User talk:PrBeacon

Feedback: Start a new section. (Whether or not you wish to ignore the following)

WP guidelines on No personal attacks (NPA):

• "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." (in WP:NPA - Avoiding personal attacks)
• "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" (2nd bullet point of What is considered to be a personal attack?

Archive: 2009 <> 2010 A new editor's 1st exchange on Talk:Whale Wars. past clips in re cholo Indeed. Cholo is one of those words that no English translation can adequately capture. It may not be the equivalent of the "n-word", but it is also almost universily used derogatively... --Jayron32.talk.contribs i disagree with your characterization of it. from my experience in mexico i still maintain that it can be used without derogatory connotation, among friends. Something like vagabundo -PrBeacon Barnstar The Original Barnstar … In recognition of your recent efforts at cooperation and content creation. — NRen2k5 aka TheHerbalGerbil (TALK), 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Sea Shepherds and Violence Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC) To Trypto I'm responding to you here (below) because I don't wish to clutter the ANI anymore than it already is. I see that you still have a need to get the last word in. Perhaps with some distance you can see the hole you're digging, but I doubt it based on your lapses in self-awareness. from ANI thread I've been following this ANI thread with interest, but I am not familiar with the background discussions of the image files, and I am deliberately not going anywhere near them. So I have no knowledge of the merits of the arguments. I also haven't crossed paths with J Milburn that I can remember. But, having read J Milburn's description at the top of this sub-thread, I have an intense feeling of recognition. It matches exactly the pattern of SlimVirgin's conduct towards me, ever since I was a newbie editor and committed the apparently mortal sin of editing some animal rights pages in ways with which SlimVirgin disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Trypto is piling on because he too doesn't like to be disagreed with and takes it personally. His mischaracterizations are familiar and tiresome.-PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC) No, none of that is true. You previously tried to raise this at WQA, and were told by uninvolved editors there that your characterizations of me are without substance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC) That was a separate issue & your recollection is faulty or disingenuous. You have a long history of disputes with SlimVirgin which devolve into petty bickering since, when you lose the arguments on content and policy, you resort to snide and dismissive retorts. Much like others who disagree with SV, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Actually your claims at WQA were exactly the same thing. I'm sure disinterested editors here can judge for themselves the tone I use, versus the tone PrB is using. But I'm sorry that this thread, about the concerns raised by J Milburn, are being sidetracked by a pro-animal rights editor. The only part of what you said that is true is that I have a long history with SlimVirgin. It started when I was a very new editor, and was not at all as you described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC) In the unlikely event that anyone cares: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Tryptofish bullying other editors on PETA article. WQA, as I described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Heh, you felt vindicated there because one (not plural, as you say here) outside editor simply called it "usual disagreement"? You even admitted to a mistake at the WQA. The two other editors there asked for diffs, but I decided to let it rest. The "intense feeling of recognition" you mentioned at the ANI is more like vengeance against SV, and you can't seem to let it go. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Re: FNC My argument is partly distilled into defending this addition to the lead section. I think it summarizes the controversy subarticle and best represents the primary criticism. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC) watchdogging... continued from User talk:Viriditas Also meant to ask: has anyone requested CheckUser on the half-dozen accounts camped there to defend the article from balance? I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them works at FNC. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know who they work for, but we should be keeping tabs on how often they pop up to revert. Can you make a list? Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I'll look into it, maybe someone else can help.. and perhaps there is a way to automate it. By the way, your input at talk:FNC controversies would be appreciated -PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I'll take a look in a few hours. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 'Fox News Caught Sabotaging Wikipedia Entries' 2007 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/fox-news-caught-sabotaging-wikipedia-entries/5486/ 'Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP' http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia-is-on.html campers, FNC defenders a quick list, to start: Soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - seems most reasonable among the group, though that may be more diplomatic than POV-balancing JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - somewhat more reasonable than many others, though his judgement seems clouded at times Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - reverts ALOT, contributes little & uses edit summaries more than talkpage, often disrespectful in both, shows little to no effort at collaboration Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - trolls the talkpages, patronizes others and dismisses any opposition, seems emboldened by other campers newer editors BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - previously more active Badmintonhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SeanNovack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a.k.a Rapier - (more or less) in re talkpage troll(s) from Talk:Fox News Channel -- You know... Niteshift you don't have a leg to stand on for lecturing anyone else about civility. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) If your sole contribution is to come in and try to start a fight, that is the very definition of uncivil behavior. But if you're going to, at least get your facts straight. I didn't lecture Blax. It has been a while since he and I got into it. I approached it in a civil, respectful manner and was immediately met with sarcasm. I simply pointed that out and made the suggestion that civility breeds civility. But you want to jump in and start yammering about "lecturing". You, my friend, have started out in this discussion with attacks and incivility. Not too promising. