User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Be careful
I noticed you corrected my link at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. That's fine. However, this[rule] does not allow it. I don not mind myself, but other users may get angry. So be careful! 68.100.116.118 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 October 2015
- Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption
- Traffic report: Reality is for losers
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mysticism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mysticism. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Avoiding personal attacks, wherein it's noted that arguments "should be directed at content and actions" (emphasis added). Kevin and I described Joe's actions, which are fundamental to the dispute. We've been nothing but patient with him (continually attempting to explain Wikipedia's consensus-based editing), and now we've been asked to participate in a dispute resolution process. So we've taken the time to provide honest accounts of the situation (containing no ad hominems, epithets, name-calling, etc.), only to have them deemed "personal attacks" and hidden from view.
I don't know what was expected of us. If we addressed the wrong aspects of the dispute or committed some other procedural error, it's reasonable to bring this to our attention. Instead, you've accused us of violating one of Wikipedia's core policies by engaging in personal attacks (an accusation of misconduct far more serious than anything that Kevin and I attributed to Joe). If this is how users responding to requests in good faith are treated, I'm not inclined to do so in the future. —David Levy 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- David Levy, if you feel that I have acted poorly by adding the cot-cob templates, then by all means remove them. However, calling someone or their edits frivolous is deemed to be commenting on them and their actions in a negative and judgemental way which is considered a Personal Attack. I was planning on combing through the overview that was left by Joe and doing the same on the relevant areas or redacting user's names but I was called away and won't have time until tomorrow to do something so code-intensive as my phone is quite glitchy on Wiki, but I will go through Joe's statement as well. However, if you wish, I will retract my offer to mediate and not touch the case again (removing any changes I made to statements). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "frivolous" remark was Kevin's. It, too, was not a personal attack. It was an assessment of an editor's conduct. Some examples of personal attacks (all fictitious, of course):
- Bob is a stupid jerk! His edits are dumb and he's too dimwitted to realize.
- Steve always has to get his way. You know who else did? Hitler.
- Mary should get off her fat ass and find something better to do.
- David Levy, eh? So you're a kike. That explains it.
- Simply stating that an editor behaved inappropriately in relation to the dispute under discussion is not a personal attack. Did someone tell you that it is? Is such a standard routinely applied at WP:DRN? If so, as long as that remains the case, I probably won't return. (I've already removed my message entirely.) I responded to the request in the hope of resolving a dispute, not to become entangled in a new one with the DRN volunteers. —David Levy 06:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "frivolous" remark was Kevin's. It, too, was not a personal attack. It was an assessment of an editor's conduct. Some examples of personal attacks (all fictitious, of course):
- David Levy, I'm not sure if you have looked at the previous post on my talk page (here) where I explained that I was not actually using the policy to "whack over the head" so to speak but to instead direct all attention to the content rather than editor behaviour. At any rate, if you still have any concerns about my behaviour as a mediator, please take them to the DR/N talkpage for external discussion. Cheers and happy editing, Drcrazy102 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- My concern – which extends beyond the DRN process – is that you intend to continue responding to editors who merely outline other users' on-wiki actions by accusing them of engaging in personal attacks. This is highly problematic, but I don't wish to initiate yet another community discussion if it can be avoided. I'd appreciate replies to the questions above. —David Levy 10:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed the hatting from my comment, as saying a particular REQUEST is "frivolous" is not a "personal attack" by any reasonable estimation. I find such an accusation very offensive, as I attempt to conduct myself with respect towards others in discussions. But that request IS frivolous, in my view, as consensus at the Poe talkpage was clear, and the request filer simply seems to be forum-shopping for a different answer than the editors at the Poe article came to. Please do not readd the hatting, and refrain from accusing me of "personal attacks" when none have been made. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Enough! I have never accused either of you of actually breaking any part of the NPA policy, I merely used it to show my reasoning for commenting on content, NOT THE CONTRIBUTOR. If you have any further questions regarding the DR/N as a whole, or of my conduct as a DR/N volunteer, then take it to the DR/N talk page. I will regard any further attempts to discuss such things on my talkpage as attempting to harass me. Go resolve your dispute and may we never have to cross paths again if this is how you treat those that disagree with you. I am removing the cot-cob templates that I placed and placing a note that I will not be participating in any way for the discussion. Farewell, adiou, don't hound me, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)