User talk:Ladislav Mecir: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→"Vandalism": respond |
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
::I refer to this text in that article: ''Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor '''in good standing''' nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks.'' I fully sympathize with your objections to "contributions" of the subject editor -- a real problem with [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Nevertheless, "good standing" refers to the community attitude, and that editor is among the protected in this community. The fulcrum phrase is "good faith". You don't believe it is, and I don't believe it is, but if 50 others say it is, that is the community truth. I invite you to review the number of times that editor has been taken to ANI in the last few years.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=earl+king+jr.+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&searchToken=e2n6pn8iem6r1z186doabb12l] Always immerges without a scratch and the Teflon reigns supreme. [[user:sfarney|<span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper</span>]] [[user_talk:sfarney|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
::I refer to this text in that article: ''Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor '''in good standing''' nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks.'' I fully sympathize with your objections to "contributions" of the subject editor -- a real problem with [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Nevertheless, "good standing" refers to the community attitude, and that editor is among the protected in this community. The fulcrum phrase is "good faith". You don't believe it is, and I don't believe it is, but if 50 others say it is, that is the community truth. I invite you to review the number of times that editor has been taken to ANI in the last few years.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=earl+king+jr.+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&searchToken=e2n6pn8iem6r1z186doabb12l] Always immerges without a scratch and the Teflon reigns supreme. [[user:sfarney|<span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper</span>]] [[user_talk:sfarney|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::"In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor '''in good standing''' nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith." - of course, you are right. I never called any of his edits "vandalism", but, for this one, there is plenty of evidence it was not made "in good standing". Do you want to know the evidence for this specific case? [[User:Ladislav Mecir|Ladislav Mecir]] ([[User talk:Ladislav Mecir#top|talk]]) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
:::"In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor '''in good standing''' nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith." - of course, you are right. I never called any of his edits "vandalism", but, for this one, there is plenty of evidence it was not made "in good standing". Do you want to know the evidence for this specific case? [[User:Ladislav Mecir|Ladislav Mecir]] ([[User talk:Ladislav Mecir#top|talk]]) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::I have looked and you don't have to prove anything to me -- I don't need the trailer, I have seen the movie. Did you look at the number of times that editor has been through ANI? [[user:sfarney|<span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper</span>]] [[user_talk:sfarney|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:08, 6 September 2016
A barnstar for you!
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| Thank you for keeping Bitcoin in shape. you are an awesome wikipedian ! Wuerzele (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC) |
Cryptocurrency task force Invite
| File:Altcoins symbols.png | Hello Ladislav Mecir. You are cordially invited to participate in the Cryptocurrency Task Force (part of WikiProject Numismatics) a project dedicated on improving Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding all things related to cryptocurrencies. |
-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Ladislav, thanks much for improving and maintaining legality of bitcoin working with Fleetham, so it has become useful and reliable ! Wuerzele (talk) 15 October 2015 (UTC) |
"Vandalism"
Be careful with this term. It has very specific definition, not quite as you are using it. Accusing others of "vandalism" outside that definition can have blow-back. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 07:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am using this definition: WP:VAN. Why do you think it is inappropriate? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I refer to this text in that article: Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks. I fully sympathize with your objections to "contributions" of the subject editor -- a real problem with WP:NOTHERE. Nevertheless, "good standing" refers to the community attitude, and that editor is among the protected in this community. The fulcrum phrase is "good faith". You don't believe it is, and I don't believe it is, but if 50 others say it is, that is the community truth. I invite you to review the number of times that editor has been taken to ANI in the last few years.[1] Always immerges without a scratch and the Teflon reigns supreme. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- "In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith." - of course, you are right. I never called any of his edits "vandalism", but, for this one, there is plenty of evidence it was not made "in good standing". Do you want to know the evidence for this specific case? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have looked and you don't have to prove anything to me -- I don't need the trailer, I have seen the movie. Did you look at the number of times that editor has been through ANI? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 19:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- "In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith." - of course, you are right. I never called any of his edits "vandalism", but, for this one, there is plenty of evidence it was not made "in good standing". Do you want to know the evidence for this specific case? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I refer to this text in that article: Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks. I fully sympathize with your objections to "contributions" of the subject editor -- a real problem with WP:NOTHERE. Nevertheless, "good standing" refers to the community attitude, and that editor is among the protected in this community. The fulcrum phrase is "good faith". You don't believe it is, and I don't believe it is, but if 50 others say it is, that is the community truth. I invite you to review the number of times that editor has been taken to ANI in the last few years.[1] Always immerges without a scratch and the Teflon reigns supreme. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)