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) ^Yet more hypocritical lecturing. It's a tiresome tactic of yours to continue derailing any discussion you don't like. /yawn -PrBeacon (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Keep adding examples to your uncivil behavior. It's fine with me. Again, you've contributed nothing but attacks and it is obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC) So, you cry wolf about incivility, yet exhibit more hypocrisy. It's a shame that your compatriots either overlook it or don't see it. And maybe you didn't notice the two subthreads below, either, especially the part about compromise and collaboration -- you seem more interested in throwing feces and getting the last word. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Cry wolf? When the incivility is there, it can't, by definition, be crying wolf. I think I see the problem here. You appear to be unable to have more than one conversation at a time. To you, every discussion is connected. So if I said something to you 3 months ago that was sarcastic, you apparently think that determines that every exchange from there on must be uncivil. I treat each conversation separately and try (at least try) to start out anew. I'm not always completely successful, but at least I'm making the effort. I wish you would be able to say the same thing. Once again, you've contributed absolutely nothing to this exchange about the issue, only about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC) No, you dont see the problem. You're in the middle of it. Your petty bickering is a weak attempt to sidetrack or derail any substantial discussion, and Me calling you out on it is not being uncivil. But regardless, I'm not the one on a high horse here. So You're not making an effort to be civil, you're just making it worse. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::All these accusations of hypocrisy coming from the person who back in July visited my userpage with accusations that he never could back up when challenged to do so, and then deleted my entire reply on his page as "vandalism", thereby going against WP:NOTVAND (feel free to visit my page and his to see the full text). I'll give you this much, you are certainly fulfilling your stated goal "to counter the 'activism' spin I see on Wikipedia". The problem is, by doing so you are forfeiting any assumptions of good faith by others, and you run counter to three of the five pillars of Wikipedia. So you really shouldn't be surprised when people react negatively to what you are doing. Sometimes when nobody sees what you believe you are seeing, it's because you are the one not seeing clearly, not everybody else. Just a thought. Rapier (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Doctor, heal thyself. Or spare us the psycho-babble, at least. Making vague references to supposedly unfounded allegations on other pages is a cop-out. What I said then is apparently still true now: you're as guilty as Niteshift, Arzel and others at patronizing and dismissing others, meanwhile distorting arguments to fit your prejudices -- so your pretense of AGF is hollow and false. Since we're revisiting old grudges, why don't you go back to the MMfA thread in these FNC archives to see. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC) And therein lies part of the problem my friend. You seem to be unable to let go of anything that was said to you in the past. If someone said something to you months ago that you didn't like, you act as if it happened 5 minutes ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC) ^Wrong again, Rapier's the one who brought up a past grudge. You both seem to enjoy engaging in psychological projection and willful blindness. Get a grip. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC) to Soxwon Stop patronizing at Talk:Fox News Some of your recent comments at Talk:Fox News cross the line of civility. You're patronizing other editors with snide remarks like "You need to read." Since you started a respectful dialogue with me earlier this year, I'll give you more slack than others who didn't. But now you're coming off just as belligerent as the hardcore FNC defenders. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I am trying to avoid another huge, unwieldly discussion such as what happened with the NC Donation section. I realize I may appear to be patronizing and apologize for that, but really I'm trying to just get to the meat of the argument, namely why you think that the material should go back in. I'll try to stop using potentially insulting language for the duration of the discussion. Soxwon (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC) This discussion should be on Talk:Fox News Channel where others can participate. PrBeacon, reverting is not helpful. Please focus on collecting diffs and evidence instead. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Userpage Howdy! I don't want to seem unwelcoming nor do I have any complaint whatsoever about any of your edits. I just noticed you userpage and wanted to point to Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE, in case you've never seen it. Be careful that editing does not tend toward advocacy for a particular belief or cause. Identifying a systematic bias is important, and addressing it is part of writing an encyclopedia. But be careful that advocacy is left at the door (especially when you think others are advocating for contrary positions). In any event, thanks for the work on Wikipedia and I hope my concern here was completely misplaced (as I say, it was only brought about by your userpage, rather than any edits). If there's anything I can help with, or if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to drop me a line. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) point taken, thanks. that was written quickly upon my return from an extended wiki-break. i know not all editors believe in the flagpole approach to balance, but i think it's a practical necessity given the entrenched activism i've seen on several controversial pages. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC) user lists User lists like this can be taken as (and are) personal attacks, which aren't allowed here. Whatever data/lists you might keep elsewhere (such as offline) is, as always, wholly up to you. Could you please remove that list from your userspace? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Respectfully, I disagree that the list is a personal attack. I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. They can always choose not to visit this page. However, I will move it soon since you asked. Is it appropriate to leave a blog link in its place? -PrBeacon (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC) No, it's not. Please keep in mind, if you publicly post lists like that off-wiki, it could be seen as a kind of off-wiki harassment, a posting of an "enemies list" which, in some later dispute, could much thwart whatever you hope to be doing here. You might also have a look at WP:AGF, for more about the thinking on this kind of thing on en.WP. See also Wikipedia:Battle#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)