was notified of the discussion there because I am allowed to place input, just as you are? Or are you further trying to devalue any input placed by an anonymous user?? Inquiring minds, all that. Oh, I corrected your grammar aswell, "You're" welcome.
- You were wrong to close that discussion and you know it. Ending discussion after 10 hours claiming no consensus is academically dishonest, and barely gave the community a chance to comment. The quick stifling of a discussion results in the one-sided nature of wikipedia, and furthers its alienation from any real academic community. 70.124.70.19 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC).
96.236.176.181 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A user just removed the archive tags on the merger discussion claiming that it had been closed too early. While I feel expressing my opinion on whether the discussion should have been closed would constitute a COI, I'm not clear on whether users should be removing those tags. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd let it go. It was an early close -- me being WP:BOLD, mostly just to let things simmer down. I won't do anything, including commenting further unless someone advances a new argument. The time for further action will be if/when someone claims there's a consensus to merge; there are so many opposes that I see that as unlikely. If there really is a consensus to merge then it should be merged, otherwise object then. Gerardw (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: WQA
Thanks for the reply. I read the instructions more carefully and felt that both incidents, while inappropriate, are potentially one-time events (starting after the end on the user's temporary ban). I consider the personal attacks separate in nature to the vandalism of the discussion page. The user in question has not responded to my initial reply to his personal attacks or (more importantly) acted out further on the AfD discussion page. Therefore, I feel that the WQA should be removed unless another action occurs. Is it appropriate to remove/delete the WQA from the Wikiquette page or should I leave it there and strike it with an explanation for its retraction? What is the correct procedure? Any advice would be appreciated!Luminum (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Either would be fine, or it could be marked as resolved. I took care of it [[2]] Gerardw (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Kary Mullis
No, it's not an editing dispute, it's a case of sneaky vandalism specifically "adding plausible misinformation to articles" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages". That is not the opinion of "some ip editor" that is the opinion of a retired-administrator with in excess of 60,000 edits, two FAs and multiple DYKs to their credit. Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)