User talk:Grace Note
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responded on my talk. Cheers, from a disgusting unlicensed shit-flinger, Derex 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely disagree with you about my post to Robbie, as I follow-up on my page. However, given Jimbo's request, there's not much to be gained by asking anymore. So, I just deleted it on the theory that you see a cost and I no longer see a benefit. I would like to know, but given the scope of this mess I can let it go. Your good humor in your follow-up was helpful with this, because I'll admit I do love a good bar fight when someone brings it to me. Cheers, Derex 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Biloxi High School
Please replace all of the lists that you previously deleted. These have all been okayed by an administrator. Read the discussion page please. kgregory 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will not replace the curriculum that you have once again deleted (another example of a violation of the 3RR) but I am going to replace the sports section deleted, sports are interesting. kgregory
Deleted a comment from a talk page? Please provide a source for this action because I have no conscience of doing such a thing and that is an awfully harsh thing to say without a backbone. Just becuase you say something is uninteresting doesn't mean someone else does, I worked hard completing those lists and for them to just be deleted is ridiculous. kgregory
[edit] Greer
Please read the discussion page - it as been discussed. Do not edit without checking the discussion page. Comment1 08:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for fixing the source. Alan Davidson 14:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted a comment from a talk page? Please provide a source for this action because I have no conscience of doing such a thing and that is an awfully harsh thing to say without a backbone. Just becuase you say something is uninteresting doesn't mean someone else does, I worked hard completing those lists and for them to just be deleted is ridiculous. kgregory
[edit] Reply to your comment
I replied to your comment at User talk:Coppertwig/Stability of policy#Knowingly including "false" information. --Coppertwig 23:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
---
Neat ideas. I created a new page for all of us to continue this conversation. But I won't be back for a day or so. À tout à l'heure. --Rednblu 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Hi what did you mean by this? "LOL. It's a ridiculous cite though. Aaronovitch! You people have absolutely no shame" --Asucena 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Block
Thanks for your advice, Grace Note. While I do think I have been acting completely within the bounds of propriety in this instance, I'll try and keep your points in mind. The 48 hours comes from a combination of the blatant COI violations after multiple warnings and the 3RR violation of which the user is well aware of policy, so this is tantamount to a second violation. Notice that as soon as I blocked, I requested admin comment on WP:ANI, and the only comment was to agree with my actions. As I said, I'll try and keep super-propriety in mind; thanks again. -- Avi 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot, the other reason for 48 was the WP:POINT violation for restoring an AfD tag to an article which survived twice with an edit summary "…tag must remain". If you have any influence on this person, can you try and relay the importance of editing within wiki bounds? Thanks. -- Avi 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, thank you for the advice. Perhaps it was an issue of perception; I have no edits on Move America Forward or whatever it is until the Ascuneas issue, so I have no content issue with him/her per se, but I see that to an outside observer that it may have appeared that there was a content issue. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Avi 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and please feel free to drop me a line in the future if you think I am not comporting myself properly; I always welcome constructive criticism.
. -- Avi 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Odd-looking edit
Was this intentional? Chris cheese whine 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or, alternatively, the software just playing dumb with the diffs again ... Chris cheese whine 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] truth
Grace Note, perhaps I have misunderstood some people, but I am pretty sure you have misunderstood me. I am not dogmatically asserting that truth should not matter, against others who are arguing that truth should matter. I am asserting (yes, I admit uncompromisingly) that according to Wikipedia policy, since its inception truth ode snot matter, against others who have been arguing in general that according to Wikipedia policy truth does matter, and more specifically that the ATT policy weakens current and past Wikipedia policy because it devalues truth, when truth has long been a central and guiding value at Wikipedia.
If you want to challenge the policy "Verifiability, not truth" that has been an element of NPOV from the start and was later made its own policy (V), you are free to question the policy and suggest changing it. Now, I have for the most part been responding to others' comments, and not yours - so I admit I am not sure what your position is and apologize if I misrepresent you. But if you assert that the policy has long been that verifiability means verifying the truthfulness of a claim, then I can only conclude you are acting in bad faith. If you assert that the policy has been verifiability not truth, but you think it should be changed, then I trust you are acting in good faith, whether I agree with you or not.
