User talk:Worldedixor

Talk Page for Worldedixor

This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not "read" my talk page.

Reset

Forgive the long post. It is not like me.

You may be right! Really! And I can see that you are pretty upset. You must be feeling tremendous stress and frustration over this, and I'll bet it is going round and round your head even off-Wikipedia. In my personal life, I find that compartmentalizing is the best stress relief. So, I have a suggestion.

I have been reading a lot about your concerns. Keep in mind that I am trying to help you and not gang up on you. Wikipedia does not want to lose you. And I do not want to see your frustration spill over to other, good faith editors, and lose them.

My suggestion

I suggest, from this moment, splitting the whole thing in two -- the past and present.

Before this moment: First, take everything in the past and decide what to do with it. Take action in the right forum. Bring it to AN/I if you like. If you want to be heard there: short and to the point. A concise few sentences: 100 readers. A wall of text: 2 readers and 0 users will get involved because they know they will get dragged into a quagmire of billions of paragraphs.

Get rid of all this stuff on your talk page! Move the viewpoints about Wikipedia to your userpage. Definitely get rid of the stuff that names specific users. That may come back to bite you. It totally kicks the legs out from under your cause. They will say: "How can you be righteous, and how can we take your side, when you are breaching WP:POLEMIC?"

After this moment: We have both been here long enough to know how reluctant others are to take up a cause when the history is convoluted. Clarity can be the solution to getting you heard. Right now, reset. Like resetting an experiment. You behave perfectly, and expect others to as well. The benefit? From this moment on, if you are done wrong by, then nobody has to dig into a long history with lots of text to figure out who is right. Light will clearly shine, and the culprits will be exposed.

(Concise) thoughts? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to you, Admin Anna. I brought up a chronic problem on WP that is making editors just leave, and did so in the best interest of WP. I did not. I reduced my contributions but I also spoke out. I will stand up for what is right even when I am standing alone. I appreciate your kind advice and will contemplate it. Worldedixor (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A respectful correction to your wrong assumption made in good faith: "You must be feeling tremendous stress and frustration over this, and I'll bet it is going round and round your head even off-Wikipedia.". I am not stressed at all. I live a very enjoyable and happy life. This matter frustrates me a bit as I would like to see EQUALITY and JUSTICE on WP and everywhere I can make a difference. But if I see that I am beating a dead horse, I will just join the thousands of competent editors who have opted out of WP. My hope is that my speaking out will help make WP and the world a better place after I'm gone. Worldedixor (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am genuinely pleased that you are not stressed over this.

A competent editor leaving because the dead horse would not get up? Who thinks a competent editor should be so powerful? Who says a horse should notice us ants? And this is not a dead horse. This is a living, breathing, planet-size, insane asylum. We do our part and hopefully it butterfly effects its way around. Directly trying to change how all these users do things is like herding cats. I just try to take a snapshot of the product as it is right now as say "It is a pretty good encyclopedia, somehow."

So, could not change it and left? Ha!!!! Try, can not change it by myself, right now, so will influence things in a reasonable way, keeping the viewpoints on my userpage (not the talk page as that is a pretty strange place for it), and carry on building the encyclopedia. Dandy!

I hate the incivility and swearing. But, I think I have had an influence on the community by being friendly and nice. Staying and continuing is the best way to help, I think.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WOW, Anna. In a few words, you earned the respect and admiration that I reserve for non-toxic admins who personify what a WP admin should be, and that tremendously helps "retain" competent editors rather than removing their joy of editing WP. Another admin with no bias that I genuinely admire is m.o.p. who apparently has enormously reduced his contributions and wish to know what happened. It is my strong opinion that if Dougweller, ATG and their pals learn from you and perhaps copy your non-bias, civility and become role models as required by WP rules, WP will benefit enormously and there would be a lot less need for WP:ANI and lawsuits in Superior courts can be eliminated. Now, I will gladly follow your advice and place my "WP continuous improvement" facts on my user page. Thanks again. Worldedixor (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am so happy that everything is heading in the right direction now. I don't know why Master of Puppets hasn't edited since May 6. Maybe he joined the Stone Erosion Enthusiasts Club and they're having a "granite watch". Those can really drag on. :) Thanks, by the way, for moving all of that content to your userpage. (There is still a bit of Dougweller mixed in that you might have missed.) It really is encouraging to know that you are staying. If you ever get worn out by editing hot articles, do what I do and write about some species or glacier or something. It is like a holiday into nature from the mad city. So, my friend, if there is anything you ever need, please ask. Best wishes. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Islamic State

