User talk:Exok

Editing against consensus at Chris Noth

You're dead wrong here. If you had bothered to check out the history of this dispute, you'd have seen that the editor you're defending is pretty clearly an SPA/sockpuppet who's already been blocked once over his editing against consensus, as well as caused semi-protection of the article at least twice; that this dispute has been going on at least since March, with no other editor supporting the inclusion of this badly sourced trivia until your edit today (although it's been removed by multiple experienced editors with roughly 90,000 edits to their collective credit (not to mention that the admin who most recently semiprotected the page has more than 100,000 on en.wikipedia alone), and you ought to have noticed that two different, contradictory references have been provided in "support" of the claim (certainly problematic in a BLP) -- one of which, classictvquotes, is a copyvio site, gives no sign of being a reliable source, and isn't used as a reference in any other Wikipedia articles. You should also have paid attention to the fact that multiple editors had removed the claim as unencyclopedic trivia, so that when you added it back without making prior efforts to gain support for its inclusion, you too were editing/edit warring against consensus. Talk about a lack of collegiality. Your own comments manifest a lack of willingness to WP:AGF about the experienced editors who've been dealing with this disruption for months. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• And I'm going to note that barely a week ago you violated 3RR in an edit war at BBC Radio 7, as well as baselessly threatening a good faith editor with blocking because the editor inserted more recent listenership statistics into the article than you preferred. I'm less than impressed by the double standard shown. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to the issue I raised with you about not using edit summaries to attack other editors. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking over the talk page to see if there is any foundation to your assertion that there has been "aggressive and uncollegiate name-calling, accusations and intimidation". This seems to be baseless hyperbole. Not a big deal, but I'd like to suggest that you take things down a notch so things don't get personal. Again, I see you made the accusation that other editors were "uncollegiate" multiple times. Simply asserting something doesn't make it true. If I missed something I apologize, I'd just like to point out that getting overly dramatic at best makes you seem unreasonable and at worst actually provokes other editors to respond with "uncollegiate namecalling", which is, of course, what we are trying to prevent. Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted clarification about the content I object to, might it have been less provocative to ask for it prior to accusing me of "baseless hyperbole" or "getting overly dramatic". It is not collegiate or constructive to begin an attempt at consensus building by describing edits that are clearly dear to another editor as "trivia". Suggesting an editor is engaged in "plain and simple vandalism" and a sock-puppet is what I mean by aggressive name-calling and repeatedly misrepresenting the balance of consensus (coupled with wikihounding) is what I mean by intimidation. All this happened before I joined in, but the moment I did I was accused of edit warring and had to suffer both your sarcasm and the fanciful ulterior motives you ascribed to my contribution. I avoided retailiation, focussed on content over personality and mounted an argument about verifiability and noteworthiness only for you to call my view "absurd". It's no good declaring "this isn't personal" when you are using such demeaning and emotive terms.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize as my last comment was poorly worded.

• I said "seems like hyperbole, but not a big deal", I am sorry if this offended. I was hoping the "seems like" followed by "not a big deal" would allow me to make my point without you taking offense. I was obvious wrong and I retract any hyperbolic accusations.
• I didn't realize you would take such offense at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's wording. His point that adding material with a reference that doesn't actually reference the point is deceptive, which seemed reasonable. But, I've been wrong before, so I understand if you saw it a different way.
• Sovietia is editing via IPs. This is not sockpuppeting, meerly not editing without logging in, which isn't a crime. Hullaballoo said "Just because Sovietia edits through IPs except when the article is semiprotected doesn't mean he counts as multiple editors." This isn't an accusation of sockpuppeting. Perhaps that accusation was made elsewhere, in which case please excuse my ignorance. You are 100% correct on this one, the accusation is at the beginning of this thread and I didn't see it.
• I call things trivia because I think they are, but I didn't realize that this would be offensive. I will try to think of a better way of saying that so it won't offend.
• Kudpung did a lot of work on the article, so I don't think he's wikihounding anyone, but you may know more.
• I apologize for the sarcasm, I was hoping to show the problem with your argument by applying it and resulting in the exact opposite conclusion. I apologize for you having to suffer my poor attempt at humor. If the point I was trying to make still isn't clear, please ask and I will clarify without sarcasm.

=I hope this response has been sufficiently collegiate. Let me sincerely assure you that this isn't personal and apologize in advance if anything in this message is offensive. I will try to avoid any demeaning terms and regret any persecution, real or perceived, that you've experienced. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That reply gives me a wide and welcome exit route from this pointless squabble which I will sieze, thank you very much --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be so clement Alistair, because you have a history of deliberately doing this kind of thing. Most of your contributions are very good, and people have offered you a lot of advice. Nevertheless, you appear to be still applying your old double standards. Before you accuse others of personal attacks, misusing edit summaries, or not abiding by GF, you might wish to take a look back at your own short history of interaction with other mature, experienced editors, including those whom you have deeply insulted without cause. Resorting to righteous indignation is probably not the best course to take in a no-win situation, and besides which, I'm sure you'll agree that you like all of us have much better things to do here with our keyboard time, such as the couple of hours I have just spent copyediting the Chris Noth article.--Kudpung (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, I agree with the view of the editor given at WP:EAR that your personal attacks are motivated by something you took offence to in May. If you are still "incredibly angry", still seeking (as here) to reignite settled arguments in which you are not involved three months after the fact then I feel there is little hope of resolving the situation and I would ask you to stay off my talkpage. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No re-ignition Alistair - your way of editing and communicating with others has never extinguished and clearly demonstrates a pattern; the conflagration has spread to the effect that other mature established editors are now commenting. One even suggesting that such behaviour could be the work of a twelve year old. It's probably unwise to read into Diannaa's words that (s)he has a sympathetic ear to your cause - to do so merely confirms once more the constant pattern of your refusal to follow the guidelines, and then make it look as if the ensuing unpleasantness was not at all your fault.

We're all anonymous volunteers here, why not just try to make Wikipedia a nicer and more encouraging place for people to invest their efforts in?--Kudpung (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you for the second time Kudpung to stay off my talkpage. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your inquiry at WP:EAR

As you may have noticed, all three users (Drunken Pirate, Kudpung, and Hullaballo Wolfowitz) have now posted comments at WP:EAR#Guidance on what constitutes a personal attack. As the level of anger they display is way out of proportion to what you have actually said and done, I can only guess they think you are a sock puppet of someone else with whom they have a further history. You did not ask for advice but I would like to suggest that you please avoid these people in the future and the articles they edit. In particular the Chris Noth page. Good luck. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alistair, I wanted to thank you for your comments on the Chris Noth page. You put my argument even better than I could, and I still cannot understand why they were so adamant against the Family Guy reference. Their arrogance is amazing! I'm not going to bother with the editing anymore, but I did want to thank you for being a voice of reason on Wikipedia. Sovietia (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Patronising

Before criticising others, please do not forget the grave injustices you serve up against other editors. There appears to be a strong consensus that the pattern of your editing might not be conducive to a happy environement here, especially your manner of putting dubious positive spisn on on complaints to make it it appear that you are the injured party. By continuing to interfere, especially by stalking my edits on your watchpage, and looking for every possible opportunity for muck raking, please consider making some worthwhile edits to this encyclopedia, or at least check the background and be absolutely sure of your facts. By awarding such barnstars, the irony is, and you are quite aware of it, that you are clearly the one who is taunting for flames.--Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you for the third time Kudpung to stay off my talkpage Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

LHO lead

I know the topic is an interst of yours, so please lend your thoughts at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Lead (again). I hope consensus can be reached without any chalkboard erasers being thrown. EEng (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)