Rednblu and others have not been opening up a discussion on changing our longstanding policy of verifiability not truth. they have been making two claims: (1) that our verifiability policy is founded on a recognition of the importance of truth - and that is misrepresentation of our policy (and a dangerous misrepresentation in my opinion) and (2) that "attribution" represents an underhanded change of policy, which is untrue, unfair, and disingenuous. This is what I have been responding to.
Surely you can see the difference between my criticism a misrepresentation of a current policy, versus my disagreement with a proposed change in policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, I appreciate it. For what it is worth, I have issues with RS for precisely the reasons you do. I think the real issue is that we so not have a policy, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" laying out what we mean by an encyclopedia (in a way that is consistent with other policies); I think people have tried to use RS as an attempt to police quality when some general commitment to quality should be endorsed by a statement of the encyclopedic nature of the policy. As for Rednblu, I really was reacting largely to his repeated mischaracterizations of things I had just written. Be that as it may I appreciate your moderating intention and effect. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Issue
Grace, do you have any sort of a problem with me, or are you following and reviewing my edits? You seem to follow in the wake of much of what I do since I commented on the Brandt matter with scorn and hostile or excessively questioning tone, and I am concerned about it. Please let me know. - Denny 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you think I might have an issue with you. Why do you think I might? I've previously worked on WP:Attribution (check my contribs if you like) and WP:BLP (ditto), and I occasionally look at editor review (again, this is clearly visible in my contribs). If you are active on particular pages, as you seem to be, you have to expect to run into the same editors.
- There's nothing hostile in asking you whether you have previously edited. You asked to be reviewed. That's what has struck me about you. You can email me if you want to discuss it further. There is also nothing hostile in suggesting that an editor with only a few weeks' experience does not invent new policy or new instructions/templates/bullshit to clutter up pages with.
- Now I will tell you something. Posting passive-aggressive whining to my talkpage does aggravate me, particularly when it is manifestly not assuming good faith of me. Try not to do it again and I'm sure we'll be best of friends. Grace Note 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You had (rather out of the blue) vigorously countered me--which is fine--on my edits on the Brandt issue, my addition of WP:FORTHEPEOPLE on the deletion arguments to avoid page, on the ATT polling, and then with negative comments on the BLP category idea. All of which is quite fine, but I was concerned that after never having seen/interacted with you before I disagreed with you re Brandt, that you were perhaps seeing what I was up to. For example, you had never once edited Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before 03/22/2007 23:25, a full ten days after I had first touched the page. No worries, however. Happy editing. - Denny (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you'll find I edited the Danny Brandt article long, long before you turned up, and have vigorously supported its deletion on several occasions. Your appointing yourself saviour of the Brandt article does not give you licence not to be disagreed with. As for the deletion thing, I'd forgotten that was you. I'd suggest that unilaterally deciding what arguments people can use in deletion debates is not seemly in a "new" editor. And I followed the link to the deletion page. Someone had used it as though it was policy and I checked it out to see what someone had invented this time. You'll find my edits all over deletion pages, policy on deletion etc. I'd suggest once more that if a "new" editor turns up and starts rewriting policy as soon as his feet are under the table, he's going to meet some opposition from editors who have previously been involved. That's just natural, particularly if you are going to make a beeline for controversial articles and policy areas. Grace Note 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You had (rather out of the blue) vigorously countered me--which is fine--on my edits on the Brandt issue, my addition of WP:FORTHEPEOPLE on the deletion arguments to avoid page, on the ATT polling, and then with negative comments on the BLP category idea. All of which is quite fine, but I was concerned that after never having seen/interacted with you before I disagreed with you re Brandt, that you were perhaps seeing what I was up to. For example, you had never once edited Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before 03/22/2007 23:25, a full ten days after I had first touched the page. No worries, however. Happy editing. - Denny (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Grace, are you following my edits for some purpose? If so it's fine, but I seem to be seeing you on many pages I have touched that you had never previously. If you're looking for something please let me know, if I can address any... concerns... - Denny (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I saw it on your talkpage and thought it looked interesting. Whenever someone comes and whines about nothing much on my talkpage, I have a look and see who else they've been talking to. I think you'll find that's quite normal. So I followed the link. Now, I have to ask you to stop wasting my time. I have better things to do than read your conspiracy theory about me, and I'm sure you do too. Isn't there a policy that needs your input somewhere? Grace Note 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
