User talk:Low Sea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Re:What's normal ?
The waiting time for a bot request, as well as whether or not it gets done at all, depends on several things. Most requests are relatively simple, asking for WikiProject tagging and so forth. In your case, you are asking for completely new code so you may have to wait a while. Additionally, as you said this would probably have to be run off of the toolserver and there are a limited number of people with toolserver accounts. In any case, bot operators will fulfill requests when they have time to do so, and like any other contributor devote time to requests that particularly interest them or strike them as being important first. So, it's basically completely unpredictable. I wouldn't be too discouraged yet though; it's only been about a day. Your request strikes me as the sort of thing that stands a good chance of getting done. About your providing suggested logic: I wouldn't worry about it. It could be helpful to the person who makes the bot, but even if it isn't I don't think it would scare anyone off. If no one responds in a week, you could leave another message so the request doesn't get archived; if a week after that there is still no response I'd just let it get archived and come back in a month or so. As in all things of this nature, be persistent without being a nuisance. (On an unrelated matter: When you archive your talk page, try to remember to blank the redirect after you move it. It was kind of confusing clicking on your talk page link and ending up at your archive.)--Dycedarg ж 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Dycedarg, again all good advice and well presented. I think while I wait (as if I had nothing else to do .. haha) I might try to learn how to code my own bot. I have some older programming skills (Pascal, COBOL, various assemblers, etc) although I am not versed in most web languages (java, perl etc). Still, if time permits there is nothing lost by tinkering with code (offline of course) for fun and learning. Low Sea (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] wp:vpa ?
Hi, Low Sea. I added a response to your question at WP:VPA#Commercial News Archives. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dawoodabro
Pardon, but what exactly is WQA? I looked at the page, but I've never heard of it before: what exactly are you asking me to do? Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WQA = Wikiquette Alert (don't blame me, I didn't nickname it)
- Just hoping you can route some WP helpers in this guy's direction if you know of any. I am willing to do what I can but I am still learning the ropes myself. I was hoping you might know of users who actually are good at mentoring clueless newbies. If he(she?) does not learn then he will eventually end up being disciplined for his many bad edits. That might chase him away. He seems industrious and that can be good if not done poorly. WP could use more editors like him if he cleans up his act. An ounce of prevention as they say. -- Low Sea (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WT:NOTE
I support what you said about the rececent changes to the guideline and have reitterated what you said in the discussion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:DEL and WP:N
Man, this is a thorny one. :)
OK. Let's start with the history of notability. The earliest form of a notability guideline I can find is 2004, here: [1]. It's still clearly a proposal at this stage. It reached its first policy form later in 2004 with this edit: [2]. This was before the policy/guideline distinction existed, and so the precise weight of the page is hard to express in current terms. Note, however, that this is very far from a notability guideline as such - in fact, it's basically a refusal to add any new policies. Notably, even this mild form was controversial at the time and was edit warred over. (This is another reason why WP:N will never attain policy status - its implementation was too vexed and controversial over time) In fact, importance never gained consensus. Finally [3] replaced it with WP:N on July 12, 2006.
Notability, however, began over a year before that with this edit: [4]. It was imported from Demi's userspace, where it was an essay for her personal use. It was a much, much harsher than importance, and begins to approach the current definition of notability, particularly in its last paragraph. The page rapidly evolved to become a place where the arguments about notability were summarized. It never reached policy in that form either. In December of 2006, it was also retired and a new page was started at the same location, this time ostensibly to cerate an actual policy. It began with [5] - a very simple description. By this time subject area inclusion guidelines had already been created - the music guideline, which I think was the earliest, actually predated any page at Wikipedia:Notability. [6]
So notability policy really grew from the bottom up - there was a lack of general consensus about notability, but local consensus formed on AfDs and in subject areas. It attained guideline status within a few weeks [7]. This also enshrined the current definition of notability in terms of sources.
OK. All of that done, we get WP:DEL. This page is much, much older than notability - it dates back to 2002. [8]. At the time that importance was started, the deletion policy did not mention any such concept: [9]. At the time notability was started, the page also did not mention any such concept [10] (though the phrase "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" appears, which is clearly a very low notability threshold). When notability was switched to guideline form the sub-guidelines like [{WP:MUSIC]] had been added to WP:DEL - [11]. In this case, however, they are clearly not added on the level of required deletion - the structure is "If the article has problem X, use Process Y to delete it." i.e. it is not a "delete non-notable articles," but "this is the right forum for notability deletions." Note the table name - problems that may require deletion.