• Because you have participated in the move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you are being notified of the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Al Shams" is Arabic for "The Levant." It includes Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Hatay and other parts of Southern TurkeyEricl (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. Worldedixor (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

EotW Hello

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Nice to meet you. I see you recently signed on as a new member of the Editor Retention Project. The future of the Editor of the Week portion of the Project depends on nominations. You seem to be a Wiki wanderer. I would imagine that you run across potential candidates here and there. Please keep EotW in mind as you wander the hyways and byways of WikipediaWorld. ````Buster Seven Talk 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 'ello there, Buster. Nice to meet you too!... Will do!... Cheerio Worldedixor (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors as you did in this diff. Using the words "uniformed", "misinformation", and even "wrong" can be taken as personal attacks on the editor's abilities. Please address the content, not the contributor. Simply saying "I believe this is incorrect" is a better way of addressing issues. Sincerly,~Technophant (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Stating verifiable facts, and stating that someone is wrong when he is wrong is not a violation of policy. Every editor is uninformed in certain subjects, and I know my limitations... I am uninformed in many subjects and I don't even try to challenge an editor fluent in Chinese in articles dealing with China. I leave it to other editors fluent in Chinese to contribute. I also do not police other editors nor act like their moms and send them instigating messages on matters that do not concern me. SO BACK OFF!... and MOVE ON!... By contrast, you keep violating policy when you keep following me in my edits in more than one article, and stick your nose where it doesn't belong, in discussions that do not involve you at all, as a pretext to gang up on me and WP:PA and WP:Hound me. You also have flagrantly made changes to talk page comments and sneaked in a comment after other editors, in a discussion that did not involve you, have responded to that comment like you did in these diffs [1] and [2]. Of course, your policy violations are "conveniently overlooked". Just UNWATCH my talk page already. Worldedixor (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Worldedixor)

Hello, Worldedixor. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor, where you may want to participate. Please do not remove this template until the discussion is closed. ~Technophant (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC) .

"The bottom of this matter", Worldedixor, is that there is no conspiracy going on here. I only heard about the RfC the day before yesterday, when Technophant emailed me a copy of the RfC form to fill in. We have never discussed this before, and I have had no contact with Dougweller about it, except for what you will have already seen on Dougweller's Talk page. I hope this puts your mind at rest at least as far as my involvement goes. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

Do you have a problem with a thorough investigation of this email matter? Worldedixor (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do have a problem with you wanting to read my emails. I'm sorry that I got off on the wrong foot on my first interaction with you which caused you to think that I was a disruptive editor. I'm perfectly willing to work with you. The RFC/U is a chance for you to acknowledge some of the complaints that have been made against you so you can put forth an effort to address them. It's not AN/I and will only lead to sanctions if it is believed that you are not willing to work toward change.~Technophant (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I do not want to read your e-mails at all. Do you have a problem with a thorough investigation by a senior admin, without showing anything to me, to rule out policy violations? Worldedixor (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are addressing Technophant there, but can I just say that I don't have a problem with it as there is nothing to hide. I honestly don't think it is worth the trouble of investigating it, as there have been no policy violations as far as I am aware, no tag-teaming, no discussing potential edits for the ISIS page, nothing of that sort. I can understand your wish for it to be looked into as it must be uncomfortable to feel in the dark, but what I told you about ten days ago about our emailing still holds good. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I am simply asking, and I appreciate your saying "I don't have a problem with it as there is nothing to hide". Before I drop this matter, have you ever teamed up on me with anyone via emails? and were your emails with Technophant and the admin of personal nature? Worldedixor (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean by "teaming up", but if you mean have we been jointly emailing with others about you, no, we haven't. The emails between Technophant and I are strictly two-way. I am not sure who you mean by "the admin", but if you mean Dougweller, he hasn't had anything to do with this RfC - he learned about it later than I did - and there has never been any three-way emailing with him, or with any other admin or editor, about anything! The emails between Technophant and I are strictly of a personal nature and not all of them are about Wikipedia by any means. We have both been concerned about the upset on the Talk page recently and wanted to bring some harmony back to it somehow, but no admin or other editor has been consulted about the RfC, and the ISIS editors will be as surprised by it as I was. I sincerely hope this doesn't develop into anything major, and think I can speak for Technophant if I say neither does he. You will have seen on Dougweller's page his concern about what this RfC could look like and I share it, and I know he simply wants peace back on the page more than anything, as I do. I just pray this RfC doesn't turn into a battle, and will do all I can to stop it developing into one. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)