User talk:Padillah: Difference between revisions
I'm out. I gotta catch my breath. |
→Gadsby: comment |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
==Gadsby== |
==Gadsby== |
||
At [[Talk:Gadsby (book)#Requested move]] you made a comment on the proposed move from "Gadsby (book)" to "Gadsby (novel)". In the Discussion sub-section I have proposed a compromise: "Gadsby: Champion of Youth". This is consistent with [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles]] which suggests using subtitles only if it avoids a disambiguation and if the subtitle is short. In this case, the 3 word subtitle can be considered small, it avoids a disambiguation title, and it keeps the lipogram. Is this alternative ok? Please note that this option applies to the ''title only'' and makes no comment on the remainder of the article. --[[User:Maclean25|maclean]] 06:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
At [[Talk:Gadsby (book)#Requested move]] you made a comment on the proposed move from "Gadsby (book)" to "Gadsby (novel)". In the Discussion sub-section I have proposed a compromise: "Gadsby: Champion of Youth". This is consistent with [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles]] which suggests using subtitles only if it avoids a disambiguation and if the subtitle is short. In this case, the 3 word subtitle can be considered small, it avoids a disambiguation title, and it keeps the lipogram. Is this alternative ok? Please note that this option applies to the ''title only'' and makes no comment on the remainder of the article. --[[User:Maclean25|maclean]] 06:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
Still on the same subject, so no new section. If you don't want people to improve the article, perhaps people that ARE allowed to edit it should place a <! comment in the article to that effect. It's kind of annoying to try to make writing not suck hard, only to have my edits be reverted for sake of an in-joke. [[Special:Contributions/76.22.79.109|76.22.79.109]] ([[User talk:76.22.79.109|talk]]) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:29, 11 November 2008
![]() |
Archive 1 Archive 2 |
WP:ANI thread
Padillah,
I see you've been around a long time and have contributed a lot, but this really, really has to stop. Perhaps you're so worked up that you can't see you're being disruptive, but you are. Please consider this a final warning. --barneca (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Warn away. At this point I just don't give a shit. If you feel this user is allowed to treat me this way then ... I have no idea how to finish this statement because it is incomprehensible to me that this is acceptable behavior. I see no indication whatsoever that Softlavender will even be spoken to about this. Boy I've got to find out how I can plug my ears to discussion and make attacks on someones mental state and get away with it. Block me, ban me, whatever. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you seem to be unable/unwilling to discuss the issue with the offending editor as you are supposed to do, I have placed the following on their page in order to initiate the dicussion on your behalf: "Softlavender: as there seems to be some issue as to some of your commentary towards the above user, I would recommend that you try to politely and patiently discuss the matter with the other editor, clarifying your words and intent. I recommend using either your talk page or theirs (not both so that the discussion can be kept together), or if you would prefer neutral ground I can make a space on my own talk page for more of a "unofficially mediated" discussion." Your call if you decide to participate or not, but talking it out 1 to 1 is ALWAYS your first step. BMW(drive) 14:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. And my apologies for not having done this sooner but it got to a point that I didn't know if contacting Softlavender would make things better or worse. Again, thank you for helping move this forward. padillaH (review me)(help me) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you seem to be unable/unwilling to discuss the issue with the offending editor as you are supposed to do, I have placed the following on their page in order to initiate the dicussion on your behalf: "Softlavender: as there seems to be some issue as to some of your commentary towards the above user, I would recommend that you try to politely and patiently discuss the matter with the other editor, clarifying your words and intent. I recommend using either your talk page or theirs (not both so that the discussion can be kept together), or if you would prefer neutral ground I can make a space on my own talk page for more of a "unofficially mediated" discussion." Your call if you decide to participate or not, but talking it out 1 to 1 is ALWAYS your first step. BMW(drive) 14:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
(reposted from ANI) It's incredibly obvious that the mental health statement violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am sorry you had to be on the receiving end of such a statement, Padillah. I am not an admin (which they claim is not a big deal) so there isn't much I can do other than sympathize with you. I am sorry, also, that there are some in this thread whom are belittling and discounting you. I wish that would end. Bstone (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Bstone (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've been on a long wikibreak but while doing some casual reading here on wikipedia, I came across the above incident and feel obligated to say something. Quite frankly, I am astonished at the treatment you received, Padillah. While your behaviour on the original talk page might not have been perfect, as you yourself have later realized, I find it incredulous that only one other individual was able to see clearly that the mental health statement was anything but civil. I guess the problem is that we live in a global society that is largely and overwhelmingly oblivious and insensitive to the issues of mental health. If the statement had instead been "cause many people to question your sexuality" or "cause many people to question your age" or "cause many people to question your purity", then I imagine many more people would have agreed that such a statement is uncivil (being homophobic, ageist or racist respectively). Just as the word faggot is an insult whether applied to a homosexual or a straight man, so too is the word retard whether applied to someone who actually has mental health problems or not. Just as one does not need to use the word faggot to be homophobic, one does not need to use the word retard either. It really should have been obvious to anyone that questioning another's mental health is an insult. I just wanted to let you know that you were perfectly right to object to such an uncivil statement even though you should have done it first at the talk page of the discussion or the user. --Bardin (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