This table was replaced in this edit: [12]. This edit served to change the wording to "reasons for deletion." The edit summary explicitly noted that this was NOT a change in meaning. I can find no discussion of the change from "may require deletion" to "reasons for deletion." I am therefore led to believe that the change in meaning was inadvertent.
So, summary - notability has a long and contested history where it has always been more popular in specific applications than as a general rule. It grew from the bottom up (a good way for policy to grow). The revision to effectively bootstrap notability to policy was inadvertent. Notability remains a guideline that describes current practice, not a proscriptive rule. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do what you like. I'd ask Radiant about the revision as well - he may have insight into the logic on the change of wording. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In the future
Please note that it's considered polite to inform users of posts about them on ANI. (As the page header mentions). You can use the {{ANI-notice}} template, or just a quick note on the user's talk page. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Noted and will do. This is my first time using ANI. Thanks for the advice. -- Low Sea (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. My personal opinion on this is that Sarcastic's behavior is fine. Policy is pretty clear that edits by banned users may be reverted without discussion. (However, I can see how this could be confusing given the lack of detail in the edit summary.) Anyway, just my $0.02. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The ANI thread
Hi Low Sea - first of all, no offense taken at all. It is customary to inform people of ANI threads you open about them, but obviously not all editors are familiar with all Wikipedia customs, and I take you at your word that you just didn't know about that one. I also take you at your word that you have no problems with me personally; I have a similar lack of problem with you. As for my action, it's well-established that banned users' edits can (and generally, although not always, should) be reverted on sight (see WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits). Sarsaparilla is banned by community consensus (interestingly, I was the last admin to show any interest at all in unblocking him), so when I uncover another one of his socks I revert all of his edits that haven't been responded to (I don't gut existing conversations, since that would be silly). This includes deleting pages that he created; this is precisely why speedy deletion criterion G5 exists. I do agree with the central tenet of your ANI thread, that admins should be expected to follow rules scrupulously. This is why I consider myself an Eguor admin. I hope this addresses your concerns; if not, please don't hesitate to ask for further clarification. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Thought article
One particular editor seems determined to delete large sections of the New Thought article. Any insight, or references, would be helpful, Madman (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi the article on Divine Science was removed.66.108.106.248 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I located the last good copy of the article (now Church of Divine Science) and I restored it, adding a few footnotes and references, etc. Visit, enhance, &/or watch this article, please. Thanks, Madman (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] An open letter to Hrafn,
Hrafn,
I have tried hard to see the good you are trying to do and I have often overlooked your many emotional outbursts because I do see it sometimes. But your comments here[13] and here[14] are self-proclaimed evidence of totally unacceptable behaviour. I hope you will do some serious soul searching on what I have to say next...
I am about to tread uneasily over the line of civility and I regret it before I do it, I even apologize for doing it, but I see no other option. I must call a spade a spade in order to offer constructive criticism. Your public actions and the above public statements combine to form the living definition of a particular word I abhor using: the word "kibitzer". This is not a casually used slang term or a derogatory label, it is a dictionary word with a specific meaning (see here[15]) and I chose it because it accurately describes your specific behaviour.
You say you "never took responsibility to do the work" yet it seems to me that you have consistently volunteered to take on a great deal of responsibility to "improve the encyclopedia" by the advisory edits you make.
When others add bricks and other raw materials to the construction site of an article you say it is not your responsibility to actually use of those materials yourself. And you are right. If you do not wish make the effort to mix mortar, lift hods, lay bricks and build the thing that is your choice.
What is bothersome is that you then want to tell others how to build the structure when you are not willing to do the work. This makes you (at best) a very noisy bystander and (at worst) a very disruptive kibitzer. Look at the synonyms of this word and consider if that is the type of editor you wish to be seen as here. The image you project here also is your choice.
Worst of all however is your apparently gleeful statement that you have somehow made Wikipedia better by means of "threatening" the work of other editors using policies as a weapon! This is a violation of so many WP principals, policies, guidelines, and essays I can't even count them! A few of these violations that come to mind without effort are Assume Good Faith, Ownership of articles, Gaming the system, Wikilawyering, Disruptive editing, Abuse of process, and WP:POINT. I can certainly add more.
To verbally and physically (on WP) tear down others' efforts and yet not be willing to do the detailed work of building articles is not productive, it is not constructive. To then freely admit that you were glad to do so and that it was strategic to do so is by absolute and crystal clear definition both disruptive and destructive.
