User talk:Bo99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

about non-responses [This section centers on the 'WhatamIdoing' user][edit]

Bo99,

I just wanted to suggest that you read meta:What is a troll?. You've several times said that if editors would just quit posting "erroneous arguments", such as my pointing out that you must have consensus before making changes to policy pages, then the discussion will stop.

However, I want you to know why it hasn't happened to date: Disconnecting from an unresolved argument is generally done only when editors have identified you as a troll. You originally seemed to have an interest in doing something other than soaking up editors' time and energy with endless and specious argumentation. I didn't originally want to leave you with the impression that I considered your arguments so weak and your stubbornness so invincible as to not even be worth a response.

I have changed my mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


The above posting by the user 'WhatamIdoing' is deeply wrong.
  1. Such user fails to give readers the link, which is this Discussion topic on the Verifiability policy, which showed in detail the lack of validity in the user's three postings.
  2. The user fails to tell readers the subject, which i detailed as follows: 'There has been no stated objectively-valid reason why Wikipedia should omit stating more clearly some principles regarding conflicts of interest held by sources (any principles, whether permissive or constraining to such COIs); if anyone thinks they can conceive of such a reason please post it for publicly-detailed analysis'. No one posted any such reason.
  3. The user name-calls, calling me a troll (not a person improving Wikipedia). Labelling someone a troll violates Assume Good Faith. Name-calling violates Veracity ('the usual concerns of Wikipedians [include] ... veracity ... '). 'Genuine dissent is not trolling' according to Trolling Defined.
  4. The user claims 'You've several times said that if editors would just quit posting "erroneous arguments", ... then the discussion will stop.' The user again misrepresents my clear position, which i already spelled out for the user: 'Such poster 'WhatamIdoing' grossly misrepresents my approach (which is: presenting objective reasoning) as being the same as me 'personally reject[ing] all the arguments and perspectives of every editor' (italics added). I am not presenting my subjective preferences but rather am presenting reasoning that seeks to be objective, that is supported by other reasoning, and that is not disputed by any posting that has survived objective publicly-detailed analysis.' 'Wikipedia ... base[s] its decisions ... on a system of good reasons.' (quoted from the Consensus policy)
  5. The user for some reason talks about his 'pointing out that you must have consensus before making changes to policy pages'. No one questioned the need for consensus, so the user is being irrelevant (at best).
  6. In the user's second paragraph, he seems to be attempting to say that he has some valid objective argument but is not responding with such argument. If he had a valid objective argument it would be in the interest of him and Wikipedia for him to post it. Non-responding or '[s]ilence implies [lack of any rebuttal].' (Quoted from the Consensus policy)
  7. In the discussion at issue, the user made three postings, and i refuted each one in detail. See the archive where the user rushed to place the evidence before the archiving robot could.
(For brevity the above text speaks of 'he', not 'he or she'.)
Bo99 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


update, 2013 Dec:
As in 2009, the further-above posting by the user 'WhatamIdoing' is deeply wrong. Despite such user, Wikipedia now has the principle that i urged in 2009: a conflict of interest policy regarding sources. And see background discussion about that policy, and that user, at this Talk page, especially near the end of the discussion.
Bo99 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
For calmly and logically helping to introduce an important concept into WP sourcing policy, despite being wrongly accused then ignored for doing so. Sighola2 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


to Sighola2: Thank you so much. I cherish your award. It encourages me. You are a force for Good. Bo99 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

wrong reversion of the Existentialism article [This section centers on the 'Slightsmile' user][edit]

