Jump to content

User talk:Writ Keeper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kpshu (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 4 December 2013 (→‎What's going on..?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Or?

Straw hat, easier to chew

If this[1] is not an vandalism only account, I'll eat my hat, right now. EX_Warrington (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, but since it stopped editing quite a while ago, not much sense in doing anything about it. Just leave it be, I say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I will. And can you possibly tell me why this[2] happened[3]? I had a lot of bad exprtience with this person. Makes me uneasy. Usually I just don't edit the same things, or look first if this is one of his/hers articles, this time I was not carefull. But I think that a lot of people has issues with this. Just tying to edit his page he/she starts there trying to scare people off, there, it is not the nice flirtation lab, like Mies has but worse, like this: you frothy guts-griping varlet! Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you warped fen-sucked harpy? Am I a warped fen-sucked harpy who said nasty things just because I want to leave message? EX_Warrington (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Hafspajen: Hey, sorry I kinda dropped the ball on this one. That thing at the top of Montanabw's talk page is actually a joke; the language it uses is randomly-generated and intentionally archaic; it's supposed to be a funny thing. The idea is that it's a funny contrast between the Shakespeare-esque language (which usually takes a connotation of primness, properness, and formality), and the over-the top "insults" that the words actually mean. It's not something to be taken seriously; the randomness and obsolescence of the words is usually enough nuance for the user to get that it's a joke. I see how, if English wasn't one's first language, that could be easily mistaken. I'll mention it to her. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but than it might be better to avoid it, in my oppinion. For all my classical education, Harpy is nothing nice. A term is often used metaphorically to refer to a nasty or annoying woman, or worse. Even in the Shakespeare-esque language. (this one is from the Wikipedia:) In Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, Benedick spots the sharp-tongued Beatrice approaching and exclaims to the Prince, Don Pedro, that he would do an assortment of arduous tasks for him "rather than hold three words conference with this harpy!" Hafspajen (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "harpy" is an unfortunate example, as it's still used a bit today. But take "varlet": nobody actually calls anyone a "varlet" any more, so a modern English speaker wouldn't automatically take offense to it, even though in Shakespearean terms, it's not a nice thing. Because it's such an old word, people wouldn't assume that it's an actual insult right away. But I'll admit that it might be better to avoid it; I suggested as much to Montana on her talk page, though she should feel free to disregard it if she likes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writ, I think you've just been punk'd by Hafspajen. (See my talk). Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*shrugs* Could be, I dunno. I'm almost past caring about Wikipedia for the day. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chin up, WK. Have a beer. I'm about to. (I'm not Drmies, so you won't be impressed by the brand.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you've closed that godforsaken section on your talk page, allowing me to delete unposted the reply I'd half-typed up for it, I might be able to. People, man. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear God. Tell me you aren't letting that individual get under your skin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
maybe a little Writ Keeper ⚇&#9:::No,non, no, I was not 812; 23:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no and no, I wans't punking Writ Keeper, I would't dream of anything like that. It is not possible at all, and I have to say that somebody has a weird sense of "humor", if trying to look at it that way. That comment for Bishy was just a joke, and it was meant for Bishy, and no one else but Bishy. There is no point in putting in any other way. That was an old, really old joke between me and Bish. From the good old time, when I had an other name, Writ Keeper knows. And naturally I never met Bishy, and it is no such thing as some personal grunge about this, it was and it only a joke.
I said thanks to Montana, and Bishy poped up, immediately after that, and than it seemed like Montana asked me, who are you talking to, so I answered, you. (and jokingly that I don't talk to Bishy because she refused me to marry me, but that is just a joke, as I said, a long way back). : One can see the edits in which timeline they were coming to the page in the history page. That is not the real order of the edits, what you can see there. Sorry but there wasn't any punking involved, especially not against Writ Keeper. Writ Keeper, you just start from your own edit and go om to push the next edit, next edit and next edit and you will notice what happened. Hafspajen (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I picked up on it. :) I was just tired yesterday; I never really thought you were punking me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YAYYY!!!

You're back as an admin!!! Good to have you with the buttons again. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, figured it was about time. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Now, as an active, uninvolved admin, please block all ArbCom candidates except me, so they are ineligible. Well, OK, and maybe 28bytes, he doesn't scare me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing an edit

Can you help me understand your comment here. When I tried to undo the edit in question I got an error from the system that the edit could not be undone, and must be fixed manually. It is my, seemingly incorrect, understanding that if I re-added the comment that was originally posted by the IP user, that it would be the same as me commenting on the thread, which I did not want to do. Can you help me understand how I could have fixed this so that I don't cause future admins additional work should I see this situation again? —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you couldn't undo the edit using the "undo" button because the page had been edited since then; that's usual. All I did was copy the IP's edit and paste it into the page where it had been by hand. I noted that it wasn't my comment with my edit summary (and by keeping the IP's signature, instead of signing it myself), but if you want to avoid confusion, what I've done in the past is put a note at the end of the post in small font that explains things, something like IP edit restored by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC), which should let people know what's going on. The edit itself will always be credited to your account, that's true, but if you let people know what's going on via edit summary or note, it's not a big deal. Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for your help. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i suggest

