User talk:Storm Rider
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Irrelevant polemics
The kind of crap you posted at Talk:Temple garment is irrelevant and actively harmful toward working on the encyclopedia. This is not a chat forum. Please, if that's how you're going to be, just stay away from that article. Things work better when editors are civilized and stay on topic. Friday (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment on my page was interesting. I happen to disagree with you. When you go out of your way to make a comment to someone with whom you disagree, me for example, and you so blatantly overlook complete stupidity of those with whom you agree leads me to think you might not be the best judge in this situation. For Wikipedia to succeed and for individual editors to excel, one must be able to work with those who disagree with our particular viewpoint. One must come to an understanding of what is appropriate and what is not.
- Your ignoring Duke53's comment of calling a vagina a pussy and also stating that "we all just need to live with it" is a prime example of your lack of judgement. Instead of leaving a comment on his talk page (a person who agrees with your position), you chose to leave a comment on my page and calling my comments "crap". I guess the old adage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is apropos in this instance. I encourage you to reflect on your actions, come to understand that to judge others is fine, but better yet is to learn to judge from a principaled position and not just those with whom you disagree. In doing so, you will have learned wisdom and fairness. Others might even come to respect you as a fellow editor.
- In closing, I will continue to edit those articles that are of interest to me and where I can offer the most expertise. This article is one of them. Cheeers. Storm Rider (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] blocking the IP
I understand your concern. However, I do not see the need to block an IP that has not edited for over 2 hours and not vandalized since the last warning. Additionally, the 1-week block was on October 27, not November 27. However, if the IP does vandalize again, I will block it for another week. You can also ask some other administrators what they think. Academic Challenger 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tone
Storm Rider, comments like this have a passive-aggressive tone and just inflame things further. I wonder if you are letting your emotions drive your discussion style too much. I don't mean to lecture you but I'm sure you wouldn't want to post things that you'd later regret or that would have adverse consequences for the things you care about. Of course, if you have any similar feedback for me I welcome your comments. Best wishes, alanyst /talk/ 03:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I admittedly have a difficult time with comments that are without logic, backwards, and just plain false. It is impossible for something to be the opposite of itself. I am not sure how best to handle these type of edits. I suspect the best way is just quit feeding the trolls. There is much wisdom in such a statement, but lately I have noticed a surprising coincidence where no comment becomes interpreted as acceptance of the statement as fact. Of course this mindset can easily turn into a need to respond to everything perceived as negative, which I don't think is necessary. My objective is to determine the stage most important in which to take a stand; Village pump seems like a stage that would have the most impact on the community at large. Do you think it would be better to just ignore those types of comments, those that are obviously lacking in thought, and move on? Your comments are appreciated and I can use some direction in this regard. Storm Rider (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly no paragon in this regard, but I'll share my thoughts. First off, in this particular case, I read Duke53's response to Visorstuff differently than I think you did. To me, it seemed that Duke53 took Visorstuff's post to mean that the IP address is owned by Property Reserve, not Intellectual Reserve, and so Duke53 contradicted that by pointing out the WHOIS report. I think you interpreted Visorstuff's comment differently, in that the IP address is assigned to Property Reserve internally but owned by Intellectual Reserve. With that mindset, Duke53's reply just seems like being contrary purely for the sake of it, without any sort of legitimate rebuttal of fact. (Kind of like: "The sky is blue." "You're wrong, this site clearly says the sky is blue.") And so out of annoyance, you responded. I was taken aback by your response because I didn't have the same perception as you, but also because of the emotion communicated in it that seemed disproportionate to the topic.
That's my take on this specific instance. More generally, here are some random thoughts, maxims, whatever about these sorts of online discussions.
- Don't post out of negative emotion; post out of love even (or especially) for your adversary, while still remaining true to fact, policy, and your principles. This is hard.
- Even when you feel your position is generally misunderstood, the larger community will usually arrive at a tolerable resolution of a dispute if given the chance. Most editors reading the discussion (which are more than just those participating) are rational, and can quickly discern who in the conversation is being thoughtful and logical, or who is simply agitating and pushing or defending an agenda. Antagonistic editors quickly lose influence in the community; people can see right through the facades they try to erect. Let that happen.
- Calmly explain your position, frankly admitting points that are weak, that you are uncertain about, or that others in good faith can disagree with. Be completely honest with yourself and then let others see it. Also be honest about others' valid points and legitimate actions, even if it's painful to admit it.
- Sarcasm is effective only in sparing quantities and at infrequent intervals. (The appropriate response to this is: "Yeah, right." =)
- Silence in the face of a challenge can sometimes be interpreted as capitulation, but it can also be interpreted as wise restraint and consideration for the community.
- Amass as much "benefit of the doubt" as you possibly can contain and then be extraordinarily generous with it. Ask questions to verify assumptions you're making about another person's reasoning or motivations before challenging them. Give them multiple chances to retract, elaborate, or alternatively re-assert their position, until there's no room for reasonable doubt as to what that is. Even for editors with whom you have had past conflict, let the Doubt-O-Meter reset somewhat (even if not all the way) in new encounters with those people. People can change, even from day to day or depending on what the topic at hand is.
Sorry for the voluminous discourse, but you asked for it! :) I'd like to reiterate that I'm a better preacher than practitioner, so don't hesitate to quote any of this back at me or come up with new ones applicable to my own behavior anytime. Cheers, alanyst /talk/ 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: I don't mean to imply that all of the points above apply to you. You are the only one here who can judge that, naturally. alanyst /talk/ 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Mythology Category
Although i've never liked how Mythology has that double definition that the lay reader is unlikely to know about, I don't see how, after reading the article, a person is going to see that category and say "Ah, everything in this article was fake, good to know", since I suspect a name such as "Christian mythology" is more likely to elicit curiosity, resulting in them clicking on it, and seeing the note about the double definition. The article does not present Jesus as a mythical figure, and so therefore, I think it would be very uncommon indeed for someone's impression of the subject to be adversly affected by reading "Christian mythology" as a category at the bottom. Though it would be nice if a better word for that category existed. Homestarmy 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre.
|
