User talk:DougsTech: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:24, 9 April 2009

DougsTech

			Contributions by Month
Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Count	eMail	Sandbox

Welcome to my talk page. If you want to leave me a message, click here!

This is DougsTech's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This is DougsTech's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

your !vote...

I noticed that you started putting your !vote at RfA's in the Neutral section as compared to the oppose... I have no problem with it there and can actually support it there. Oppose, IMO, is when there is something about the candidate that deserves an oppose.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still think there are too many admins, but in that particular case I think that that editor would add to the "good" of the admins, and possibly counter all the disruptive admins. --DougsTech (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you started putting it routinely in the Neutral section, you might encounter less hostility. It'll have the same affect, but when it comes in the oppose section, people get finicky... they want to see a reason for a specific individual, not some generic philosophical one. Some people take opposes more personally than others. In the neutral section, you have a little more lieghway to put subjective statements. In the Neutral section, I would fully support your !vote... in the oppose section, I will tend to agree with Majorly as it comes off negatively and pointy.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you used the neutral section to put out your belief about admins instead of oppose, I would gladly strikeout my !vote to topic ban you, and you'd likely not be harassed by other editors nearly as much about it. Tim meh ! 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd stop harassing DougsTech on this issue, I'd gladly strike my vote to topic ban you from this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I offer DougsTech an alternative to his actions that would prevent any topic ban, and you still badger me about it. I think you need to stop harassing me on every comment I make here, stop with the accusations, and take a little time away from this whole issue so you can calm down. Tim meh ! 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question; how many posts of yours blasting DougsTech for his votes do you think it will take before he understands that you do not approve of his actions? You've already made 19 posts on this page over the last few days. Unless he is like me, a certified idiot, I think he gets it now. You do NOT need to keep badgering him about it. I'm not the one that needs to calm down. You are the one that persists in badgering him. If you don't want to be reminded of this, all you have to do is drop it and walk away. Continuing to blast him about it will result in nothing pleasant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only badgering being done is by you, responding to all of my posts here whether they concern you or not. In fact, the majority of those 19 posts you decided to count are responses to you or someone else, not directed at DougsTech (and absolutely not intended to badger him about his !votes). But since you feel so strongly about speaking on DougsTech's behalf and making uncivil comments every time I make a post here, I will not post here anymore. Tim meh ! 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Per WP:TPG:

On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.

DougTech is within his rights to remove comments. Visitors here should respect that. Kablammo (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This disruption needs to stop

You have been told many times by numerous users that your voting on RfA is disruptive. The reason you give is in no way related to the candidate at hand. Otherwise fine admin candidates are getting oppose votes from you for something unrelated to them or the RfA process. Please stop. This is in no way putting forward your idea that we have to many admins, the correct forum for trying to convince others of that idea is at WT:RfA. Your bot-like posting of the exact same comment on RfA after RfA without any regard to the subject of the RfA is pointless and is causing drama.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from attempting to convince people of your viewpoint in the appropriate forums, however when people disagree with you it is not okay to go from forum to forum spamming the idea. If people don't agree with you in one place, then they will not agree with you at 20 different RfAs as well. Especially if you simply repeat the same mantra without any attempt whatsoever to provide new arguments or a demonstration of how it relates to the page at hand. Please seek more productive methods of convincing others.

I am now assuming you know this is not a productive method of debate. I am assuming you know these postings are disruptive. If you continue to post the same thing on AfDs unrelated to your point I will consider you to be deliberately and intentionally attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. Chillum 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to consider whatever you want. I have already said this is not the case. My !votes are within policy. The only disruption is the users who are making the various threads everywhere to discuss it. --DougsTech (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, perhaps you have read the long AN thread about this. There is no consensus to restrict Doug's !votes. Skinwalker (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skin, that discussion was about a topic ban. Not being topic banned in no way allows disruptive editing. Chillum 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, you are welcome to your opinions regarding DougsTech's voting. I do not see any reason for DougsTech to stop what he is doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A trout on all your houses

This is not an acceptable edit summary. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to handle this either. Please stop.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this acceptable as a summary? You should be discussing this with the other admin that posted it in the first place. --DougsTech (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2 minutes you chose to dig up that diff and reply, you may have clicked on my contributions and found I in fact, have brought this up with Chillium. Having an action be called trolling does not invite you to do the same thing. Not only is it dubious by any number of behavioral standards, its entirely unproductive." There is a great deal of disagreement from others about your votes, I understand you will not likely change your mind, but it behooves you to learn to respond to those concerns with the utmost of calm.--Tznkai (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Doug! I am pretty ardently defending your "right" to make your opinion in multiple threads and am willing to continue to do so; however, please do not be baited or exacerbate things further, i.e. even if someone reverts you as "trolling", I urge you not to revert in kind. Please don't make it where those of us trying to stand up for you feel well, I think you see what I mean. Be the bigger man as it were. I do also strongly encourage you to consider the individual candidates. I don't expect you to agree with my criteria, but please maybe consider even if you want to oppose "per too many admins" at least doing it in a copy and paste manner, i.e., maybe say, "While I respect this candidate as an editor and like his contributions to x or y aspect of Wikipedia, nevertheless, I oppose out of principal" or something that at least doesn't feel like just a vote? Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, A Nobody! In all the discussion (and personal attacking by others), I may have overlooked all the editors that are standing up for their right to voice their opinion and participate in RfA !voting and discussion. For this, I thank them. We must all work to retain wikipedia's original purpose. I do look at every individual candidate. In Neuro's case, I just couldn't oppose. He is a great asset to Wikipedia. I believe he would be one of the "good" admins, and not participate in all the cabal that seems to take place by the admins. With the others, from what I can see, they have not demonstrated that they they would be better than the rest. I will definitely consider your request, perhaps it will stir less controversy, as that is NOT the desired outcome. --DougsTech (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's encouraging. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I would like you to nominate me for RfA. What do you say? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 :Hey, A Nobody! In all the discussion (and personal attacking by others), I may have overlooked all the editors that are standing up for their right to voice their opinion and participate in RfA !voting and discussion. For this, I thank them. We must all work to retain wikipedia's original purpose. I do look at every individual candidate. In Neuro's case, I just couldn't oppose. He is a great asset to Wikipedia. I believe he would be one of the "good" admins, and not participate in all the cabal that seems to take place by the admins. With the others, from what I can see, they have not demonstrated that they they would be better than the rest. I will definitely consider your request, perhaps it will stir less controversy, as that is NOT the desired outcome. --[[User:DougsTech|DougsTech]] ([[User talk:DougsTech#top|talk]]) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 ::That's encouraging.  Best, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
+==RfA==
+I would like you to nominate me for RfA. What do you say? [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)