User talk:Wtshymanski: Difference between revisions
Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) Please read this and tell me what's going on |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
: I don't trust you. This makes meaningful discussion difficult (see [[Cold War]]). Your professed concern for my legacy is doubtless some strategey of yours which I am too thick to figure out. I've learned that making complex hypothetical mental models of the behavior of other people rarely give me any meaningful insight into their next actions and is never worth the effort. To "edit" is also sometimes to delete. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski#top|talk]]) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
: I don't trust you. This makes meaningful discussion difficult (see [[Cold War]]). Your professed concern for my legacy is doubtless some strategey of yours which I am too thick to figure out. I've learned that making complex hypothetical mental models of the behavior of other people rarely give me any meaningful insight into their next actions and is never worth the effort. To "edit" is also sometimes to delete. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski#top|talk]]) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::I can understand not trusting me, but I would suggest that not communicating on that basis is irrational (as it was for the US and USSR during the cold war -- see [[Moscow–Washington hotline]]). For not communicating to make sense, I would have to not only be untrustworthy, but I would also have to be clever enough (or you stupid enough) to somehow cause you harm through ASCII text and to do so in such a way that nobody else caught on. I am not asking you to trust me, just to communicate. I simply do not see how dialog can harm you or how refusing to have a dialog can benefit you. |
|||
::I might add that I was not professing concern for your legacy. I was making an appeal to your self-interest in an attempt to persuade you to change your behavior. Is there anything -- anything at all -- that has been said on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski]] that might some day cause you to make even a tiny change in your behavior? How can it possibly be true that ''all'' the people who have commented on that page are wrong? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Thanks for the tip! == |
== Thanks for the tip! == |
||
Revision as of 17:31, 15 May 2012
This page has been blanked. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ..again.
Peerages
Per MOS:HONORIFIC and WP:NCPEER, it is common practice to use official styling in the infoboxes for nobility and peers. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Combine the Wikipedia manual of style and a peerage system and you're bound to get absurdities. Surelyl WP:COMMONNAME trumps? It's not as if Bennett inherited the title or passed it on and he only held his "peerage" for a couple of years. Finally, given the reputation of Canadians who acquired peerages, surely if someone was collecting viscounts they'd be as well served with a redirect to R.B. Bennett? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Could we just stop for a moment and have a serious conversation? No sarcasm, no blanking your userpage as soon as you see that I tried to reason with you, just a calm, rational discussion. Why don't you try discussion just once to see if it works?
How many people have to tell you before you admit that you have a problem? Is deleting material that should be preserved and being rude and sarcastic really that important to you? Do you really want your legacy to be "pissed off a bunch of people, got banned from editing Wikipedia for life, watched as his former victims crawled through his edit history undeleting everything he deleted"? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't trust you. This makes meaningful discussion difficult (see Cold War). Your professed concern for my legacy is doubtless some strategey of yours which I am too thick to figure out. I've learned that making complex hypothetical mental models of the behavior of other people rarely give me any meaningful insight into their next actions and is never worth the effort. To "edit" is also sometimes to delete. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can understand not trusting me, but I would suggest that not communicating on that basis is irrational (as it was for the US and USSR during the cold war -- see Moscow–Washington hotline). For not communicating to make sense, I would have to not only be untrustworthy, but I would also have to be clever enough (or you stupid enough) to somehow cause you harm through ASCII text and to do so in such a way that nobody else caught on. I am not asking you to trust me, just to communicate. I simply do not see how dialog can harm you or how refusing to have a dialog can benefit you.
- I might add that I was not professing concern for your legacy. I was making an appeal to your self-interest in an attempt to persuade you to change your behavior. Is there anything -- anything at all -- that has been said on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski that might some day cause you to make even a tiny change in your behavior? How can it possibly be true that all the people who have commented on that page are wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip!
Dear Wtshymanski, thanks for the tip about adding pages to your watchlist. I can't believe it was that simple. Best regards, Patrick Gill (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
And see
[Talk:Magnetic-core_memory#Magnetic_Ceramic.3F] But I'm being called stupid. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)