I'm assuming you made an honest mistake and put it back to "values are not immutable". I'll revert back and if I am wrong then just put the not back in without doing a full revert. I did little clean ups while I was in there. Thanks. SlightSmile 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I put the not back in for the double negation. Don't you just love those, "it does not say that it's not". SlightSmile 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You used an Undo to reverse an edit by that unregistered newcomer, whose edit had been correct and useful, on this page.
But you seemed to write above that Undoing to reverse even a clear error is the wrong method -- 'Wrong way revert Existentialism ... [don't do] a full revert' -- pls explain, and pls supply a link to a Wikipedia guideline. Bo99 (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
reverse an edit .. whose edit had been correct and useful. - Yes I did, didn't I.
.. Undoing to reverse even a clear error is the wrong method - I have no idea what you're talking about. As far I can see everything is fixed now. SlightSmile 17:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I see it now. That was a typo that should have read Wrong way revert Existentialism. Sometime editors, including myself revert in the wrong direction and inadvertently restore a vandalism. Usually when we're tired and time to call it a night. Thanks for pointing that out. SlightSmile 17:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi it's me again. I just realize, you put that "to" in the heading. You know what - let's just drop it. Everything is good now. I'll see you around. SlightSmile 18:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You mention above that as far as you can see 'Everything is good now.' One thing that is not good is that the valuable newcomer whose work you Undid might very well abandon Wikipedia, because: that was their first and only edit (see this page); it was correct and valuable; it took their time; and it was Undone. (That's a very good reason: to think carefully, several times, before Undoing someone's work; to not Undo unless one is sure that the prior editor really deserves to have their work destroyed; and to never Undo without discussion where, as in this case, two editors had agreed on the article text that you then Undid.) Is there a way for you to contact that valuable newcomer, explain what you did, and encourage them to do more editing? That newcomer has no Talk page.
Also, it seems like you're doing a lot very quickly; maybe your having paused more would have avoided time and trouble for three people. Can we at least get clear on some intelligible title for this section you created -- when you wrote 'Wrong way revert Existentialism' maybe you meant something like 'Wrong reversion of the Existentialism article', or what else?
Bo99 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The Slightsmile user does not respond, even though that user has been active on Wikipedia recently (the user's Contributions page is here), and even though their Talk page states: 'I will be watching your page.' (Their Talk page is here.) Bo99 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bo99. Going through my contribs and thought I'd see what's cooking here. Indeed I do watch users' talk pages for a while, but I got tired of seeing you popping up on my watchlist. I told you I'm finished arguing with you and I'm not reading your big long whatever your problem is above. Not watching your page. SlightSmile 16:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Do the right thing, which is to help rectify the damage you did to Wikipedia, and to answer the two simple questions i posed to you above (the questions are now bolded). Bo99 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Doing the right thing will help not just Wikipedia, but you. Display some honesty about what you did, and some caring for Wikipedia, by helping rectify the problems you created. Guilt, denial, dishonesty, and evasion are not admirable or useful. Bo99 (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You've been here since 2006 and you don't know how things work here. We get, I don't know the numbers, at least a hundred vandalisms an hour and sometimes good edits get zapped. That's part of the territory here. Regarding the edit in question the IP made a serious facts change with no edit summary that any reasonable editor would assume the worse and revert.
And Wrong way revert already asked and answered.
Seeing as it's so difficult reading my writing get someone else to explain it to you. Add this : {{helpme}} to the thread and someone will come and explain it better than me. Also if you feel so strongly I damaged the project then take it to ANI.
I know there's a policy somewhere that says users shouldn't tell other users to stay off their talk page - but that's just what I'm doing. Stay off my talk page and leave me alone. SlightSmile 14:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I put a pointer on Slightsmile's Talk page so that at least for a while other victims of that user will have a chance to come here and get the facts about that user's destructive practices on Wikipedia:
The 'Slightsmile' user did an Undo of a valuable edit by a newcomer, even after another editor, I, reversed Slightsmile's error, and even after Slightsmile was informed by my edit summary that all he had to do was read the article text. Still Slightsmile did an Undo.
The 'Slightsmile' user might very well have driven off that newcomer, whose work was beyond Slightsmile. That was the first and only edit by that newcomer; it was correct and valuable; it took their time; and it was Undone by Slightsmile. (That's a very good reason for the Slightsmile user: to think carefully, several times, before Undoing someone's work; to not Undo unless he is sure that the prior editor really deserves to have their work destroyed; and to never Undo without discussion where, as in this case, two editors had agreed on the article text that the Slightsmile user then Undid.) Absent Slightsmile's defectiveness, that newcomer might have made several more valuable edits that would again be beyond Slightsmile, maybe hundreds or thousands more. Slightsmile harms Wikipedia. Any unthinking person can Undo the obvious vandalism that occurs on Wikipedia. It requires deep thought to fix bad complex articles, such as was done the valuable newcomer that Slightsmile reversed without comprehension of the text.
The 'Slightsmile' user refuses to even try to clean up his damage: he refuses to reply to the simple question whether he knows if there is a way for him to contact that valuable newcomer and encourage them to do more editing. That newcomer has no Talk page.
The 'Slightsmile' user accentuated the damage he did by writing defectively: For example, he titled this section 'Wrong way revert Existentialism'. Maybe that means something like 'Wrong reversion of the Existentialism article', or maybe something else.
The 'Slightsmile' user was untruthful about this matter: He claims that the meaning of 'Wrong way revert Existentialism' was 'already asked and answered' (a lawyer's phrase). He still refuses to make his writing intelligible.
The 'Slightsmile' user will repeat his harm to Wikipedia: He admits that he did an Undo without even knowing what he was doing; he did not comprehend the text he was undoing and just 'assumed the wors[t]'. He admits that he thinks he is entitled to Undo even a newcomer's valuable change if the newcomer makes 'a serious facts change with no edit summary[;] any reasonable editor would assume the wors[t] and revert.' The second part of that quotation is further untruthfulness from the 'Slightsmile' user: any reasonable editor would carefully read the text, and not Undo when he could not comprehend whether it was right or wrong. That's triply true where, as here, two editors and an edit summary made clear to any competent reader that the newcomer's edit was correct and valuable. (And edit summaries are good practice but not required. That's especially true for newcomers.)
The 'Slightsmile' user admits he intentionally violates Wikipedia policy: 'I know there's a policy somewhere that says [Don't Do X] - but that's just what I'm doing.'
The 'Slightsmile' user will repeat his damage to Wikipedia, because he is in denial about the damage he does, and insists that he has the right to repeat the same misconduct.
Bo99 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

[for any third section, edit this][edit]

[for any fourth section, edit this][edit]