User talk:Worldedixor

Talk Page for Worldedixor

This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not "read" my talk page.

Reset

Forgive the long post. It is not like me.

You may be right! Really! And I can see that you are pretty upset. You must be feeling tremendous stress and frustration over this, and I'll bet it is going round and round your head even off-Wikipedia. In my personal life, I find that compartmentalizing is the best stress relief. So, I have a suggestion.

I have been reading a lot about your concerns. Keep in mind that I am trying to help you and not gang up on you. Wikipedia does not want to lose you. And I do not want to see your frustration spill over to other, good faith editors, and lose them.

My suggestion

I suggest, from this moment, splitting the whole thing in two -- the past and present.

Before this moment: First, take everything in the past and decide what to do with it. Take action in the right forum. Bring it to AN/I if you like. If you want to be heard there: short and to the point. A concise few sentences: 100 readers. A wall of text: 2 readers and 0 users will get involved because they know they will get dragged into a quagmire of billions of paragraphs.

Get rid of all this stuff on your talk page! Move the viewpoints about Wikipedia to your userpage. Definitely get rid of the stuff that names specific users. That may come back to bite you. It totally kicks the legs out from under your cause. They will say: "How can you be righteous, and how can we take your side, when you are breaching WP:POLEMIC?"

After this moment: We have both been here long enough to know how reluctant others are to take up a cause when the history is convoluted. Clarity can be the solution to getting you heard. Right now, reset. Like resetting an experiment. You behave perfectly, and expect others to as well. The benefit? From this moment on, if you are done wrong by, then nobody has to dig into a long history with lots of text to figure out who is right. Light will clearly shine, and the culprits will be exposed.

(Concise) thoughts? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks to you, Admin Anna. I brought up a chronic problem on WP that is making editors just leave, and did so in the best interest of WP. I did not. I reduced my contributions but I also spoke out. I will stand up for what is right even when I am standing alone. I appreciate your kind advice and will contemplate it. Worldedixor (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A respectful correction to your wrong assumption made in good faith: "You must be feeling tremendous stress and frustration over this, and I'll bet it is going round and round your head even off-Wikipedia.". I am not stressed at all. I live a very enjoyable and happy life. This matter frustrates me a bit as I would like to see EQUALITY and JUSTICE on WP and everywhere I can make a difference. But if I see that I am beating a dead horse, I will just join the thousands of competent editors who have opted out of WP. My hope is that my speaking out will help make WP and the world a better place after I'm gone. Worldedixor (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely pleased that you are not stressed over this.

A competent editor leaving because the dead horse would not get up? Who thinks a competent editor should be so powerful? Who says a horse should notice us ants? And this is not a dead horse. This is a living, breathing, planet-size, insane asylum. We do our part and hopefully it butterfly effects its way around. Directly trying to change how all these users do things is like herding cats. I just try to take a snapshot of the product as it is right now as say "It is a pretty good encyclopedia, somehow."

So, could not change it and left? Ha!!!! Try, can not change it by myself, right now, so will influence things in a reasonable way, keeping the viewpoints on my userpage (not the talk page as that is a pretty strange place for it), and carry on building the encyclopedia. Dandy!

I hate the incivility and swearing. But, I think I have had an influence on the community by being friendly and nice. Staying and continuing is the best way to help, I think.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, Anna. In a few words, you earned the respect and admiration that I reserve for non-toxic admins who personify what a WP admin should be, and that tremendously helps "retain" competent editors rather than removing their joy of editing WP. Another admin with no bias that I genuinely admire is Master_of_Puppets who apparently has enormously reduced his contributions and wish to know what happened. It is my strong opinion that if Dougweller, ATG and their pals learn from you and perhaps copy your non-bias, civility and become role models as required by WP rules, WP will benefit enormously and there would be a lot less need for WP:ANI and lawsuits in Superior courts can be eliminated. Now, I will gladly follow your advice and place my "WP continuous improvement" facts on my user page. Thanks again. Worldedixor (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so happy that everything is heading in the right direction now. I don't know why Master of Puppets hasn't edited since May 6. Maybe he joined the Stone Erosion Enthusiasts Club and they're having a "granite watch". Those can really drag on. :) Thanks, by the way, for moving all of that content to your userpage. (There is still a bit of Dougweller mixed in that you might have missed.) It really is encouraging to know that you are staying. If you ever get worn out by editing hot articles, do what I do and write about some species or glacier or something. It is like a holiday into nature from the mad city. So, my friend, if there is anything you ever need, please ask. Best wishes. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foley