you remove sergecross73's comment as well. its uncivil and only promoting friction.Lucia Black (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted to your talk page as well. Briefly, though: I'd rather not change edits that were made before the close, just to maintain the record of what went down (in particular, GiantSnowman and Sergecross's posts were the major reasons that I closed it). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
then they should be removed. I'm sick of the uncivility that they (specifically sergecross73) get away with.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you say that, but I don't agree in this case; I think that it's more important to preserve the conversation as it was when it was closed. Admittedly, part of that is because, were those comments removed, then my close wouldn't make sense to someone unfamiliar with the history of the conversation, but part is also that, were this to come up in the future, having the conversation intact could be helpful as a reference. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it would be great if more people gave more warnings for incivility. at the moment, Sergecross doesn't think he's being uncivil, and it stresses me out, everytime this editor chime's in on a personal opinion about me when i'm not even a subject.Lucia Black (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, there is also a fine line between incivility and criticism here: not everything that one might take offense at can be considered incivility. In this case, I wouldn't consider Sergecross's post to be uncivil. Blunt, sure; critical, no doubt; but not uncivil. We have to be careful that, while trying to enforce civility, we don't stifle all criticism, for (civil) criticism is compatible with, and at times necessary for, collaboration. We can't truly be collaborative if we aren't allowed to express our disagreement or even disapproval of others' actions or opinions. I would judge that Sergecross's comment falls on the right side of the attack/criticism divide, though I do understand why you would take offense to it. It's a judgement call, and different people will have different standards of what's uncivil and what isn't, which is why enforcement and warnings and the like about civility are always so touchy and difficult. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It wasn't "incivil". It was getting a bit off-topic, sure, but, as you stated in your close, the issue at hand, with Lukeno, was largely figured out, so it wasn't disrupting that discussion, and it wasn't out of the blue, it had been in response to what GiantSnowman had been getting at. I'm not just making stuff up, I'm pretty sure Lucia was literally topic banned due to too many ANI reports that were bogus, many of which were in regards to civility.
Anyway, I apologize, Writ Keeper, you probably don't really care. I'm sorry to get you embroiled in Lucia and I's arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANd you've literally brought it up in uncalled for situations, where you make me the subject, not the original topic. its the truth. you don't get what you're doing, or maybe you do and you find it justifiable, but it's not. i would prefer if we were interaction banned. it doesn't make it acceptable every time and all you want to do is belittle me.Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly Writ. what makes criticism acceptable and what makes it un-called for? What Sergecross was doing wasn't criticizing, it was belittling another person for past actions he deems inadequate. it wasn't on topic, and it wasn't called for. if he has a problem with something, he can definitely tell it straight to me, rather than trying to spread that i'm inadequacy to other editors. and this is a constant pattern not just in ANI.

The comment was directed in the past, and you said it yourself the drama came from those two editors. It may look like an edge-case on your book, but this has been going on for a long time. I rather he avoid making me into a topic of discussion. He's doing it even now. and it seems ridiculous and incivilLucia Black (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, I missed being an admin. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry about this. We're hashing this out on my talk page, so you don't especially need to keep being part of this if you don't want. If she's unhappy with talking with me, I welcome her to take me to ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's fine. I knew what I was getting into. I had just forgotten that nothing lights up your inbox quite like trying to mediate a Wikipedia dispute (especially a civility one). ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify Writ:

WHat can be considered a personal attack

  • Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:DR.
    — Wikipedia, WP:NPA

i believe the principle of this applies here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're coming from, but I wouldn't take that tack here; it was a context thing, but I don't think it was a context thing in the same way that that paragraph means. (Trivially: this certainly was a conflict resolution page, but that's not really what I'm getting at.) I'm having unsurprising trouble articulating what I mean, so I'll leave it be, at least for now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry Writ, it doesn't matter whether anyone makes a claim. the fact is he chose to belittle me (And he has not once denied it.) the context wasn't "me" as you said, it was off-topic. we can try to wikilawyer what WP:NPA means, but i think its pretty clear on the principle that we shouldn't make editors a subject in places that aren't appropriate.Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with that principle; that's why I hatted the thread. But my point is that, in my mind at least, violating that principle doesn't necessarily make a post uncivil, and given how subjective and emotionally charged disputes about incivility can get, it's not a good idea to call things uncivil that aren't. And, going back to the original point, since this isn't as who should say uncivil, there's no real need to blank the comment from the ANI thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
violating that principle makes it a personal attack therefore it is a sign of incivility. And again, there's a pattern of this. i think its pretty clear cut in this situation regardless. its only subjective if another editor chooses to see it that way. if we go in the principle of WP:NPA, its as clear as day that it is incivility. I understand you only see this as an isolated event, and Sergecross is probably thinking that i'm taking this out of context. but do believe this is a pattern. the only reason why i wont bring it up past events is because i created the space to save such history after the pattern. so it's not like i want to rehash the past. but this just happened, and i'm warning that it will be recorded. but i digress. i'll end the subject by saying that i go in accordance to WP:NPA identifies as a personal attack/incivility.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...For the quick revert. It's much appreciated! Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, no problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan

I'm not about to do anything. This isn't because I think it should stay, but because I have no clue what the right action is. When I unblocked him, I decided to remove the entry, but then I wondered if it should stay because the entry remains in his block log — I've wanted it to be properly removed, ever since I unblocked him. I would prefer that someone familiar with arbitration procedures deal with it, whether by removing it entirely or striking it or whatever else. If they need some sort of agreement from me before modifying the entry, this comment should suffice, because I'm happy to see it removed. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. I'll wait until I've heard from Rschen, and then I'll put a strikethrough in it with an explanatory note. I'm not very familiar eith arbitration matters either, but I'll just wing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note and the help! Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Installing User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js on my own script file

Hey Writ Keeper, just wondering, how do I install User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js correctly on my own script file? Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as any other user script: just put its location into an importScript statement on your preferred skin.js page (in your case, it looks like User:Epicgenius/monobook.js, assuming you use the monobook skin) like so: 
importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js");
It should go without saying, but please be very, very careful with how you use this script, should you install it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on..?

You deleted both my Sam Pepper (artist) page, and the talk page, which was asking for help and clarification as to why the page was deleted.. How am I supposed to get help with it if you delete the talk page as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpshu (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Writ_Keeper&oldid=584561838"