User:Gay Cdn/archive uncivil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Uncivil discussions moved from my talk page
Below are the various uncivil comments that have been made on my talk page in regards to my AfD nominations and votes:
[edit] Solomon Perel
You have been a member for only a month. There is much for you to learn.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jm butler (talk • contribs).
[edit] Your AfD Nomination of Kick the Can Crew
Hello, Gay Cdn!
The Kick the Can Crew article was created on June 9, 2006. You created your Wikipedia account on June 28, 2006. As a new member, it's exciting to make a dent. But in your eagerness to delete so many articles, I think you might be making some mistakes.
While you're asking us to consider your nomination in good faith, I'd like to ask you to consider articles in good faith before initiating AfD. Good faith works best when it is not a one-way street.
There are plenty of non-notable and vanity subjects on Wikipedia, but this very certainly isn't one of them and it would've been very easy for you to tell that it wasn't before making the nomination. Spending a minute or two on that step, before making the nomination, would let us know that you've shown good faith to the article and its editors.
Before nominating something for AfD, I'll search for it and read a little on it. After all, it's a big, big world, and there are plenty of things that I don't, and even more that I've never heard about.
If I can find that an article is about something justifiable, I'll tag it with a {{cleanup template}} or an {{importance}} template. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I also like to use the {{expand}} template. I might start a conversation on the article's talk page and see who responds.
After doing my research, I find its most productive and enlightening to go fix the article myself. I think that's truly the spirit of Wikipedia. I can bring a few of my own stones to the soup.
If you had done any of these things, you would show the same good faith to that article and its editors that you're asking us to show you after your unripened nomination. -- Mikeblas 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You Overestimate your own importance
I replied on the appropriate page, sir. You have been here perhaps a month, according to your own home page. A little humility might be called for in this instance. The wikipedia worked quite well without your self-styled "deletionist" tendencies, and I have no doubt that it would continue to do so without you in the future. Do not make too big of a pain of yourself. Badbilltucker 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] May I humbly suggest that you are incompetent for the task you have set yourself.
I would first like to apologize for having made reference to a statement which I thought I had posted which factually had not been posted. In my, I believe, justifiable anger at what I perceived as your own presumptuousness, it seems that I opened up one too many windows and neglected to actually post the response I had made. Again, my apologies.
However, I now come to the real point of this post, which is referenced in the headline. I seem to remeber reading that there is supposed to be a waiting period after the creation of such documents to allow the individual who has created it time to flesh it out. In your haste, you proposed the list for deletion the day after it was first created. This is at the very least less than considerate behavior on your part.
We then come to the text you used when you explained the nomination. Allow me to quote: Delete as it is a list that would become unmanageable and never ending. WP is not a list of indisriminate information. Prod removed with a tag added to the talk page stating, "This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to California." Content could be moved to the San Francisco article. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You use the phrase "indiscriminate information." In so doing, you are casting a value-laden judgement upon something about which I believe even you would acknowledge you knew little or nothing at the time. You also say that it is unmanagable and never ending. You follow this with a statement which is a direct contradiction to your own initial statement, saying it could be added to the San Francisco article. Evidently you have no concerns about making that article unmanagable and never-ending. I can reasonably say, on the basis of your own self-contradictory statement, that you had not even remotely thought through your own statement. I believe your own conduct in this matter can be reasonably described as presumptuous, inconsiderate, rude, poorly if at all thought through, and unquestionably incoherent.
This however is not a problem. It is in fact to be expected from someone who is as new to this as you yourself are. The problem that I see, which I acknowledge up front is clearly not yet proven, is that you demonstrate on your own page a collection of rude comments directed at you. As I have indicated above, "rude" does not begin to describe your own behavior toward me. It occurs to me that you might be one of those individuals who seeks to create trouble for its own sake, and are using this as a forum to indulge your interest. If that is the case, be warned. Wikipedia is, as you yourself have stated, about information, not personalities. Troublemakers are not tolerated here. I am myself a member of both Esperanza and Concordia, two groups on wikipedia which seek to eliminate trouble, and, unfortunately, if necessary, troublemakers. It is my hope that your own less-than-considerate behavior can be stopped by this "prod". However, I shall be myself watching your edits, and specifically your deletion requests, to see if this pattern of irrational behavior continues. If it does, I may find myself forced to take other measures.
I wish you well, as I wish all newcomers well. However, I suggest that you overcome your impulsiveness or other limitations, and perhaps have a slightly better grasp of the standards and practices of wikipedia, before you continue to assert what I consider to be personal opinions, rather than substantive issues.
On the plus side, it has been stated on the article for deletion page that someone sees all such lists as the one in question be considered for deletion. If I may suggest something which I see as being potentially constructive, I think we might better be able to address the importance of this list, and all such lists, if they were to be considered for deletion all at the same time. I would thus suggest that you possibly place a similar tag on all similar lists that you may find, hopefully all on the same day, and then we can have the issue discussed fairly, reasonably, and openly.
Again, I wish you well. Badbilltucker 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request of adivce.
I have noticed that you have instantly removed my legitimate attempt to notify you of your own failure to abide by even the most basic principles of politeness is counted by you as "uncivil." I once again ask you how you would categorized your own behavior. I also am notify you that I honestly believe your behavior is such that I have no choice but to contact a variety of administrators and other groups to perhaps attempt to persuade you to involve yourself in wikipedia where your personality might be a better fit. Badbilltucker 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contact as per your request has been made.
Badbilltucker 13:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal Opinion Vs. Wikipedia Guidelines
I wish to call to your attention that personal opinion of the quality or importance of an article is never considered more important than the guidelines of wikipedia, particularly when the person in question is making those decisions on their own, without a specific request from outside parties to do so. You have in the past acted in a way which, to my eyes, clearly violated the above principle, almost certainly unintentionally and with what you saw as good reasons. I have every reason to think that, willingly or unwillingly, you may do so again. I congratulate you on the fact that the majority of your current actions are well-reasoned and more clearly citing wikipedia guidelines than some of your earlier actions, when you were perhaps less aware of wikipedia guidelines. However, I do personally believe that any person with only about a month of activity on wikipedia may well be less-than-informed on the guidelines of wikipedia, and shall continue to occasionally check in on your comments for deletion to see if, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you act contrary to guidelines. Good luck. Badbilltucker 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