I regret having to use such harsh langauge to offer constructve critcism of your actions and suggest areas for improvement. Still, you are a good editor and I hope you will contemplate and reconsider your actions and attitudes. Take a moment right now and be WP:CALM. If you are willing to see what I have said is true, and can integrate this advice into you future actions, then I am sure we can build a better encyclopedia together. -- Low Sea (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I may have no business here, but the only unacceptable behavior I see is your accusation that Hrafn has had many emotional outbursts, with no evidence to support such an accusation. That would be a personal attack in my opinion.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Obviously I cannot have a private (unobserved) discussion at Wikipedia but I would prefer to have this be a discussion between he and I alone to help keep things calm. Never-the-less thank you for the comment. The outbursts are minor in the scope of this topic but if needed I can provide a great many examples. -- Low Sea (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] An equally open response to Low Sea
- My "totally unacceptable behaviour" had a solid basis in WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." While it was blunt, you would have a hard time demonstrating a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, or WP:AGF. Thus its 'unacceptability' would appear to be simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
- I see nothing wrong with being accused of kibitzing. Wikipedia is built in part on kibitzing -- it's part of the self-review process that keeps the project honest. If you have WP:RS and policy on your side then it is generally not something to feel threatened by. It's only when you have neither on your side -- but want to keep the article anyway, that it becomes a serious threat -- as it should be.
- Your claim that I "have consistently volunteered to take on a great deal of responsibility to "improve the encyclopedia" by the advisory edits [I] make" has no basis in policy or common practice. Pointing out that something is in violation of policy is not volunteering to fix it. If it were, editors would be caught between the dilemma of not pointing out gross deficiencies, or taking on responsibility for far more than they can, even unreasonably, be expected to fix. As for "When others add bricks and other raw materials to the construction site of an article..." -- where these "materials" have been publicly accessible through the internet, I have cited them -- where they aren't there's very little I can do.
- As for being a "very noisy bystander and (at worst) a very disruptive kibitzer" -- when I have perfectly uncontroversial and purely style-improving edits reverted, without any basis in policy, it rather reduces my motives for making improvements myself. In any case, pointing out flagrant and ongoing violations of core policy is hardly valueless.
- "Threatening" non-compliant material with the recourse that policy establishes for non-compliance is hardly unreasonable. Policy is there for a reason, and failure to follow it has consequences. And demanding that policy be followed when it is perfectly clear on the subject is not WP:LAWYER.
- As for "tear[ing] down others' efforts" -- I would direct your attention to Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. While this is an essay not policy, it is a valid viewpoint, and one with a strong basis in policy.
- You addressed this as an open letter, so must needs accept the input of the wider wikipedia community. Aunt Entropy has pointed out, quite correctly, that you have neither facts nor policy on your side. To summarise an old legal adage, lacking the facts or the law on your side, you are merely 'pounding the table'.
HrafnTalkStalk 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- You lay out a series of seven arguments which I will address individually below. To this end I have created a series of subsections to gradually be filled in. Please understand my replies will be evolved over a period of time and will not come all at once or even in order. This is partially for practical reasons of life and schedules and partially because I choose not to act with haste which would result in an emotionally charged flame war.
Patience and remaining calm and logical are more productive. I will be applying the principals of WP:COOL and WP:TIND to this conversation.
While your response makes it clear we do not agree it is my intent and hope that I can help you to see that the problems are very real. Frankly it appears we view the world of Wikipedia from very different perspectives and that is ok on content and even on contribution but on matters of behaviour I think it is essential that we (the community) share common values.
- You lay out a series of seven arguments which I will address individually below. To this end I have created a series of subsections to gradually be filled in. Please understand my replies will be evolved over a period of time and will not come all at once or even in order. This is partially for practical reasons of life and schedules and partially because I choose not to act with haste which would result in an emotionally charged flame war.
[edit] Reply to 1 (+)
- My "totally unacceptable behaviour" had a solid basis in WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." While it was blunt, you would have a hard time demonstrating a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, or WP:AGF. Thus its 'unacceptability' would appear to be simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Just to immediately clear the air on one small part of this, I have not accused you of WP:No personal attacks and I cannot recall ever seeing you engage in that behaviour. Likewise I hope you will agree that this entire topic is also not a personal attack, but rather a frank discussion of specific behaviours. -- Low Sea (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- My point was that you were accusing me of "totally unacceptable behaviour", without being able to demonstrate a violation (let alone a clear or egregious violation) of the three main behavioural policies. The result being that you don't have a leg to stand on, and that your own accusation could be considered a breach of WP:AGF. HrafnTalkStalk 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to 2
- I see nothing wrong with being accused of kibitzing. Wikipedia is built in part on kibitzing -- it's part of the self-review process that keeps the project honest. If you have WP:RS and policy on your side then it is generally not something to feel threatened by. It's only when you have neither on your side -- but want to keep the article anyway, that it becomes a serious threat -- as it should be.
