User talk:TParis

Image

Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at [1]. It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - TP 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per WP:TPO. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - TP 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - TP 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

30 year old campaign and still running.

So. Fucking. What.

Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed

Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing,

And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - TP 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more [2] I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, please

These aren't the comments of the person that I thought would be great on ArbCom. Bugs is just making a joke; he does that, in case this is the first time you've "met" him. Some of them fall flat. He doesn't mean anything more by it. But more importantly, by taking a section that had nothing in it implying editors taking political sides before your first post, just a heads-up that a normally quiet article might become active, and injecting accusations out of nowhere, you're not helping. This is so unlike you. You used to be the guy that would come around with the fire extinguisher, not the gasoline. Please. I know you're burnt out fighting fires; fine. Let others fight them. Don't start them yourself, OK? --GRuban (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

May I have your permission to strike or just remove your comments entirely? --GRuban (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My tact is waning as retirement draws near. Besides that, I just read Greek_government-debt_crisis#Alleged_pursuit_of_national_self-interest the other day which comes off as a European college student essay about the evils of capitalism adapted to fit on Wikipedia. My comments are freely licensed, anyone is allowed to remove them. I'm not one to fight someone with a cooler head than mine.--v/r - TP 20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Gasoline? All I see is Bugs making an inappropriate joke and TP responding. Not exactly extinguishing, but definitely not fueling a fire. I don't see a reason for bringing this here to TP. Best solution for this is this: Don't make insulting jokes, and don't talk about politics of WP if it's not improving the encyclopedia. There, problem solved. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone else closed the section, so it's all right. While you have the mop, though, you might want to semi-protect Molly White (Texas politician), as it has just been repeatedly hit by a persistent IP. Or you can block the IP, he's earned a large number of warnings by someone with faster fingers than I have. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener - I don't really mind it if someone wants to say they disagree with something I am doing. Thanks for the cover, though.--v/r - TP 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, was that really necessary? I knew someone would be around sooner or later to mess with it, and by turning it into an us-vs-them thread, you might have reduced the eyes on the article to keep it under control. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm jaded, you've been there.--v/r - TP 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I realize this might not be the popular thing to say, but I like this TParis better than the old one. You know where he stands on things. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I try to be flexible in my stances - though.--v/r - TP 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment here

• What I'm more concerned about is that you appear to have just recused yourself from any admin action, ever, involving politics. I have a great amount of respect for you, but was that wise? Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see that. If anything, it makes him more human, rather than someone pretending to be neutral and never sharing an opinion. While I disagree with his point, it is still a valid point, and I don't see how it could impact his admin duties. Today is a special day because TParis has stood up for the civility policy while many admins continue to remain silent or refuse to enforce it. TParis has let the community know where he stands on this, and that makes him a better admin and someone I can more fully trust, even though I disagree with his opinion on some topics. Which brings us back to point of derailment, yet again. Why, Black Kite, did you bring up something he said about politics in a thread about civility? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to put it in as separate section. But to answer your question, because I worry it could be brought back to haunt him by other editors. I totally agree on the civility issue, but by posting things like that, if in future TP blocks someone on the "left"/"liberal"/whatever side of a dispute, they're not going to have the authority that they would have had otherwise. If someone of ArbCom had posted that diff, they'd have had to recuse from every politics-based case that came up. It's not a criticism, I just think it's unwise. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I accept your POV but it's still derailing from this thread.. In any case, I think TParis' comments were pretty tame, as they were more rhetorical than anything else. I much prefer my admins to speak their mind than to hold their tongue. Like I said, even though I disagree with him, I feel I can trust him more because he's not afraid to let people know how he feels on a topic. And frankly, while I disagree with his opinion, he is certainly representing a significant POV that feels Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Now, as you may know, I have spent the last decade fighting against this POV, and I believe it is entirely wrong. But, that doesn't mean people can't hold wrong opinions, and if we are going to live in free societies, we must be able to share our ideas without filtering and self-censorship. This is why I support TParis's right to speak freely. I've seen him block liberal and conservative editors in equal measure, so my faith in his neutrality as an admin remains as strong as ever. And that's an opinion coming from someone who does not identify as a conservative. I like my admins to be human, not unfeeling robots who pretend to be neutral. Good admins recognize their bias and act neutrally in spite of it. That's the real measure of excellence. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. However, I'm sure you'll realise that as soon as you "reveal" your worldview here, it can be used against you. And that can be especially problematic for an admin. Anyway, this probably isn't helping build the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it there. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Black Kite - I'm in the middle of drafting a retirement speech which will address your concern specifically. In my speech, I am not waving vague accusations of neutrality violations, I'm going to back it up and show an inconsistency with BLP articles and negative information during election years. However, in regards to your question, I believe it's quite clear that I'm on the out. I've barely used the tools in about a year and less so in the last 2 months. My last block, however, was actually of a right-wing anti-abortion conservative. I'm not a conservative, or at least I don't self define as one. I believe I appear conservative because I am to the right of the general Wikipedia populace. However, isidewith.com has me center-left. I personally identify as a libertarian and I've blocked other libertarians (MilesMoney was the most notable, I believe). I disagree strongly with conservatives on social issues like LGBT-rights, abortion, ect. Either way, we won't see another Congressional election nor a general election for almost two years. By then, I'll be a memory and folks will be saying "hey, remember that one guy". That said, understand that my politics are not what they appear to be. I generally speak up when I see injustice and unfairness. I'm speaking up now because, having patrolled political articles since the 2012 election, I've personally witnessed from the outside the kind of double standards regarding UNDUE and IRS. I've already detailed them on this page to our mutual friend Gamaliel and his response wasn't what I hoped for but it was, nontheless, respectable. He said that he could find similar anecdotes proving the opposite. I believe that Wikipedia has widespread biases in all sorts of directions on all sorts of topics. Conservative bias on religion, western bias on the Cold War and Pearl Harbor, white-male bias on most articles, ect. With regard to politics, outside of economics, I see a widespread liberal bias. On economics articles there is generally a socialist-libertarian battle that has deadlocked. Either way, my main concern is BLPs and the misuse of UNDUE and IRS to both whitewash liberal politicians while simultaneously trashing conservatives. And Baseball Bugs' open hostility toward conservatives should prove the point. Concern that he could be condemned for openly hostile remarks against conservatives doesn't even enter his mind because it is accepted behavior here.--v/r - TP 04:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)First, I'm here to change your opinion. I understand that you refuse to change your opinion unless my own opinion is available for change as well. It is. I would rather that you take an undeclared break (no "I'm retiring if..." drama) than make any move that has you affirmatively "leaving". WP needs editors and admins that are "right" of the majority. It's not about fighting every fight (I know), but it is about trimming the rudder. Without relatively level heads like yours, things are only going left-er. We don't need that. I (and you, and many others) have spent man-years editing this thing. Ultimately, it will go the way of myspace. Before then, it would be fulfilling (for selfish me) if it at least stayed somewhere near the middle. I hope you change your opinion, and I hope you write a retirement speech and give it to someone else. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll read this later because I'm on my way downstairs to play video games. But just one note: my retirement has been planned for quite some months and I've been writing my going-away speech for a few weeks. I'm certainly not starting any "I'm retiring if..." kind of stuff.--v/r - TP 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and enjoy! --Tgeairn (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

