User talk:KoshVorlon/Archive 22

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Midnightblueowl in topic Heathenry
Archive 15 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

ANI

No. You can say "shows a pattern" all you like, but "these edits are a bit troubling" says nothing at all. No explanation, no context--whose pattern? Pattern of what? Drmies (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My response

The vast majority of the material on the talk page for "Chinese Room" [[1]] is not cited. Nn9888 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP

Do not remove or edit other people's posts such as you did on the above's talk page. A retired editor is entitled to display their opinions, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. You will continue to be reverted despite any pointy essay you link to. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 16:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Don't template the regulars
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

  Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at User talk:GregJackP. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- WV 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:User pages. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- WV 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for this edit, specifically for continuing an edit war, and for misrepresenting the consensus at AN, which was clear that this was a non-issue and that you should move on and do something else. As you probably already know, you can use the {{unblock}} template to appeal this block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I represented consensus correctly - after all , that was the consensus on ANI. No problems though, I'll wait the 48 hours. KoshVorlon 17:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, that doesn't mean you can carry on in 48 hours' time, it means you need to leave the issue alone. If you remove that content again after the block expires, you'll be re-blocked for as long as is necessary to prevent continued disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is beyond me how you can look at a discussion where out of the 6 people who responded 0 agreed with you and see a consensus that you are right. You say "I represented consensus correctly - after all , that was the consensus on ANI", can you please explain how this can be reconciled with the discussion on ANI? HighInBC (was Chillum) 18:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC We're talking about two different things | this is where I state I represented consensus, which was that GregJackP's polemic posting was allowed to stay so I changed WP:Polemic accordingly. The edit on GregJackP's page is supported by WP:Polemic itself, but not supported on AN, sadly. KoshVorlon 19:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:Polemic is hardly any better. It was pointed disruption.

Let me be 100% clear, I think the content of the page is in violation of our talk page policies. However when I saw an edit war going on at the page of a retired editor I did not protect my preferred version, rather I immediately put up a warning to stop. You see once it is clear there is disagreement about the interpretation of policy it is not for any one person to force a decision.

The community talked it out and decided the content was okay. That does not mean we change policy to reflect a single incident. The community always has the final say in these matters, going against your interpretation of policy does not invalidate the policy and it does not mean we have to change it.

Now that the community has come to a consensus on this matter I have to accept the version that I do not prefer, and so do you. It was good you went to the community for their opinion on the matter, now you have it. Accept it and move on. HighInBC (was Chillum) 19:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear, however, that policy was made a policy by consensus, and it should be carried out as written, the only way it can not be carried out is it further consensus changes it. I know you won't agree with me, trust me, I read what you wrote repeatedly, therein lies our disagreement, I believe policy should be enforced as written, except that consensus changes that same policy to permit a different outcome, apparently you and others (I'm not making this a "you " thing, because it clearly isn't) believe that exceptions can be added in without changing the policy, due to the will of the community, don't worry, I get it loud and clear. KoshVorlon 10:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kosh. There are so many issue with that statement that I felt it important to drop by.

  • policy should be enforced as written - from a high level WP:POLEMIC is a guideline and WP:NOTBURO is policy. The principle is what matters, not exact wording of the rules. Disputes are solved by discussion, not strict adherence to the rules. Does that make sense? The "rules" are just a description of what's happened before and likely will happen again... generally the right thing to do, but not be followed blindly. No matter whether you're right or wrong on the underlying issue, not understanding this fundamental principle is the reason you are blocked.
  • So, on to the underlying issue. Is the content on GregJackP's page in violation of POLEMIC? Honestly, I'd say no. POLEMIC in bold refers to Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing. Is what he's saying offensive? Barely. Very divisive? Not really. AND it's related to encyclopedic editing. It just doesn't fit in that section. It's not targeted at individuals or a specific group, let alone attacking or vilifying them. It's not a pre-meditated nasty attack, it's a person ranting on their way out the door. I don't agree with a word of it, but it's important to let people express themselves in situations like that.

This way of thinking is fundamental to Wikipedia, it's why IAR exists. WormTT(talk) 11:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I realize you probably don't particularly want to hear my opinion on this, so I'll be brief: Your insistence on adhering strictly to the letter of "the rules" as you understand them has been a consistent source of conflict and problems for you the entire time you have been editing here. You need to loosen up and try and understand that the spirit of the rules is what is important and that all rules, every single one of them not only on Wikipedia but in the real world, are subject to exceptions. just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with the points made by our colleagues above. IAR is a subtle but critical part of the 'pedia. It can be hard to get one's head around, but it is a liberating and, one of the wiser guidelines on WP. I would say, be more flexible, malleable in terms of the art of the possible on this. It is one of the few policies which genuinely makes us "free". Regards, Simon aka Irondome (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

AN

Hi, you wrote "What do you plan to do to address the concerns raised at the topic ban discussion?" in the appeal section where I posted. Sorry, I cannot understand the meaning of the question. Can you please tell me clearly. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
48   Megan and Liz (talk)   Add sources
75   Great Lent (talk)   Add sources
6,571   Amazon.com (talk)     Add sources
6   Land of the Dead (Voltaire song) (talk)           Add sources
52   RAF Wittering (talk)     Add sources
201   Canonical hours (talk)   Add sources
288   The Mummy (1932 film) (talk)       Cleanup
6   Emergency Broadcast (talk)           Cleanup
265   2015 in Philippine television (talk)   Cleanup
243   Miami metropolitan area (talk)   Expand
483   Demographics of Israel (talk) Expand
865   Glenn Greenwald (talk) Expand
75   Tautology (grammar) (talk)           Unencyclopaedic
4   EverQuest II: East (talk)           Unencyclopaedic
400   Who is a Jew? (talk) Unencyclopaedic
3   Passion cantata (talk)           Merge
99   Race war (talk)       Merge
18   Egg decorating in Slavic culture (talk)       Merge
689   Religious views of Adolf Hitler (talk) Wikify
178   Shinigami (Death Note) (talk)   Wikify
13   Muster (event) (talk)       Wikify
20   Enrique Ballesté (talk)           Orphan
4   Whotrades (talk)           Orphan
4   Sift Science (talk)           Orphan
35   Brett Harrelson (talk)           Stub
7   AMF Bowling 2004 (talk)           Stub
5   Porthaon (talk)           Stub
26   Vladimir Miller (talk)           Stub
6   Astyoche (talk)           Stub
20   Ankit Narang (talk)           Stub

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Neuostheim

Hello KoshVorlon, will you be so kind to look at above and can you did it? I can't...Thanks in advance and best regards -- Sweepy (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientology

Rather than looking for "scientologists", I suggest you read (for instance) Wikipedia:Wikipediholic, Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors or fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur perfectionniste :-) Oh, and also Wikipedia:Don't cry COI. Apokrif (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your restoration of a sock post

I assume you're unfamiliar with Vote (X) for Change who will toss out random accusations against admins who have blocked his IPs and editors who have reported his socking? --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

mail call

Dropped you a line WormTT(talk) 13:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Historic districts on NRHP

Since you previously commented on this subject, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places by state. Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Heathenry

Hello there Kosh. Just to let you know, I responded to your comments over at the discussion regarding disruptive behaviour on Heathenry themed articles, explaining where I feel that some of your points aren't supported by the evidence at hand. If you have a chance, do take a look and it would be good for the discussion if you could let me know if you had any counter-points to my own. Of course, I have to admit that I am obviously trying to convince you to change your opinion in that debate - but it is nothing personal! Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)