My mistake, I'm sorry. Explained (and thoughts expanded) at talk. Writegeist (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you at

WP:ANI#Should these articles still be under the community place Syrian Civil War sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations reference in ISIS Lead

Thanks for noting this on the TP. I forgot to restore the UN ref when doing a revert earlier. It is back in again now. Am not happy with the wording "by Western governments and their allies, such as" which was added this morning, but can't touch it because of 1RR. I should have removed it when doing my first revert. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it. I responded to you on the article's talk page. Worldedixor (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring that Lead para to the way it was. You must have used your 1EE allowance for that. If you need an edit done and have run out of 1EE, ask me and I will use mine. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Worldedixor, I don't understand what's "bizarre" (as your edit summary has it) about either of the comments you removed here. Would you be willing to clarify? Writegeist (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found it bizarre that you left your message with a bizarre "for your own safety" on MY Talk page... and then P123ct1 replied to you. Did you mean to leave your message on P123ct1's talk page? Worldedixor (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "For your own safety" was simply shorthand (easily comprehended, I would have thought) for "if you and Worldedixor engage in the WP:MEATPUPPETRY you're proposing, you will be in danger of administrative action." And no I did not mean to leave my comment on the other user's talk. As the proposal had been made to you, it made sense to leave the comment about it on your talk page in the thread where it occurred. Nothing "bizarre" about that. Writegeist (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you meant well... but your use of "For your own safety" was unusual to me... To better understand you, in what country is such "shorthand" used?... Now, assuming good faith, please be advised that no one is engaging or has engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETRY, and no, "For your own safety" was not clear to comprehend at all... I think you have misconstrued what we are doing here, which is "discussing and reaching compromise on issues". Only today, I had to break the 1RR restriction repeatedly just to save the article. It was done by "discussion and reaching comprise on important issues" nothing to do with WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Hope this clarifies the confusion you had as I will soon remove this from my Talk page. Have a nice day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the link to meatpuppetry, Writegeist's phrase "for your own safety" was quite appropriate and normally understood in the English speaking world. It was a very polite and friendly warning. When AGF is followed, as is required, there is nothing "bizarre" at all about it. Context means everything at times, and I'm going to AGF that this misunderstanding was largely a language/cultural issue.

P123ct1's comment was (unwittingly) a direct description of how to violate the policy against meatpuppetry, and they were thankful for the friendly warning, which they understood in the context of the link to meatpuppetry.

Please tone down your edit summaries. They often come across as a combined violation of at least four guidelines/policies, all at once(!): CIVIL, BITE, NPA and AGF. Failure to AGF causes all the others to occur simultaneously. Yes, edit summaries can be used to violate policy. Now you know. If you start by assuming that other editors are your friendly colleagues, then many problems can be avoided. This explanation is intended as a friendly attempt to clear up a misunderstanding and to prevent problems for you in the future. If I didn't care about you, I wouldn't have taken the time to comment here. I trust you will accept the comment in the spirit it was offered. Have a good day. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Foley

Do you really believe he might be dead, I mean seriously, did you even watch the video, an execution video that does not have the actual execution? Think about this, how do you know that this is real, because I actually saw the video, and it's not real, it's 100% fake. But these news sources and the US claims that the video is authentic? But yet it doesn't show an actual beheading, and yet people believe it. P.J. (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 09:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether he is dead or not. I do suspect the video is fake and staged. However, article talk pages are not a forum to discuss POV without being sourced with reliable sources. Anyway, there is an entry in the article that factually discusses this. I will remove this comment from my talk page. Have a nice day. Worldedixor (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate your undos

I noticed that you undid several consecutive edits. This could be done with one edit rather than undoing each of them separately. Use the radio-buttons to select the interval of edits which you wish to revert and then click on the "undo" which appears above the displayed difference. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time... I will sure look into it and hope we never need to use it. Worldedixor (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]