TParis, would you consider the possibility that you misread Baseball Bugs comments? I don't think he was displaying "open hostility to conservatives" at all. He was making a stereotypical joke about Texas.[3] Now, because you are from Texas (I think), you might not find that funny. But, let's assume Bugs is from NYC (I think). Then, you can begin to see why he thinks this is funny. So, this has more to do with stereotypes, comedy, and regional rivalry than it does with politics. Now, let's be perfectly clear. In any academic discussion about racism in the United States, Texas comes somewhere near the top of the list. That's what Baseball Bugs was pointing to, not politics. Now, if you're from Texas, you might find that insulting. And as you know, because of direct flights, we have a lot of Texans in Hawaii, and they're a mighty fine and upstanding people. So, it's perfectly understandable that his comment would upset you. But this isn't about politics. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that I am wrong. And the possibility is always quite large no matter the subject. I've seen Baseball Bugs making bigoted comments himself about trans people so who knows.--v/r - TP 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To make my point another way, if I was from Texas, I would probably have had a similar reaction. The implication of the joke is that everyone from Texas is racist. But, you and I know that isn't true. Still, it is a trope found in the comedic lexicon. Doesn't mean it's right. It's like joking that everyone from San Francisco is gay or liberal. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Have you read The Martian? It's uphill for the first 50 or so pages, but after that, it's downhill all the way. It's a really fast read. I think you would really like it. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't. And I'm right between books right now. I'll pick it up and check it out.--v/r - TP 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Valuable Info

I have provided two instances in the last two days that LB has been less then open and honest about the situation. If you notice since our previous conversation here and at the ani I have completely left her alone. I have not been to her page, I have not brought her to any noticeboards. I noticed severe canvasing on quite a few peoples pages including people on my watchlist, I commented once off wiki, and then again when it was taken (by another editor) to mfd. I responded to someone not lightbreather and explained my rationales. I read your little box on the edit pafe and I agree to be willing to consider your view. My faults include being stubborn, easy to pop off at the mouth and a determination to follow things through, my faults however is my strengths. I certainly am willing to extend good faith to any editor who actually improves their behavior, case in point I had a bitter conflict with Tarc that resulted in the banning policy case, but if you notice [[4]] and I've even done that for LB [[5]] when the evidence was extremely flimsy. Now when you look at [[6]] this is after [[7]] which added a substantial amount of evidence. I choose to comment for two reasons, LB has a history of socking and denial and more importantly we had two users that had been drug to a SPI by an anon ip. So it would stop that anon person poking at LB and by extension the other newer editors and on the chance that it was LB hey she was caught dead to rights. It would stop either situation from happening again. When you say once a liar is always a liar is a NPA, a better phrase could have been trust but verify, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and good faith isn't a suicide pact. With Hell in a Bucket removed from the picture, did I cause her to sock and lie? No. Did I cause her to relentlessly forum shop everyone she can to create a discrimiatory page or continue her crusade against Eric Corbett? No. Will removing me from that picture do anything but silence a critic of Lightbreathers....yes it will reinforce the victim mindset she has been allowed to maintain for far too long. Personal accountability is zero, there was none for the inappropriate socking, none for the misrepresentations of facts, none for the outing of Sue Rangell or the attempted outing of every other IP in the GGTF, none for the off wiki site she maintains to harass other editors. If you believe what Lightbreather has posted in essence she is the poor victim that everyone picks on and currently because I state the obvious which isn't convenient for this victim narrative she wants to tell. I briefly considered sending this through email but since I believe in owning up to what I do. I posted this here in public. Feel free to email me any response you wish if you would like to have a private conversation without having to be within guidelines. You have my word that anything you state to me regardless of what it is will not be shared by me on this site. I am not a liar and my credibility means much more to me then it does to others so if I put it here you can take it to the bank that is what will happen. And if nothing else blah blah blah TL:DR ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)