User talk:Mael-Num

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Civility 2 Personal attacks 3 Civility 4 crossposted from my talk page 4.1 Derek Smart

[edit] Civility

Mael-Num, you're getting awfully close to incivil with this comment. Please cool it down a bit. The article is clearly going to be kept, but that doesn't mean you need to badger the people !voting to keep it in the process.--Kchase T 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm "getting awfully close" I guess that means that I'm not yet incivil, right? I guess it was your opinion that I should be warned though. Just as it is the opinion of the Fox News set that the article be kept, and my opinion that those people are morons. Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one. Maybe I should write an article about my own asshole today? Mael-Num 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being so combative about this? We don't disagree with you because we hate you, we just have different opinions about whether an individual is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. it's really nothing to get wound up about.--Kchase T 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I don't know that? For the record, I am at worst completely indifferent about those that merely disagree with me. What ires me is the false and deceptive reasons people cite in order to make their claims seem valid. It's what's wrong with Wikipedia. Wiki cites that other sites' cites need to have been subject to "independent fact-checking" or "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication", and yet Wiki itself fails both of these proofs. Too often it's a case of mob rule, which is to say, no rules. Mael-Num 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete cited info as you did here [1]. This is considered vandalism. Anyone can add cited content to wikipedia. Kerr avon 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted material that, while cited, wasn't from a WP:NPOV. This is a no-brainer. You know this as well as I do, so drop the veneer of nicety and innocence. As guilty as WarHawk and Supreme Cmdr are of being biased in favor of Smart, you are biased against the man. Neither is good. If you disagree with me on the neutrality of the subject, take it to the talk page. Until them, I am duty-bound by WP:BLP to remove it. If you return it to the page you will be reported for edit-warring and violating Wiki policy. Mael-Num 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks, as you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Smart&curid=1239511&diff=93907133&oldid=93899564 here. Personal attacks are never appropriate. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement of facts. Don't resort to trying to sway people who may pay more attention to form rather than function when you cry "foul". Stop crying and prove my argument wrong.Mael-Num 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also remember to assume good faith: you don't get to label all reversions on the Derek Smart article as Vandalism. Please review what vandalism is at WP:VANDAL. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is wisdom in what you're saying, that responding agrily feeds into the behavior of people who are looking for that sort of a response. Just so I can know to be more aware in the future, would you mind pointing out what I posted that prompted you to take the time to get in touch with me? Even if you cannot do so, thank you for your thoughtful attention, and I'll try to "keep my six-shooters holstered". Can't promise I'll ever hang them up, though, pardner. ;) Mael-Num 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It was an edit summary you made on the Derek Smart article where you said "Future reversions will be considered vandalism". I apologise for the use of standardised templates, which was why I added the second message at the end: normally I reserve the templates for vandals which you clearly are not. As I mentioned at AN/I, I really don't forsee this article going anywhere but to ArbCom and I'd hate to see another editor get too fired up and get in trouble with ArbCom when they eventually rule on it (And I'm positive that it will eventually come to that: this is far too contentious to stop). Just remember to chill out, find your zen and all will be well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ohmmmmmm Mael-Num 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, young grasshopper. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crossposted from my talk page

[edit] Derek Smart

I think it's beyond you and Kerr Avon. Hell it didn't start with you guys. It started with WarhawkSP, Supreme Cmdr, the IPs, and a half dozen other accounts. It involves interpretation of policy. RFC is only going to be useful here as a checkbox to move towards Arbitration. I think mediation would work if everyone agreed to it. I've asked for administrator intervention, and I think the page should remain semiprotected for the time being. As is, the only real solution is to have those that actually understand policy enforce it, (those being admins), and enforce it strongly and switfly (with temporary blcoks). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)