User talk:Lantoka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
31 August 2005 − 18 November 2006 18 November 2006 − 10 December 2006 10 December 2006 − 1 March 2007

Contents 1 Personal attacks 2 Wow! 3 ST47 RfA 4 Personal Attack Template 5 Personal attack personal attack 6 Essjay (response) 7 MTI Technology Corporation 8 The Departed 9 Edward talk intro 10 Evanescence 11 Maginot Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Personal attacks

I don't appreciate speculation on what I "probably think" nor intimations that I'm unilaterally disrupting consensus. [1] Please don't make personal attacks like this. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lighten up dude. I'm trying to get him to work with you. In no way is that a personal attack. – Lantoka (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

I love it. I think we finally found a complete and NPOV lead. The passive voice does wonders here.

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it! I thought for sure it would all be reverted when I logged in today! I was dreading it (no pun intended...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I gotta admit, I do like the new version, both your and Martin's totally supportive comments really helped me with that! I am completely proud of the "premise" premise, though, that is such a cool solution, better than even "performs", 'cause it can't be argued with at all!! The only part that still bothers me is the "self-described" business.... Dreadlocke ☥ 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ST47 RfA

Shouldn't comments like that be made on his RfA?--R613vlu 12:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack Template

Dude, what the hell is your problem? This and this are not personal attacks, yet at the first sign of trouble you rush to the NPA template. Do you know how rude it is to keep accusing your fellow editors of personal attacks like this? I really suggest you re-read WP:NPA, since these two latest examples clearly don't qualify.

As you say, "comment on content, not contributors". Well, behavior is content... unless you'd like to argue it's a contributor. Behavior can and is discussed: by admins, by mediators, by ArbCom, by fellow users, even by posting that NPA template you keep leaving on people's talk pages. – Lantoka (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. I'd suggest reading WP:CIVIL as well. My "zealous" action was simply to ask the two editors to cease their negative comments about other editors. We'll see if that happens - hopefully further action won't be required. And for the record "Dude, what the hell is your problem?" probably isn't the most civil comment either. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not the only one that's gonna be pissed over this. I'm just a spectator and it's making my blood boil. How do you think MartinPhi and Dreadlocke are gonna react when they see that? You would have been better off either ignoring the comments, or if that's not acceptable then responding directly on the talk page as you did to MartinPhi. – Lantoka (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to ignore the an uncivil comment, but they continue to do so, even after the situation has moved on and there's no reason to discuss earlier edits. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack personal attack

Lantoka, Dreadlocke doesn't have time to pursue this, but shouldn't we contact an administrator about this? Who should we contact? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I already talked to him about it. Considering that we've achieved consensus on the John Edward page, I think it'd be best to just drop it. Trying to get each other in trouble is only going to create more problems and stress for everybody, over what is essentially a moot issue. – Lantoka (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo is interested in a lot of the paranormal pages, and I'm tired of his tactics. Sure, you'd be totally right if it were only about the JE page. But it isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 March 2007.

I agree. Unfortunately, my participation has to be limited for a few weeks until I return from a trip out of the country - I'm headed to Japan! Essentially, my belief is that we were making civil comments about his actions, which is not considered a personal attack according to WP:NPA, "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.."

The problem in this particular case seems to be that the main policy "nutshell" states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - a comment I saw quoted in one of the accusations, but there are several exceptions to that general statement where one can comment on the contributor - including the one I just quoted. I don't want an editor to believe he can act with impunity and then accuse other editors of making personal attacks when they are merely commenting on those actions. Looking again at the NPA policy, we see the following comment "accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute".

I also don't want to see editor making uncivil comments themseleves, then accusing others. [2].

Talk to you when I get back! Dreadlocke ☥ 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and well put. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay (response)

It's difficult to form a coherent argument right now, as the ground rules for discussing this seem to be shifting by the hour. Nonetheless, I do wish you well, and I do apologize if I've offended you. We'll take this up at a later time, if you'd like. Thanks! -- SwissCelt 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all offended. I'm just trying to understand your views on the subject. Thanks for your courteous response, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion tomorrow morning.

Have a good night, – Lantoka (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTI Technology Corporation

Hi - I recommend that you gather reliable sources first and then when you're ready, re-create the article yourself (you don't need me to undelete it). Just satisfy the requirements of WP:CORP and you won't have a problem. Cheers, Rama's arrow 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Departed

Sorry, I don't know how to send messages on wiki so I am doing it this way.

Re: your message about The Departed. Since you put it that way, and very reasonably and in a friendly manner, ok I will abide. I only meant to add value to the article and didn't completely understand the guidelines. Thank you for explaining them in a polite and constructive way. I thought someone who disagreed was deleting my comments for spite. More moderators should communicate as you do, I think the place would run smoother and less back and forth editing and deleting.

Respectfully -kw
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.3.94 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 8 March 2007.

[edit] Edward talk intro

Nice Edward talk intro (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence

Hey there, well done with the article!! I tried but there was too many edit wars and idiots being picky and deleting pictures. It looks good now though.

How are things with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Childzy (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Things are going very well for me man. I'm on Spring Break right now so I'm just chillin'. It's good to hear from you! – Lantoka (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maginot Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank for contributing to the Maginot Line's article.

Martial BACQUET 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. – Lantoka (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that too. Martial BACQUET 12:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)