User talk:Parallelized

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

C++ in GCC[edit]

Thanks for your comment on the talk page. I stuck a short sentence in the article, in the "Structure" section. Comments and correction are welcome, as always.

While I'm here: did anyone ever give you one of our "welcome packages" of recommended reading for new contributors? If not, you might like to read this. Cheers, CWC 10:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Irony[edit]

You claim to not make personal attacks, yet call editors "clown" the very same post. Perhaps your definition of "personal attack" is different than what admins read the policy as saying. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no irony at all: The OP was referring to my original edits on the article's talk page, the discussion you are referring to took place in a different place, namely, on the editor's talk page. That being said, I encourage you to look up the wp article on Clowns, it's pretty damn good - and seems to be a suitable description for people reverting edits without checking their facts, only to figure out later that they were indeed mistaken. Yeah, right - that's the waste of time I was referring to. However, thanks for taking the time for pouring even more oil into fire... great job!--Parallelized (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Beeing reviewing the rules - could you point me at where exactly is the rule that would suggest that my behavior is the real issue here ? Thank you! --Parallelized (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks against editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
dude, I am not going to argue with you guys any longer - see the talk page. But if you had taken the time to review my actions, you might have noticed that I asked for the article itself to be locked for public editing, just look at the edit history, it's plain ridiculous - you guys need some form of QA. That being said, there's no need to block me, like I said on the article's talk page: I won't bother participating in editing that article for the time being, until the dust settles. The only thing you are accomplishing by blocking me is that I won't be able to contribute under my current account/IP to other wikipedia articles. So if you really feel the need to block, then block from editing that article - that would at least have been not as pointless as what you are doing now. BTW: IF you should be sincerely interested in doing the right thing, please just tell me which edits you guys are perceiving as "personal attacks", I have seen lots of those claims recently, without anybody being able to back those up in writing. Thanks for your effort, much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallelized (talkcontribs) 11:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed your actions. You're railing on against people "with no knowledge" of a topic, arguing that they should not be permitted to touch the article. Your request to have the article locked against "public editing" smacks of the elitism that Wikipedia is against - you agreed to the 5 pillars when you arrived here. Telling anyone to stop editing an article if they "haven't even seen all NTSB media briefings" is an attempt to drive others away from the article, and from the project as a whole, and is not permitted whatsoever. Your reference to "jackass-type personalities" is an identifiable attack on a group of editors. Calling out what you perceive to be a lack of knowledge is uncivil. Your entire raison d'etre is battleground behaviour, and 180 degrees contrary to this project as a whole. Need I continue? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, then let's turn it around: I don't know what your professional background is, but let's say you are contributing to an article fully in line with your profession, and you'll literally see dozens of users engaging in edit wars reverting not only your own edits, but also well-informed edits made by others - all this going on for a couple of days. That's exactly when you guys (i.e. ADMINS) you should have a careful look: I'm not the problem, at most I am a symptom of it, because I was trying to be part of the solution by pointing out the aforementioned issues. The quality fluctations of that particular article have been severe, it seems that there's a huge mess of people editing without any relevant background knowledge whatsoever. This has nothing to do with elitism: wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) cannot just thrive through people without any domain expertise. And other users have been highlighting these issues, too - but were ignored because their criticism also affected wp admins. Really, you cannot expect high quality articles if the people "writing" it are merely acting like robots adding refs to articles that they don't understand, let alone briefings that they never watched in the first place. Regarding the term jackass, just look at the Jackass article, it describes fairly well what's going on there, just because there's huge public interest in the event, which attracts countless people who don't even bother getting informed in the first place, and rather prefer edit warring instead. BTW: I am not trying to talk common-sense to you, like I said: I don't care about this account and/or IP being blocked or not - not even if it should not be temporary. The real issue here is lack of quality, and lack of wp admins enforcing rules to ensure a higher degree of quality. And this problem will persist regardless of this particular account/IP/person being blocked, inactive or deleted. This seems to be a severe case of Dunning-Kruger's. All the best, and thanks for taking the (trying to) time to explain yourself --Parallelized (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So, you're calling people clowns and jackasses? No - that is not nor shall it ever be permitted. Admins do not involve themselves in content disputes. All articles are built on WP:CONSENSUS of all the involved editors; period. That's the model you signed up for around here. Yeah, Wikipedia wants quality but not at the cost of its core beliefs - this is one reason that academics hate this place (that, and the fact that original research is not permitted). Interesting the Dunning-Kruger reference ... we had an editor long-term blocked recently who tried to pin the exact same thing ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
lol, is that supposed to be a threat ? Please, just check my IP logs, I'd be *very* surprised if you should find *any* evidence that I have been previously blocked, as another user or not. It's not like I'm emotionally attached to that account, I haven't even put a fraction of the work into it that guys like you must have. And really: I don't "hate" this place, I hate inefficiencies like edit warring and people reverting stuff without spending the time required to make informed decisions. And really, what's wrong about academics, a bunch of degrees are a fairly good way to make a living, and may even allow you to purchase one (or two) BMWs.... Greetings from BMW-Country. --Parallelized (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you could have perceived that as a threat - an odd continuation of WP:BATTLE I suppose. I'm sure you've noticed that I do have multiple degrees, and I have the utmost respect for academics who also show respect. Yeah, I hate edit-warring too ... but it takes 2 to edit-war :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You got reverted cos you didn't cite. A simple <ref>link to video here</ref> would've worked. Instead of just putting it back with the ref, you've been since rambling about....well, I'm not sure what about. — Lfdder (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, welcome to the party - frankly, at the moment, it no longer seems to matter - me being fed up with the way things were going, has now resulted in being reported, "punished" and now put under close supervision. I'll probably restrict my contributions to the talk page from now on, or maybe somebody else's talk page for that matter :) Have a nice weekend, no need to get upset about something as trivial as that - we're all very lucky after all...--Parallelized (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
If you feel ready to talk soon, please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Criticism_of_NTSB_by_ALPA to discuss encyclopedic value of ALPA's early criticism of NTSB for fueling speculation. It's always good to have someone who appreciates quality. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)