your Noise music page suggestion
In my opinion, the only thing noisy about the band named after the manifesto was the name as their sound (if I remember correctly) was on the slick synth side. Therefore they do not warrant mention of the page. Other opinions? Valueyou (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- From what you say about their use of sampling the group, perhaps, is best suited for the musique concrète page. But let's go onto http://www.deezer.com/ and refresh our memories. I did and found mostly slick material, of interest yes. Their sound lacks the atonality I associate with noise music, but perhaps I did not hear the relevant cuts. If you feel strongly that they should be under noise music, I would not object if you decide to add them to the list of noise artists. And if you might, we could use a hand with some page #s, as you might have noticed. Thanks for your interest. Valueyou (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I found a source that says Empire Mall is the biggest tourist attraction in South Dakota. Surely that's a valid claim to notability. I don't really feel like writing right now, but I will expand the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
please see Talk:Dania Ramírez Rosenbluh (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Conduct at Talk:RMS Titanic
Hi Padillah. I thought I would point out a couple of things you have done there which aren't very helpful and are in fact strongly discouraged in this on-line community.
1 You inaccurately characterized my single edit to the article as a revert and as edit-warring. It was neither. My reputation is important to me and has taken almost three years and over 60 000 edits to build. Therefore I will not leave such baseless accusations unchallenged. I would be grateful if you could strike out the mistaken comments you made there. An apology is not required, but it would be helpful if you could agree to be more careful in the future.
2 You then deployed sarcasm and enjoined me not to join the discussion. This is not a private forum, and as an editor with a long-term history of editing that article, I don't think you have the right to exclude me from the discussion. I also think that per WP:SARCASM, this way of interacting with others is unlikely to foster a productive atmosphere.
Thanks for your consideration, --John (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Are you going to strike out your comments to both MickMacNee and me regarding our NON-edit-war? The first contribution you made was insulting and derisive, so I suggest that if you care so much about your reputation you discuss more and deride less. Calling peoples discussions lame and unproductive is not as supportive as you might think. I may have misrepresented what you actual action was in a coding sense but the end result of what you did was just as unhelpful. Editing content that is under discussion is just as much an "edit-war action" as 3RR, and if you are half as knowledgeable as you say you are it's even less forgivable. When there's a discussion going on you don't edit the content being discussed.
- 2) First off you don't "deploy" sarcasm, you use it. And second I wasn't using it, I was honestly urging you to not participate if the only thing you are going to do is insult and deride the other editors. As for being a productive atmosphere, you weren't being productive from the get-go, your first statement was derisive and insulting and you never contributed to the actual discussion at any point. How could I quash an atmosphere that was non-existent?
- In other words - no, I will not strike out the comments I made. I stand by them and would like you to take them to heart. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothin' at all. Padillah (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- One thing I'd like to point out, since you are so up-in-arms over my misrepresenting you as having done a revert how do you feel about removing the warning on MickMacNee and apologizing. He did exactly two reverts (one because you were editing content under discussion), the other edit he did was a change in content. If you're gonna threaten someone with a 3RR block it's probably best they have violated 3RR first. Padillah (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I note you are standing by your rudeness and I see your many misconceptions and misunderstandings of the way we work here. I wish you well in your future edits and I hope your stay here is long and productive. Happy editing. --John (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you actually going to let it drop this time? Inasmuch as you are avoiding any of my concerns I can only wish you well and hope the rest of your encounters as an admin are less filled with WP:LAME-calling and derision. Thanks for your lack of input. Padillah (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I note you are standing by your rudeness and I see your many misconceptions and misunderstandings of the way we work here. I wish you well in your future edits and I hope your stay here is long and productive. Happy editing. --John (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Gadsby
At Talk:Gadsby (book)#Requested move you made a comment on the proposed move from "Gadsby (book)" to "Gadsby (novel)". In the Discussion sub-section I have proposed a compromise: "Gadsby: Champion of Youth". This is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles which suggests using subtitles only if it avoids a disambiguation and if the subtitle is short. In this case, the 3 word subtitle can be considered small, it avoids a disambiguation title, and it keeps the lipogram. Is this alternative ok? Please note that this option applies to the title only and makes no comment on the remainder of the article. --maclean 06:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Still on the same subject, so no new section. If you don't want people to improve the article, perhaps people that ARE allowed to edit it should place a <! comment in the article to that effect. It's kind of annoying to try to make writing not suck hard, only to have my edits be reverted for sake of an in-joke. 76.22.79.109 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)