User talk:Aucaman

This is a good place to leave me a message. If you rather discuss things in private you can e-mail me. --Aucaman 12:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Server time (UTC) 11:57 Tuesday 17-September-2024

Leave a message.

Archives
Oct 31 2001 – 5 March 2006 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Persian people, Persian Jews, etc.

Racists abound on Wikipedia, much to my chagrin, as do quacks and all manner of other proponents of wanton stupidity. If that statement ever prevents me from becoming a bureaucrat, I'll count it as further undeniable proof thereof. People pontificate and pontificate, and usually those who know what they're talking about give up in disgust long before those who clearly haven't the foggiest notion whereof they speak, do so. This can clearly be seen in what is currently going on in the endless moronic discussion on Talk:Persian Jews where idiots are arguing, with seemingly boundless energy, unfettered by rational thought or the faintest clue what they're talking about, that "Persian Jews" means "Jews who presently live in Iran". I'll look into your request and try to weigh in with a few words of intelligent thought, but I offer no guarantee that they'll be received at all [more likely they'll be completely ignored by the warring ignorami as my input on Talk:Persian Jews has been...] Cheerfully, but disgustedly, in as good of spirits as that can leave either of us, yours, Tomer^talk 07:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page messaging

Hi, it was brought to my attention that you had posted the same message to a large number of user pages regarding the POV dispute on Persian people. I will try and explain how these sorts of disputes are usually resolved so that you can better understand the processes we have in place. First the talk page on the individual article is the first place you should go if you have a dispute about something that pertains to that article specifically, as this does. This may sometimes seem slow, as you will very often have to wait a number of days for a full response. This is normal, and you shouldn't escalate the situation just because no one responds in a few hours for example.

If you are dealing with an article that gets little or no attention, or you are in an argument that you think needs a few more voices use Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This is a centralized place for people to see situations that might need further input. The point of both of these processes is to have the information on the page in which it is most relevant. While it might seem like a fast solution to leave a message on 50 people's talk page, it's not looked upon well by the community because it decentralizes the discussion to which everyone might want to be a contributor. For example what if 30 of those people start having conversations with you on their talk page, that quickly becomes unmanageable. I hope I have explained the reasoning behind how these things are usually done. I'm going to go ahead and revert the messages, you should probably list your arguments on Talk:Persian people if you haven't already. If you want to read more about it have a look at the spamming page. If you have any other questions let me know. - cohesion 08:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I've tried the RfC thing before.[1] You know how many people came to the page? Let me count them for you: 1, 2, 3,.... Oh, sorry, ZERO. No one showed up! This was probably a month ago, so don't tell me I haven't been patient with the system. So much for the well-advertized RfC mechanism. It's quiet genius.

As for "spamming" these people, I was trying to get people to take a look at the page and maybe get involved. Even if these messages would later turn into discussions, I don't see how that's not healthy thing. You're telling me that I'm not supposed to be having private discussions with anyone outside a particular talk page because that would somehow "decentralize" the discussion?

The only argument left is that I've been messaging too many people, in which I case I'd like to know why you've reverted all my messages. Was my first message to User:Apoivre inappropriate? If yes, why? If no, then why was it reverted?

At some point you have to admit you just helped these users keep their POV version of the article by blindly reverting all my messages without much thought. The least you could have done was to discuss this with me before trying to enforce something that doesn't even appear to be Wikipedia policy. In fact, the link you sent me seems to only be a guideline on how this should be done, not whether or not it's appropriate.

Thank you very much for your close attention to this issue! Aucaman^Talk 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Spamming" is still the term applied when you message a large amount of users about a topic, and that goes double when you tell them what side of the issue they should be on. This is even more of a serious situation considering that you're currently under an Arbcom injunction against reverting and this could be seen as an attempt to circumvent process. --InShaneee 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I consider what Aucaman has done appropriate, as he could have used emailing function, and no one could prevent that or revert it!. In effect by preventing Aucaman from using talk pages you are promoting email spams, which is more difficult to monitor. What Aucaman is bringing into attention is the raising on an ugly head of racisim within the pages of Wikipedia. Mehrdad 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What Aucaman is doing is spamming. If he did it by email, that would be email spamming. Both are unnacceptable. --InShaneee 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what Aucaman is doing is contacting people who have demonstrated an interest in the subject in the past...that's quite outside the realm of spamming, which consists of contacting large numbers of people willynilly for some singular purpose. What cohesion has done, on the other hand, amounts to blatantly attempting to censor Aucaman's views by poorly concealing Aucaman's attempts to elicit outside commentary without his [Aucaman's] going to the trouble of filing an RfC, and rampant vandalism of multiple user_talk pages. I've rolled back a number of cohesion's rollbacks, but I don't have time to do all of them (and would encourage cohesion to do so himself). In the future, I would encourage cohesion to argue his points on the talk pages of disputed articles and if unable to reach consensus, use the dispute resolution system (that's what it's there for). Don't go around deleting other editors' posts from talk pages, nor from user_talk pages. That amounts to worthless "editing" and does nothing to build consensus. Tomer^talk 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it appeared that I am trying to censor his views, I actually have no idea what his views are. I was contacted by an arbitrator regarding this mass spamming of talk pages, and after some discussion with others it was decided that reverting the messages would be the best action. It was felt that otherwise this spamming would be rewarded despite its being against some guidelines, and possibly some interpretations of his Arbcom injunction. It is not appropriate to argue "my point" on the disputed article's talk page because I have no opinion about any argument on Persian people nor do I even know what is being argued. I don't want to sound like I have no opinion about spamming talk pages, because I do, and I think they are made clear above, what I have no opinion on is the POV dispute on that article. - cohesion 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass spamming talk pages is unacceptable, end of story. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was my intention to bring the problem to other people's attention. I personally don't see anything wrong with this and I've seen people do it before. You could say I should have used the RFC mechanism, but I've tried that before and it doesn't seem to work. But it's okay, I won't spam anyone anymore. We keep it down to 3-4 messages at a time? Aucaman^Talk 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)