User talk:Tcaudilllg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Tcaudilllg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WT:NPA

Hello. I've replied to your post at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Am I the only person who thinks this policy is a problem?. You seem to be mistaking my meaning, and I think you're accusing me of some kind of deception about which I have no clue. Please see that page for my apology and another attempt at clarity. I assure you that I have no intention of performing any kind of "bait and switch" or anything else intellectually dishonest. I expect you to hold me to a high standard in this matter; if I'm not making sense, please be so kind as to explain how. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..., well we have very different thinking styles: you put more emphasis on behavior, myself on phenomena. I'll take your word for it that you weren't trying to bait-&switch me. Tcaudilllg 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I hardly know what to say to you over at WT:NPA. Our conversation there hardly has anything to do with that policy. It sounds as if you're basically opposed to WP:NOR. Is that a fair characterization of your position? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. My comment at NPA was misplaced, actually. (I meant to respond to NOR, but I wasn't paying attention to the page I was responding to.)
Now as for the NPA thing, I would tentatively place Alfador in that "extremist" category. Tentatively, I would say, because I don't know him. But I did write my response so as to test him, so as to entice, I suppose the word would be, him into revealing what his position really is and why it is that way. Obviously his concerns do not limit themselves to the personal; he is concerned with chaos on a wide scale, destruction, etc. I see him as projecting his fears onto me, when really I'm just trying to smooth the waters without ignoring the issues. I can't tell if, if it came down to him as to whether there was a NOR policy change or not, he'd "go down fighting" or just appeal to reason and try to work out a compromise. I'm trying to tell whether or not he's a PoV warrior.
There is a belief about Wikipedia that's pretty widespread these days as the "answer" source. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's conflicting with the aim of trying to make Wikipedia fit the traditional image of an encyclopedia. I'm not convinced that with a little more tolerance of opinion, we could have our cake and eat it too regarding this matter. Tcaudilllg 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well since for some reason you seem to have this tacit obsession with me let me make myself clear. It would appear that your only goal is to disrupt a process because it does not meet your own personal objectives. You want to fill Wikipedia with personal theory and unsourced synthisis and ideas. The community has spoken, and your ideas have been rejected. Please take it with good grace and drop the issue. Quite frankly I'd also appreciate it if you could refrain from using amateur psychoanalysis to label people. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Whatever gave you the impression that I am an extremist
Need I say more? As versed as I am in psychology, you seem to know more about me than I do. How could you know I want to corrupt Wikipedia beyond all reason? Of course that's ridiculous.
"The community has spoken"? Really? Er wait... who is the community in that context?
My impression of your will to "abide by the community and to respect its decisions" is that you already know what the community will decide, and on that basis can argue for someone to abide by the community's will as you yourself do. If you did not believe the community would agree with you, you probably wouldn't be a part of it.
I'm not obsessed with you any moreso than I am any other person who finds it difficult to compromise. But certainly at this point in my life, and in my personal research, such people are of great interest to me.
Oh, and I use socionics and analytical psychology to "label" people, not psychoanalysis. I'm trying to put contrary functions together toward a common end, as is my nature. (Jung's concept of the transcendent function) You seem to find the prospect of such ends threatening, a trait extremists in general tend to share. Certainly they must be frightened over something or they wouldn't be extreme.
I may be mistaken, but intuition suggests I'm not. Tcaudilllg 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have created a situation where, in your own mind, you can only prove yourself right. "I claim that you are an extremist, and if you disagree, that proves what an extremist you are." Are you afraid of the idea of commenting on the content and not on the contributor? The sense in which "the community has spoken" is that WP:NOR enjoys the support of broad consensus. This idea has been tested hundreds and hundreds of times, and each time, Wikipedia rejects original research.

Maybe we could "have our cake and eat it too," and maybe Wikipedia could be an "answer" source, ignoring the idea that "answers" have to be verifiable. However, this idea has never really caught on here, and many of Wikipedia's supporters cite our policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research as what sets us apart from the rest of the Internet, and what makes Wikipedia valuable.

As for "trying to tell whether someone is a POV warrior," are you flatly rejecting the idea that it doesn't matter? It is entirely possible to talk about the contents of the article without labeling ones interlocutors in any way. Each time we talk about each other instead of about the content, we disrupt the discussion which should remain focused on content. With your background in psychology, surely you realize that ad hominem remarks simply begin an unending cycle of accusations, counter-accusations, bad blood, and no good work getting done. This is why we have our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Case in point below. I appealed to Alfador's reason, and yet he refused to engage me in discussion. I was actually expecting he would, because I had made some polite overtures. Yet he does not; he is dismissive. Tcaudilllg 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I just do not wish to carry on multiple discussions in the same section. Excuse me if I want some order to my affairs. Anyway, I did acknowledge them on the relevant talk page. If you wish to discuss something else with me, feel free to take it to the talk page of the affected article/policy, or to my talk page, but I do not wish to, and will not, jumble multiple discussions together because you insist on being confrontational and challenging every facet of my actions.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A humble suggestion