[edit] Reply to 3
- Your claim that I "have consistently volunteered to take on a great deal of responsibility to "improve the encyclopedia" by the advisory edits [I] make" has no basis in policy or common practice. Pointing out that something is in violation of policy is not volunteering to fix it. If it were, editors would be caught between the dilemma of not pointing out gross deficiencies, or taking on responsibility for far more than they can, even unreasonably, be expected to fix. As for "When others add bricks and other raw materials to the construction site of an article..." -- where these "materials" have been publicly accessible through the internet, I have cited them -- where they aren't there's very little I can do.
[edit] Reply to 4 (+)
- As for being a "very noisy bystander and (at worst) a very disruptive kibitzer" -- when I have perfectly uncontroversial and purely style-improving edits reverted, without any basis in policy, it rather reduces my motives for making improvements myself. In any case, pointing out flagrant and ongoing violations of core policy is hardly valueless.
I guess I am going to start with this item because it is the easiest to dismiss. Your arguments are fallacious and perhaps even disingenuous:
4.1) On the technical argument of "perfectly uncontroversial and purely style-improving edits reverted, without any basis in policy" you are the one in violation of WP:CITE, specifically Section 4.1 which states:
-
- There are a number of citation styles and systems used in different fields, all including the same information, with different punctuation use, and with the order of appearance varying for the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected.
Madman was the first editor of this article and his choice of citation style was to be respected per policy but you chose to determine that your prefered style was the "right" one. Had you undertaken the simple courtesy of discussing citation styles before making the change you might have avoided the issue. Perhaps a simple: "Madman, I would like to simplify the citation style in this article like this (example). Is that acceptable?"
Note that the result of such a discussion might have been to continue with Madman's choice but while you would not have gotten what you wanted that still would have been considered productive because it was a cooperative solution which avoided anything editwar-like. Avoiding editwars is highly desirable at Wikipedia and a generally considered a sign of maturity and cooperation between editors.
4.2) I need to successively reduce and paraphrase your comment to highlight the flaw.
- ORIGINAL:
"... when I have perfectly uncontroversial and purely style-improving edits reverted, without any basis in policy, it rather reduces my motives for making improvements myself."
- REDUCTION 1:
"... when I have [my work] reverted [...] it rather reduces my motives for making improvements myself."
- REDUCTION 2:
"... when I [don't get my way] [then I don't want to play]."
On the surface this argument is petty and childish and yet it is human nature to be unhappy when our efforts fail. What is of far greater significance is the fact that you fail to recognize that the same behaviours which "reduce" your motivation also reduce the motivation of others. Do you ever stop to consider that when you tear apart another editor's work you are reducing their motivation to want to contribute? How many editors have left Wikipedia because of such demotivation? How does driving away willing contributors affect the mandate to always do everything in ways that improve the encyclopedia?
I offer you a suggestion for self-enlightenment, create a new essay as follows... Create a user subpage and do a line-by-line analysis of WP:BITE. Contrast that behaviour guideline to your personal editting processes. Be honest with yourself and link to examples of where you have (and have not) applied WP:BITE. If your analysis is honest I think you will be shocked at the results.
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. "... when I [don't get my way] [then I don't want to play]." is a gross misrepresentation of what I said and a gross violation of WP:AGF. HrafnTalkStalk 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
4.3) "... pointing out flagrant and ongoing violations of core policy is hardly valueless."
I agree, identifying weaknesses does add value to WP. However the manner in which you do it -- your behaviour -- is the issue. Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative effort, not an adversarial one. This is the reason that consensus versus majority voting is demanded by core policy. "Threats", "swords", and disrespect create not just a poor environment but a hostile one.
You are "big" on policy so allow me to point out one that you have missed... WP CIVILITY - Section 9 starts with this powerful single sentence: Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project. This is not an ambiguous statement of "treat some editors one way and others another", it is an absolute policy that ALL editors are to be interacted with in a manner that emulates respect and admiration.
