::We disagree about what publication in the Guardian means. And general media reliability, I suppose. But I've been here long enough to know WP:RS well enough, and that it's not transitive as you say. I think you assume too much of those with whom you don't agree. As I'm sure you know, editors truly interested in supporting NPOV rather than promoting (or decrediting) article subjects, are often seen as POV pushers. Unfortunately part of that misperception stems from POV pushers waving the NPOV banner over anything they don't like. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::We disagree about what publication in the Guardian means. And general media reliability, I suppose. But I've been here long enough to know WP:RS well enough, and that it's not transitive as you say. I think you assume too much of those with whom you don't agree. As I'm sure you know, editors truly interested in supporting NPOV rather than promoting (or decrediting) article subjects, are often seen as POV pushers. Unfortunately part of that misperception stems from POV pushers waving the NPOV banner over anything they don't like. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
== harassment from self-appointed wiki cop ==
== harassment from self-appointed wiki cop Doc do-little==
..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
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)[reply]
index, suggestbot
collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
At this point, PrB, I would suggest that you start a new thread at the SPLC talk page to discuss edits by me (or other editors) which you have questions about. The "more questionable edits" topic is now buried in the middle of a long page and it brings up edits which were made 2 to 3 weeks ago in a busy article. Some of those edits have probably already been modified, so it would probably be better to restart with a new thread and be quite specific about particular copy NOW found in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think so. I'd like the record to show that you have refused to answer to your POV-pushing edits, in that current thread and the previous one started by Dylan. And hopefully someday soon someone will prompt you to properly respond without your usual snide comments, or else take the issues up at an admin noticeboard. That someone may be me when I can get around to collecting the diffs. Until further notice I do not want your nonsense posted here. -PrBeacon(talk)19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• FromWP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
...In an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.
Z'at so, Guvnah? A. I haven't reverted 3 edits in the article in question within a 24 hour period. Check the times. B. I've explained my reverts, substantively, when I've done so, either in my edit summaries or the Talk page or in both. C. You, on the other hand, either failed to see, or if you saw, engage in, a talk page discussion I had already opened with our colleague, the North Shoreman, prior to reverting my edit. D. Speaking of substance, Guvnah, you've offered none on the merits of the edits in question. I don't like your sassiness says nothing about the substance of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[3][reply]
Bullsh!t. We all know that your (slow) edit warring is contrary to the collaborative nature of this project. Your attempts at justifying your reverts seem borderline self-delusional, especially how you claim to be discussing the issue on the talkpage, along with your lame attempts at humor. Your snide and patronizing comments in edit summaries and at the article talkpage are more than 'sass'. They're disruptive and actionable. -PrBeacon(talk)21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[4][reply]
Apology
I'm writing this apology because while Beacon and I disagree on virtually all topics we've crossed swords on, at the beginning of our relationship I wronged him, thus setting a tone that has been both unpleasent and unproductive since then. I am not a person that believes in biting the newbies, or in speaking harshly to people without trying to reason with them first. Beacon provided the example of our first interaction, where he came in on the end of an argument, and rather than acknowledge that he was new to the argument and treat him with the respect he deserved I simply snapped at him and dressed him down. The issue was highly contentious and had been going on for some time, but that isn't an excuse for poor behavior on my part, only an explanation. I've given this one a lot of thought, and while I have no doubt that Beacon and I will continue to disagree, in this particular case he is absolutely correct and I admit to treating him badly when we first encountered each other. For this, PrBeacon, you have my most sincere apology. Rapier (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. Unfortunately your camp buddies are still flinging sticky harshmallows, if you'll pardon the strained metaphor. Fwiw, I'm still mulling over a longer response.. -PrBeacon(talk)20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you overlooked the current poll on the talk page. I've reverted your reinclusion against the up-to-date consensus of the SPLC hate group designation in the lead, since your edit summary wasn't accurate. Please feel welcome to participate on the talk page, and if you believe there's another valid reason for re-introducing that material, I don't mind being you reverting again with an appropriate explanation. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice, I'm now reviewing the discussions at talkpage and ANI. However, I'm a bit puzzled why a version without the SPLC designation is now the default, instead of the previous version which lasted awhile. -PrBeacon(talk)08:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: lead criticism was restored soon after by the editor (O.W.) first taking poll, then later removed by Lionelt falsely claiming consensus
Actually my edit summary was and still is true, there is no clear consensus. And certainly not one strong enough to overturn previous consensus. Next step: mediation.
in re Exaggerate
context: previous attempts (at article talkpages [links to add later]) to bridge a gap, or at least address others' inflammatory comments..