I don't know why this didn't come up earlier, and its partially my fault as it should have occured to me to mention this. Perhaps some of the original research ideas and synthisis would have an easily accessible outlet in the form of one or more of the Wikia Wikis. A good portion of these seem to embrace original ideas and interpretation, so long as they are well argued, and they may actually suit your needs better as they can generally be much more specific than Wikipedia, delving far into the realms of detailed information that Wikipedia would label as cruft and not include. Perhaps some of the ideas you advocate would be embraced there. However, I should caution that just as you had problems with it here, attempting to jump in and reform policies on these other wikis that you disagree will most likely be met with just as much hostility. In fact, many of these communities do not have the safeguards place to protect users from rather quick banning by sysops.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you explain to me what about this is original research?
" Wilhelm's stature and mystique has inspired many allusions between himself and historical themes. Partially owing to the strong parallels illustrated by the series' creators between the world of Xenosaga and actual history, many fans believe Wilhelm to be a symbol for real life religious and mythological concepts. A leading comparison is to that of the [[Demiurge]] of the [[Gnostic]] religion, who is said to be the creator and "caretaker" of the physical domain. Demiurge is portrayed as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Creator, just like Wilhelm is antagonistic to U-DO's will. He also tried to entrap elements of the divine in the physical world, much like Wilhelm tries to seal away the "eyes of God", Abel and Abel's Ark, in order to have his way with the world. Also, Demiurge employed agents called Archons, powerful beings that acted on Demiurge's will. Demiurge's Archons can be comparable to Wilhelm's [[Testament (Xenosaga)|Testaments]]."
Those are simplistic conclusions that anyone who was familiar with both Gnosticism and the character could reach. (especially in light of the overt Gnostic references in the first game) It helps to be familiar with the material, to know what in the context of it is "obvious" and what isn't. Tcaudilllg 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't come here to argue that. If you wish to continue fruitlessly arguing that point, you can do so wherever you've been ranting about it so far. Obviously you have no interest in my suggestion and just wish to continue with your current rantings here, and, seeing as how I've grown rather bored with this, have fun.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice job on the socionics article. Care to justify yourself here, ignorant one? http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=296087#296087 Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Ignorant? You're treading on thin ice with WP:NPA by continuing to treat other editors as you do Sir. Fortunately I'm rather good natured and have better things to do and waste my time with petty name calling from a frustrated editor. The addition was unsourced. You of all people should know the current policy on that, and whether you agree with it or not, it is to be respected unless consensus, and thus the policy, changes. Provide a link to a credible source with the addition to the article and it might very well stay, so long as the community believes it to be credible.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Might I also point out (quite ironically and admittedly to my own amusement), that whatever point you are trying to prove has just been directly opposed by everyone who posted in that forum. They seem to be even more irritated with your antics than the editors here, but that may just be a side effect of WP:NPA, I can't be sure. In any case, good point you proved there.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps your "friend" said it best in the first reply.... "random socionics concepts do not belong in wikipedia pages like "creativity" because they have nothing to do with creativity as a whole. they instead belong in the socionics article. "--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You're a college student, right? If you don't mind me asking, just how old are you, exactly? I'm only asking because it's been scientifically proven (you can read this in lifespan psychology journals and texts) that people undergo a change in reasoning at about their 22nd~23rd year. (from "defense of principles" to "cognitive relativism")
As for the forum comments, I've batted with those guys for years. There are actually at least six people on the forum in ardent support of my theories, which an investigation of my participation on the same would make clear to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I should be pointing out that I am not going to do your work for you. Telling me to go find your proof isn't going to cut it. If you feel you have something to prove (and obviously you do), the onus is on you to find that information and bring it to me. I'm not going to go digging through your muck trails of people who are upset with you to find the that one shining beacon of light who just happens to disagree with you. So far, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you felt the need to make a post remotely attacking me, just to get a bunch of your peers, who you expected to come to your aid, to announce to you (and incidentally anyone who views this discussion) that you have been carrying on there much the same way as here and they are tired of it. As for my age, it is of little consequence. I could go by your rationale and just tell you to find it for yourself (some creative digging on your part should provide my true identity), but I don't think you'll bother anyway. Oh, by the way, I'd love to see some of these psychology journals, I have plenty of database subscriptions available to me, so care to give me an article name? I'm not going to waste my time looking up information that I neither care about, nor believe exists with credibility as a result of your consistent track record of refusing to source your statements.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Screw this, go look it up yourself. As you say, you don't care about it anyhow. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"Go look it up yourself," a telltale sign of no source to begin with. If you genuinely believe that cuts it I can understand now why you have so much difficulty with Wikipedia. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Get off my talk. We have nothing to say to each other. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spam in Mysaifu JVM

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mysaifu JVM, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mysaifu JVM is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mysaifu JVM, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)