|
User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 31
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotNote: 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 do 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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC) RfC/UHey Go Phightins, don't be dissing on the RfC/U process like that. I've been involved in one or two (ha, you'd have to look through the archives--can't remember right now), and while they have no teeth, to put it colloquially, they are stepping stones. Everyone seems to think that an RfC/U needs to do something, but that's not correct: they are requests for comments, not means to a solution, though they can be. It happens that an RfC/U becomes a touchstone later on in a process, and if there is a consensus in an RfC/U that certain users could benefit from blah blah in this way and that, then that consensus can be used later on. So don't knock it until you try it. It may be lengthy, and it may seem overly bureaucratic--but at the same time, that it is toothless also makes it in interesting venue in that it's less political and more honest. Or at least it can be. Later, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Not like meI'd like to get in a dialogue with you, as after reading your comments at the RFAR, it is clear you have mischaracterized me probably because you do not understand me. You have drawn conclusions that are a bit offensive, such as characterizing me as being equally focused on drama as Northern, and I know that to be distinctly false. What I think is that you have drawn wrong surfacy conclusions from edits. (For example, if I give blow-back to Northern at a noticeboard where he just offended me, aggresively baited and badgered, insulted or made false accusation--because I choose then and there to give him blow-back, you seem to draw the conclusion that I'm oriented to devote myself to disruption and drama at WP. That is not evenly remotely true about me. I am nothing like Northern (who apparently has a self-image or mission to pursue such avenues; it is good to see his friends here try and talk him out of that and return to his "old self"). I'm a serious editor, and don't give blow-back unless I've been falsely accused or unfairly insulted. You might not understand, but giving blow-back under those conditions is a form of self-defense, NOT an indication the editor services and devotes his time and efforts to getting into the thick of drama at available venues. That is not me. But I'm bound to give blow-back if someone treats me like shit, and Northern has thrown a lot of shit my way consistently. (So he's gotten a lot of blow-back from me.) Not my interest to spend my time that way. Whereas I believe drama has been his hobby here--he loves to throw himself under the train it seems protesting issues and people he feels strongly about. To me that is nothing to do with writing the encyclopedia--it is the wrong focus. I do not have a similar focus with my presence here, nothing near the same, and your comments about me at the RFAR paint a picture that I do. You are mistaken. And to characterize me as anything like Northern is a slight to me. I want nothing to do with him and wish he would stop his trolling of me. He has been the aggressor 100 percent of the time. I have only responded to him. It has put a bad taste in my mouth, and stripped me of enjoyment of contributing to improve articles in my niche. Not my intent or desire. But right now, I will not "turn the other cheek" if someone of Northern's ilk takes it upon themselves to initiate aggressive badgers, baits, insults, false accusations. (The hostile and abusive culture at the WP was established long before I ever sighne up as editor. When I signed up to be editor I did not sign up to be falsely accused, insulted, lied about, a subject of attempted smear, or defamed. One can simply not respond I know, that is a valid intellectual decision and choice, but for now it isn't my decision or commitment. I refuse to play a game where I am like Jesus in a den of vipers. The vipers will get stepped on by me, and I'm well aware of their nasty fangs.) I don't initiate anything personal here. (If you think I have please point it out I'm willing to examine.) If something is an initiation by me (not a response) and it is deemed hostile or aggressive, check again, read it again. I don't do that kind of thing. Northern does. I don't. Big difference. You compared us as basically from the same cloth. So I'm here with this paragraph for your attention. Thanks for your consider. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Oh, as I already explained to Northern, I believe the reason he reacts to me is because the blow-back from me is unexpected. He characterizes it as exploding over trifles. Well, it isn't for him to decide what is a severe offence, like calling someone a "hypocrite" without basis, which he already express he considers very minor, and I already told him to me it's not--that we must have two different value systems and he should respect that, rather than papering over my value system with his preferences. And at least one of the reasons he considers the blow-backs "explosive" is because, in this sick culture where lies, false accusations, insults and incivilities abound, he has found a comfortable spot where he accepts and participates in that culture. I don't. (The culture is strange and evil to me.) So I erupt in his face, and, he is "shocked". I'm a "shock" to his "system". (From my view, because I'm healthy and not "of the body", which is sick and diseased. From my view, the culture is polluted here and he has been breathing and feeding off it. So he gets blow-back and is shocked. Fine by me. He just ran