This does not mean you have to like them or agree with them. Nor does it mean vandals are to be treated with respect since they act against improving the encyclopedia. But every editor who acts in good faith is to be accorded collegial status per this policy, and failing clear evidence to the contrary every editor is to be given the assumption of good faith at all times. Long before Wikipedia existed I was taught this lesson so allow me to pass on the wisdom that was shared with me:
- Many years ago when I was a young supervisor I had a person on my crew who was a very poor worker (a sad-sack, a good-for-nothing). I was constantly having to reprimand him for poor performance and I grew to dread even talking to him. One day my manager pulled me aside and said "I have seen the way you talk with him and it is very disrespectful!" I tried to protest that he was a very poor worker and her response was "It doesn't matter. Even poor workers are human beings who deserve basic respect in a professional environment." What she was telling me was just because he was a turkey did not give me the right to be an ass. She was right. I told her I understood what she wanted but I wasn't sure how to treat him with respect when his work was so substandard. This is when she gave me one of the most important lessons of my life...
She asked the following questions: "Would you ever speak to me the way you speak to him? (No.) Would you ever speak to my boss, the General Manager, the way you speak to him? (No.) Would you ever speak to the Vice-President of the company the way you speak to him? (No!) Why not? (Because you would all fire me if I did!) So why is it OK to speak to him that way? Because he can't fire you?!? Whenever you speak to him I want you to use the same tone and attitude you would use as if you were speaking to the VP. That is what I mean by basic respect."
I have never forgotten that. I use it every day. And once I started acting that way to the "good-for-nothing" worker I also began to see what he was doing right ... instead of only the things he was doing wrong. In time he became one of our hardest working people because I was able to separate my emotions from my discussions with him and I was able to give him useful and palatable feedback to improve his performance.
My suggestion to you Hrafn is to do another self-enlightening essay as in 4.2 above and contrast your behaviour to ALL of WP:CIVIL - Section 9, especially that first sentence. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I also suggest you should start treating ALL editors the way you treat your favorite college professor, your parents, Jimbo, or whomever else you respect and admire. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to 5
- "Threatening" non-compliant material with the recourse that policy establishes for non-compliance is hardly unreasonable. Policy is there for a reason, and failure to follow it has consequences. And demanding that policy be followed when it is perfectly clear on the subject is not WP:LAWYER.
[edit] Reply to 6
- As for "tear[ing] down others' efforts" -- I would direct your attention to Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. While this is an essay not policy, it is a valid viewpoint, and one with a strong basis in policy.
[edit] Reply to 7
- You addressed this as an open letter, so must needs accept the input of the wider wikipedia community. Aunt Entropy has pointed out, quite correctly, that you have neither facts nor policy on your side. To summarise an old legal adage, lacking the facts or the law on your side, you are merely 'pounding the table'.
[edit] Misc replies
- placeholder subsection if needed
[edit] An open final response to Low Sea
Given that you appear to have no basis in policy for your behavioural points, and are yourself repeatedly (and in one case egregiously) violating WP:AGF, I am declaring WP:POT and calling this lengthy farce to a close, and am removing this page from my watchlist. You are of course free to continue to make baseless accusations, but any passing admin is also free to block you for it, if they think your actions merit it. HrafnTalkStalk 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- TO HRAFN (IF YOU COME BACK HERE)
- Sigh... OK, go ahead and "declare WP:POT" and say this discussion is a "farce". I think you just proved my point (in topic #4.2 above) for me. I am going to (at the end of this reply) "declare" WP:TRUCE and go cool off as I stated in my introduction that I would do. I have entered a clarification reply on topic #1 above and I note that while you say I have "no basis in policy" you chose not to reply to topics #4.1 and #4.3 above which examples your violation of WP:CITE section 4.1 and WP:CIVIL section 9 respectively, yet oddly you did reply to topic 4.2 so I know you read the section. Also, was a Exclamation Point icon really necessary there? This is an example of what I mean when talk about emotional outbursts but I am sure you can probably cite some obscure legal wikilaw that says using inflamatory icons inside a discussion is policy. OK ... I am getting rude and I apologize for that last remark. Time to respect the ideas in WP:TRUCE and WP:COOL and go paint my toenails for a little while. -- Low Sea (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Smile
Coppertwig (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Low Sea, your comment on my talk page has given me great positive energy as well as insightful suggestions. I want to return the favour, and pass along the smile given me by Tinucherian, by brightening your talk page with a smile. I've added a message to you to my Thank you for participating in my RfA section, and I've also replied further below your comment here.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
