User talk:Orestes1984

User	Talk	Contributions	Boxes	Sandbox

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Soccer in Australia

Hi Orestes1984. I removed your edits here; remember, the article talk is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the motivations or behaviour of other editors. If you continue to have concerns with the ongoing behaviour of other editors I would ask you to raise it with me at my talk. Please do not use article talk for stuff like this as that is how we got into the difficulties last time. Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John I don't really have anything else to add about the matter, I've extricated myself from that quagmire and have no motivation to go back there, or anywhere else... My position about being over this place remains the same. I'm sick of editors who simply don't understand all of the facts of the matter particularly in a case such as this where it is far from open and shut.--Orestes1984 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine and let me know if I can be any more help to you. --John (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pop over when you get a chance

Hi. Could you look in at User talk:John#Next step; clarification when you have a chance? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, given your statement that you intend to stay away from this area in future, perhaps this is not germane. I leave it up to you, but for now I shall take your statement as read. Sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Final warning

Hi Orestes1984 and thanks for commenting. I removed the following part of your comment:

"It's not a problem anymore" is simply not a good enough response, moreover it displays a lack of any understanding of all of the issues involved. I have consistently asked one very simple request and that is if parties wish to contribute to this issue, that they be openly aware of all the factors involved this is a simple matter of competence that should be enforced. Editor incompetence which leads to hostility should leave any incompetent editors with a topic ban, it really is as clear as that...

I've already requested that you refrain from commenting on other editors or their supposed motivations. This part of your post breaches that instruction. I warn you that if you are unable to give your opinion about this issue without insulting others, the next time you do this you will be blocked. I am keen to keep damage to a minimum in solving this problem, so maybe you can help me by not doing this again? --John (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

May I offer some advice?

Play the ball and not the man.

John is doing a rare thing with his effort. Suiting action to words, and words to action. This is 'precisely the sort of supervised discussion the article in question needs. Don't screw up your chance.

Please. --Pete (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you it'd probably be a good idea to stay away from my talk page on matters such as this in case anyone else decides to misinterpret what's going on here. I'd rather not give anybody any extra ammunition should they decide they want to use it against you Pete, you're already on a tightrope as it is. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the suggestion to use logos rather than pathos is a personal attack now

I simply do not understand this at all. No comments necessary, just user space venting... Appeals to users to use logic and rational thought, rather than emotionally charged responses have fallen flat, it seems they are futile. Nothing has been lost for trying to resolve things peacefully... --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Some general observations

Every now and then, in discussion on Wikipedia, I see editors arguing in an ineffectual manner. Logical_fallacies is a good starting point. Most of these fallacies were identified thousands of years ago, but people use them today. I am not pointing at you - or any other editor - here, but just noting that debate can be improved and made far less stressful by avoiding some of the common errors.

The obvious culprit in recent discussion has been the argument ad homonym, where editors attack each other. "You are a scroundrel and therefore anything you say is a load of codswobble". But even a nincompoop may "Well, I may be a numbskull, but website X clearly states Y, and anyone may see for themselves without accepting my word."

Another biggie goes by the technical term of "hand-waving" or "what I say is true because I say so". A person convinced of their own infallibility thinks that to say something is to say the truth, because they see themselves as a logical, honest, well-intentioned person, and if a thought goes through their brain, why but it must be wise and true.

Hard to argue with someone like this, but at least on Wikipedia we may say, "That sounds like original research to me, and as you know we are not allowed to use anything that has no reliable source. I am not disputing your words, but could you please provide the source of your information, please?"

If they cannot come up with a source that everyone can check, then their opinion cannot be used. No matter how much such a person waves their hands and stamps their feet, their statement is unverifiable.

The strawman argument is another tactic employed, and it goes something like this:

A. I support freedom of religion B. So you support Islam and Islamic beliefs and Islamic terrorism. I reject your despicable views. A. No, hang on, that's not right...

Here B is misrepresenting A's position. It is easy to attack terrorism. B has erected a strawman, identified it with A and demolished it. As if he has likewise destroyed A's position.

Another way of looking at it might be:

A. The car is an ugly poo colour. We must repaint it. B. We decided last year that painting it yellow would be a mistake because people would think it was a taxi. Best to leave it as it is.

Of course the car might be repainted blue or orange or white, but the poo-lover wants no change, and pretends that A wants to paint the car yellow, and this argument has already been made and lost. What has changed, and why have it again?

The bottom-line on this is that if a position or an argument is shakey, then flawed logic, fallacies, personal attacks and so on are all you have to defend it with.

Expose the shonkey arguments, insist on well-sourced facts, remain polite, and the day is yours!

Alternatively, if you find yourself using murky logic and shabby tricks, it might be time to re-evaluate your beliefs.

Personally, I think you are on sound ground. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Pete, as the old saying goes as a generalisation "Don't argue with idiots They'll drag you down to their level." Unfortunately despite the case being as it is sometimes it's hard not to be drawn into ad hominems and often the pervasive strawman is a lot stronger than what it is given credit for.

Despite taking the high ground on this It's hard not to get annoyed frequently when this occurs. I think I do need to step back a bit and take the time not to be drawn into this. I don't count where I've pushed the current situation as a bad thing at all, I've just become very tired of dealing with this and so I've made the decision to step away from the keyboard for the foreseeable future where it comes to broadly editing on Wikipeda. I'll keep this on my radar no doubt but purely out of the interest of not allowing this kind of nonsense to continue the way it was --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On a totally different tack, here's a link to Melbourne's most widely-read daily newspaper: [1] Note the headings. The Herald-Sun has four times the circulation of The Age, Melbourne's other daily paper. I think that's the game, right there. --Pete (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

• Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but your comment in the vote section is restricted to twenty words. Do you mind refactoring? You could put some of it in the discussion section. Sorry to be a stickler. --John (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll get round to it :) --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi. I've blocked you for one week for this. If you wish to appeal you can post {{unblock|your reason here --~~~~}} but you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fucking ridiculous there's no need to appeal. You've lost the plot... We have one single minded editor who thinks soccer should be applied to every article on Wikipedia who wont respect an international consensus and just because I made mention of it in a previous discussion he's decided to take up camp there. I have no need to appeal anything that is sanctioned by a bunch of idiots here. Go fuck yourself... I'm not playing this game anymore. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now revoked your talk page access. If you do decide to continue in this area after your block expires, please do not comment on other editors. --John (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:John, due to the block evasions and personal attack left on my page can we extend the block? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Due to block evasion and personal attacks I have now extended your block to indefinite. If you wish to appeal you may email Arbcom. --John (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:John. talkpage access disabled. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by using the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

If you wish to appeal you should use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. --John (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Offer

Hi Orestes1984. On 9 March I blocked you for a week then extended your block to indefinite when you embarked on a stream of IP-hopping vandalism and abuse. I also removed your ability to edit this page. Now that a few weeks have passed I wondered if you would like to make an unblock request here. I would find this preferable to your making edits like this and this while logged out, which is not allowed. (You were helpful enough to boast "You can block me all you like I'm not on a fixed IP range.") My block of you was endorsed at AN/I but as we said there, there is no objection to your coming back if you want to. If you decide to take up my offer, you need only post the template {{unblock|your reason here --~~~~}}, but you should read WP:GAB first. To facilitate this I have restored your talk page access. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)