into a healthy person. So I get blamed and attacked further, for essentially being different [being healthy]. Anyway that is my view.) (Northern Antarctica = sick body; Kevin Gorman = sick body; Kaldari = sick body; Eric Corbett = healthy body; Giano = healthy body; Penyulap = healthy body. These things are clear.) I want to stay healthy. I appreciate there are some healthy people here already, and that is one of the few motivations that keep me happy when I edit here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC) One last thing: I've already told Northern, I'll not engage with him about anything substantive, without a third party moderating. (And, WP does not provide that assistance. So, that takes care of that.) It's a no-win situation I've concluded, a time-sink with questionable or even impossible benefit. IOM Northern is on an agenda or campaign of some kind, and doesn't listen to reason or care to. It's clear for instance he obsesses over the lyching of Eric Corbett. Even others have pointed out how his resentment of me is an extension of that impulse. (Did even *he* say that!?) Anyway, I see that as irrationality in motion. (Look how the same impulse describes Kaldari's recent choices, and despite what Kevin Gorman says I do not believe him--his statements reveal to me that his *entire* motivation that explains all he said and did, is the same.) The pattern here of "Malleus-hatred" driving editors to irrational acts, is undeniable. Blaming Eric for their wild decisions and actions (as Resolute has attempted to do to Eric [re Gorman], and Northern has attempted to do to me [re Kaldari]) is absurd. The responsibility for their conduct rests with them. That's so true it is boring. (Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't do that kind of thing. Ever. I'm human and if I slip up, if I write something irresponsible, I want to be shown it and corrected. I'm human and can make mistakes. But I try to take care not to. The culture here, and Northern and Drimies are participants, is not to try. And to exploit an environment where discussion regarding someone backing up what they say is "beating a horse" or "ranting" or "not dropping the stick" or other of a litany of dumbed-down tempated expressions designed to replace thought with ad hominem dismissal. The cure for all of this sickness is simply to endeavor to not write something irrespnsible in the first place. Then there is nothing to have to back up. But WP does not value resonsibility, therefore irresponsible comments and accusations against people's character flourish like weeds in an unattended garden. That's the cesspool that has formed here over how many years. That's the culture that is accepted and unconsciously adopted by many editors. Unless one struggles against, a person will adopt and "become" the environment where they are. Even I despise ANI venue and the irresponsibility there, I have never to my knowledge written anything irresponsible there. ("Anger" does not equal "irresponsibility". "Shouting" does not equal "irresponsibility". So the argument that I've written something with passion or conviction or even upset anger, doesn't make it "irresponsible", and the irresponsible quality of ANI where people write any smear they please and attack with any fiction they please or make any manipulative bogus argument they please without cause or obligation to back up, is what accounts for it and why I call it a cesspool.) Many intelligent editors have said the same thing re ANI, not only me, and even before I was an editor here. I've been accused of not being a proper Wikipedian because I have this view of ANI. If I have to have a positive view of a cesspool then I do not want to be an editor here. When one is in any culture, there will always be pressures to conform to the culture. That was an example of such subtle pressure coming out. All of these things seem plain and clearly obvious to me. Now I have given you more to read. Not with an interest to waste your time. I would like to come to an understanding with you based on sensible argument. I can hack it. Many editors here just like to attack and flee. In my town that is called vandalism. Like teenagers throwing eggs on my house at night, then fleeing in the dark. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Jackson Peebles' Grant Idea ProposalHey GoP, Remember this proposal? All of the original participants at the proposal are rediscussing it currently so we can re-hash it in time for the next IEG deadline on 31st March. We are discussing the same by mail and on google doc but will soon move over to meta. Are you still interested in lending a hand? If so, please respond to the mail I sent you now so we can add you Regards, Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 00:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 12 March 2014
Your GA nomination of John Mayberry, Jr.The article John Mayberry, Jr. you nominated as a good article has failed PaternoHey fightins, I disagree with your revert. "There is no word on his future as a coach" doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Paterno's run for governor belongs in the "after Penn State" section, not in personal life. As for McGloin's criticism, it's inappropriate that the only subjective evaluation of Paterno's career is one statement from one player from one article that doesn't even focus on Jay Paterno. Orser67 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2014
A beer for you!
When I read this I thought of your User page quotebox. "Winfield goes back to the wall, he hits his head on the wall! And it rolls off! It's rolling all the way back to second base. This is a terrible thing for the Padres." ```Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
|
