User talk:Skyring

WTF?

Repeating the heading you used on my Talk page....

I sometimes quite deliberately go over the top with my language. It makes other editors notice at least some of the words I use.

Last night you were completely ignoring almost everything I said politely, as well as ignoring many principles of good faith editing on Wikipedia.

You were not discussing. You were not seeking consensus. You were telling us what you thought on the Talk page, then changing the article. That's not discussion. Nor is it seeking consensus.

It made no difference how I responded using nice language. You still behaved badly. So I tried firmer language. That made no difference either.

I now believe that you are incapable of editing rationally on matters relating to Craig Thomson. Yours is the behaviour of one of those willing to try anything to eliminate the Labor government.

You should not be using Wikipedia for that purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are quite wrong in your opinions expressed above, but i do thank you for sharing them. I read what you had to say and I pointed out, at the time, exactly why you were wrong. I haven't checked the CT articles yet - I've had a long and tiring day - but you just weren't taking in what I was saying. You weren't responding to the points I was making. Why not? I can't see inside your head, but it seemed to me that you were growing more and more frustrated, not following the excellent guidelines laid down in WP:CIVIL, and not doing anything much to improve the article. My guess - after some hours - was that you were distracted by something else, possibly a football game, and weren't giving the issue your full attention. If that is the case, I understand, and forgive you. Please don't rationalise incivility - you may think it draws attention, and you are right, but it gives the wrong impression. And it serves as a poor example for other editors, if they see an experienced editor bully another.

As for eliminating the Labor government, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey scare the crap out of me. Hockey, I strongly suspect, would be in the running for world's worst treasurer if he ever got the job, and a lot of Abbott's policy statements appear to be poorly thought out, to be charitable. I also strongly disagree with some of his religion-based views on the role of women and his opposition to marriage equality.

That doesn't mean I think Gillard is doing a good job - I don't. What it means is that I keep my mind open, and I don't regard politics as a football match where the side you are rooting for are saints and the other team demons. I regard few politicians as worthy representatives, and it may surprise you to learn that I rank Bob Brown very highly indeed. I may disagree with many of his policies, but he says what he means, means what he says, and doesn't try to mislead the people. He's someone you can trust.

Unlike other politicians I could name. I see it as a useful function of Wikipedia to tell the truth, present the facts, present the opinions and let the readers find their own way through good sources and information presented in a useful fashion. It's not a political game, and I would prefer that you do not view me as a player.

The guts of my political philosophy is that I've lived through governments of different flavours, at different levels, and while some were worse than others, in general they manage to keep things running, keep the people fed and housed and healthy and educated, and realistically the criticisms we level at them are relatively minor. Even the increasing corrupt government in Queensland in the Seventies and Eighties was still providing free health and education to a high standard. I don't accept the view that any political party is beyond criticism or praise. They are all mixed bags.

The Craig Thomson affair, according to the leading political journalists, many of whom I know and respect, is important because it could conceivably lead to a change in government. It also is yet another example of poor political judgement by Gillard, which will probably prove to bee more decisive than anything Thomson does or has done to him. Personally, I think Abbott should have had a quiet word to Gillard a while back and promise not to run a candidate in a Dobell by-election if Thomson could be persuaded to resign. But of course that didn't happen, and every week there's some fresh information surfaces to keep the thing going. Yesterday it was the revelation that the ALP paid Thomson a quarter of a million dollars to give to Fairfax to settle the defamation case that he was pretending had gone the other way.

Your position seems to be that presenting the facts on this affair, presenting the criticism, presenting the opinions, providing the sources is something that should not be done because, because why, precisely? Because you don't want your side of the football match to lose? Is that it? You want to hurl abuse at every editor who wants to provide information in accordance with established wikiprocedure and wikipolicies? Because you don't like what they have to say? That's the message I'm getting from you. --Pete (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My position is that you are either a rude or incompetent editor, who does not understand what "Discussion" means. Writing something on the article's Talk page, then changing the article in line with what you've just written, without awaiting responses and seeking consensus, is bad manners and disruptive. HiLo48 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think when a subject has been up for discussion on a place like WP:RSN for a day, following the removal from the article by a disinterested editor citing unreliable sources, that's sufficient discussion time. Could you do me the courtesy of following the links I provide in response to your comments? If you don't read my responses to your direct questions, it seems a little inconsistent for you to accuse me of ignoring the points you raise. --Pete (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to it. Up until now I've been too busy repairing the damage to the article caused by your ruse and impatient editing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)