I started to type the following at FRC:Talk but then thought better of it. I may yet rephrase some of it later. Anyway:
First of all, I want to emphasize what I've said at the related ANI post, that the FRC does not represent all Christian conservatives. And the Beirich quote about 'FRC=KKK' is one person's opinion, not the official stance of the SPLC. Two groups can both be hate-mongering without being equivalent. While I certainly would not equate religious extremists with neo-nazis, what User:WM1 said is not what you extrapolated [5], imo. I assume that on the article talkpage you are not speaking as an admin but rather as an involved editor, still I would respectfully remind you that these discussions are incendiary enough without adding unnecessary fuel like that. [I could be wrong, but I think article and talkpage space have higher standards in this respect than the drama-filled admin boards.] And in case anyone chooses not to give me the benefit of doubt here, I'm not defending what WM1 said there. (I reserve the right to refactor this post because I may wake up later and decide it's not at all what I mean to say.> -PrBeacon(talk)09:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the drama continues: instead of responding in the same WQA thread, one of User:B's buddies has hastily filed a false report in a new section.-PrBeacon(talk)17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True that. He's probably got some thick shades on as well, even more reason to take just about everything he says at less than face value. -PrBeacon(talk)20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I believe that an editor deserves automatic respect as a part of the collaborative process. An administrator even more so. But when someone starts an exchange with disrespect then the process breaks down, I think. And though I usually realize afterward that it may not help the project, my reaction is to be less diplomatic than usual (ie, more blunt) because the other editor chose that path.
Case in point: [7] reverting without explanation (and as minor edit), then, [8] adding a dismissive edit summary ("still no") for a talkpage comment, which can be easily taken as patronizing. I prefer to disagree without being so disagreeable. -PrBeacon(talk)08:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it's obvious that Greenpeace is not a reliable source for anything other than their opinions. As we already have a better source for Greenpeace's statement, there's no reason to list a primary source in addition to the secondary source (The Guardian). — Arthur Rubin(talk)09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted that because The Guardian article treated Greenpeace as reliable, we should also. My reply was that it did not treat Greenpeace as reliable. However, even if it did, reliability is not transitive. A source may be considered reliable, for some purposes, if many reliable sources treat it as such. I'm assuming good faith, but I cannot assume compliance with guidelines when it is not possible. — Arthur Rubin(talk)09:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about what publication in the Guardian means. And general media reliability, I suppose. But I've been here long enough to know WP:RS well enough, and that it's not transitive as you say. I think you assume too much of those with whom you don't agree. As I'm sure you know, editors truly interested in supporting NPOV rather than promoting (or decrediting) article subjects, are often seen as POV pushers. Unfortunately part of that misperception stems from POV pushers waving the NPOV banner over anything they don't like. -PrBeacon(talk)03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
harassment from self-appointed wiki cop Doc do-little
Kindly remove my name from your "anti-LAEC anon editors" list.
It is basically an attackenemies list which is against policy, and it's already stayed up too long.
It was in response to an admin's request for anon editors.
I am not an anon-IP account and I am not anti-LAEC.
I am anti-crusade and that's not the same thing at all.
If you choose to ignore this request, I will take the issue up with someone authorized to properly address it.
-PrBeacon(talk)08:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, I had nothing to do with your block which is mainly for off-wiki harassment. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between disagreements and personal attacks, and you think anyone who challenges your worldview is in a collective fight against you personally, thus the persecution component of your crusade. I still think that you were poorly counseled by Badmintonhist to 'enjoy the battle' [9] and you made the fatal mistake of taking his encouragement too far. -PrBeacon(talk)10:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PrBeacon,
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling can't reply on this talk page because of his current block status.
Initially I chose to post my request in full here so that he could not simply remove it or refactor it to suit his particular weltanschauung. His first lengthy reply confirmed my skepticism: he's still lumping me in with his anonymous opponents and apparently still conflating public (wiki) debate with personal attack. -PrBeacon(talk)18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list has been deleted from that page. I think the threads linked directly above should be as well. It's only fair, as it's { { resolved } } Doctalk03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I'll leave this up as evidence of your further hounding. You go too far in your self-appointed role of wiki watchdog. And you're grotesquely inconsistent. Afaict, you only support editors with your POV and fight all others. Stop posting your nonsense here. -PrBeacon(talk)07:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the while claiming 'thick skin' and whatever shark-like qualities he has apportioned himself, Doc continues to whine here about what he sees as a double standard. Yet he's comparing my userspace to article talkpages and notice boards as if they have the same standards of public discourse. They don't. Perhaps he's spent too much time stalking users to know the difference anymore. I don't see any policy or guideline against how I frame the disputes and updates on my usertalkpage. I've asked him several times to stay off there with his nonsense -- the first two times he pretended not to see my requests. And yes it is hounding. His very first interaction with me was at ANI where he accused me of socking with Dylan. He justifies his own poor behavior because, he thinks, it is necessary in his vigilante role. I'm sick of it. And I may just go ahead and report his pattern of ill-conceived accusations and general hounding, so it's appropriate for me to use my own talkspace in preparing such a report. -PrBeacon(talk)23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He claims that I'm baiting -- yet I've asked him repeatedly to stay off this talkpage. Does he not see the disconnect there? ..And now he's continuing to bother another editor's page to keep defending his skewed sense of reality.
