Jump to content

User talk:Snake Liquid: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Gwernol (talk | contribs)
→‎My Mission Statement: Another personal attack warning
Line 33: Line 33:
:Well, said admin is certainly talking from the inside looking out. It's difficult to act like a valued member of a community when you don't feel valued, when said community contains members that police articles and do not value the input of others. Don't be mistaken, I'm not looking to feel valued here, I'm looking for fairness that I have not yet seen. While you're requiring that all users stay withtin the boundries of "civil" behavior, you would be best to re-evaluate your definition of civil behavior and determine whether or not the elitist attitude and behavior that some users here display is included in that definition, because it's clear that people standing up to speak against it certainly is not.--[[User:Snake Liquid|Snake Liquid]] 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Well, said admin is certainly talking from the inside looking out. It's difficult to act like a valued member of a community when you don't feel valued, when said community contains members that police articles and do not value the input of others. Don't be mistaken, I'm not looking to feel valued here, I'm looking for fairness that I have not yet seen. While you're requiring that all users stay withtin the boundries of "civil" behavior, you would be best to re-evaluate your definition of civil behavior and determine whether or not the elitist attitude and behavior that some users here display is included in that definition, because it's clear that people standing up to speak against it certainly is not.--[[User:Snake Liquid|Snake Liquid]] 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocks]] for disruption. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks --> [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please forgive me for wasting your time and making you read the same message already posted on this page. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks --> [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:36, 1 August 2006

Thankyou

Thanks for your support on the Snake pic issue, just try to remain (what others would call) civil, otherwise people are going to have you reported. I personally don't think either of us were uncivil, but y'know different people have different opinions of what civil is

Anyway that's all BS, the main thing i wanted to say was cheers for all you help, this issue won't go away quickly

(The Bread 09:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Happycat

When you act like you're in sole control of an article, is when people point the finger and call you an elitist. Probably also why YTMNDers made a target of you. It's a problem with a lot of people here that act "my way or the highway" when it comes to article editing.--Snake Liquid 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been at least three unrelated users defending British Shorthair against vandalism. Please try to be civil; Targetter has done nothing to indicate a sense of "ownership" over the article. —ptkfgs 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STFU with telling me to be civil, I was being civil. The way I'm acting right now isn't civil, cause I'm fed up with hearing that shit, but that's fine cause it's on my talk page. I don't care who else has been defending it, when at least one of them acts like they own it, I call them on it. A lot of people do it too, and it makes me sick, and THAT's how they indicate a sense of ownership. You know what else annoys the hell out of me? When people come saying things that make them sound like robots. "Please be civil,"? Condescending elitist bullshit. I'm starting to not even believe what you say, because your name is PTKFGS, the bizarro of YTMND, and it's starting to look like your standpoints in opposition of it are just an act for the fun of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snake Liquid (talkcontribs) .

Please do not make personal attacks. I've been around YTMND since Picard first went online. I enjoy both YTMND and Wikipedia and I don't want to see either one dragged down by a small minority of folks. I am bothered by the increasingly negative attitude toward YTMND from Wikipedians, and I only hope that YTMND'ers can find a way to encourage each other to respect Wikipedia's guidelines rather than merely taking every opportunity to start edit wars inserting fad references where they don't belong.
Personal attacks can get you blocked from Wikipedia. They don't bother me so much, but others on here will turn uncivil posts over to the admin board without even asking for an explanation. I'm sure YTMND and Wikipedia can learn to get along -- let's make sure they do. —ptkfgs 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Mission Statement

If you're like this guy:

"This isn't a vote. It's a debate. Even if YTMND gets a bunch of people together to support Happycat, the admins have the final say. --Targetter 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)"

And let's rework that to apply to all. "This isn't a vote. It's a debate. Even if people on one side of the debate gather supporters, it doesn't matter how much support they have because the admins have the final say."

If you're like this guy in any way you act on here, if you bend and twist Wikipedia's rules with semantics so that they help you out, and then contradict or twist them around again to use in authority against other people, hello, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Snake, and I'm your new problem.


Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Also, personal attacks against another editor on your own talk page won't help your civility situation. --Targetter 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job dropping cookie cutter policy on me there. If you hadn't noticed, I'm not too worried about my civility situation, especially when talking to people that ought to practice what they preach. Besides that, I was using you as an example, I don't see any sort of insult in what I put up there.--Snake Liquid 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I'm not kidding. If an admin picks up on what you're doing, you're likely to get blocked. They will block you for incivility and personal attacks! Save yourself the trouble, move on to a different article, and just stay away from my talk page. That's all I'm asking, dude. --Targetter 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He really isn't kidding. People have been blocked for less. Targetter's description of support/oppose debates (as opposed to votes) is accurate, and I think it would be beneficial to listen to what he's said, as opposed to posting hostile comments about it. —ptkfgs 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should focus on people who think they ride a high horse instead of the ones that try knocking them off the horse.--Snake Liquid 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this admin is focusing on the fact that you are acting an a very incivil way. Your posts on User:Targetter's talk page are inappropriate, as is your last post on your user page. Please calm down and try to act like a valued member of the community. If you continue you will get blocked from editing Wikipedia. We require that all users stay within the boundaries of civil behavior. Thanks, Gwernol 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, said admin is certainly talking from the inside looking out. It's difficult to act like a valued member of a community when you don't feel valued, when said community contains members that police articles and do not value the input of others. Don't be mistaken, I'm not looking to feel valued here, I'm looking for fairness that I have not yet seen. While you're requiring that all users stay withtin the boundries of "civil" behavior, you would be best to re-evaluate your definition of civil behavior and determine whether or not the elitist attitude and behavior that some users here display is included in that definition, because it's clear that people standing up to speak against it certainly is not.--Snake Liquid 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for wasting your time and making you read the same message already posted on this page. Thank you. Gwernol 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]