User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 31
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Go Phightins!. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
RfC/U
Hey Go Phightins, don't be dissing on the RfC/U process like that. I've been involved in one or two (ha, you'd have to look through the archives--can't remember right now), and while they have no teeth, to put it colloquially, they are stepping stones. Everyone seems to think that an RfC/U needs to do something, but that's not correct: they are requests for comments, not means to a solution, though they can be. It happens that an RfC/U becomes a touchstone later on in a process, and if there is a consensus in an RfC/U that certain users could benefit from blah blah in this way and that, then that consensus can be used later on. So don't knock it until you try it. It may be lengthy, and it may seem overly bureaucratic--but at the same time, that it is toothless also makes it in interesting venue in that it's less political and more honest. Or at least it can be. Later, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies. I have never participated in an RFC/U before, however, I have read at least two in their entirety (Kiefer's and one other one - can't remember), and remember that they were month-long ordeals, and that afterwards, there was limited if any behavior change. I have thought about starting one before (twice - for the same editor), but then feel as if my time would be better spent ignoring and finding an article on which to work. For what it's worth, I agree that, in theory, before a case originates here, there should be an RFC/U, but if anyone can find an RFC/U within the last, say, two years that has come to a fruitful resolution, or frankly that was not a waste of everyone's time, I would be unaware that it existed. was based on my reading of those two, plus the fact I had never heard anyone come out of one with something positive to say. I should have clarified that I do not have personal experience in participating, and apologize for not doing so. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Best, Go Phightins! 02:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- No need to apologize for anything. I'm just trying to explain what they are: by definition, no action comes out of them. Anyway, happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Not like me
I'd like to get in a dialogue with you, as after reading your comments at the RFAR, it is clear you have mischaracterized me probably because you do not understand me. You have drawn conclusions that are a bit offensive, such as characterizing me as being equally focused on drama as Northern, and I know that to be distinctly false. What I think is that you have drawn wrong surfacy conclusions from edits. (For example, if I give blow-back to Northern at a noticeboard where he just offended me, aggresively baited and badgered, insulted or made false accusation--because I choose then and there to give him blow-back, you seem to draw the conclusion that I'm oriented to devote myself to disruption and drama at WP. That is not evenly remotely true about me. I am nothing like Northern (who apparently has a self-image or mission to pursue such avenues; it is good to see his friends here try and talk him out of that and return to his "old self"). I'm a serious editor, and don't give blow-back unless I've been falsely accused or unfairly insulted. You might not understand, but giving blow-back under those conditions is a form of self-defense, NOT an indication the editor services and devotes his time and efforts to getting into the thick of drama at available venues. That is not me. But I'm bound to give blow-back if someone treats me like shit, and Northern has thrown a lot of shit my way consistently. (So he's gotten a lot of blow-back from me.) Not my interest to spend my time that way. Whereas I believe drama has been his hobby here--he loves to throw himself under the train it seems protesting issues and people he feels strongly about. To me that is nothing to do with writing the encyclopedia--it is the wrong focus.
I do not have a similar focus with my presence here, nothing near the same, and your comments about me at the RFAR paint a picture that I do. You are mistaken. And to characterize me as anything like Northern is a slight to me. I want nothing to do with him and wish he would stop his trolling of me. He has been the aggressor 100 percent of the time. I have only responded to him. It has put a bad taste in my mouth, and stripped me of enjoyment of contributing to improve articles in my niche. Not my intent or desire. But right now, I will not "turn the other cheek" if someone of Northern's ilk takes it upon themselves to initiate aggressive badgers, baits, insults, false accusations. (The hostile and abusive culture at the WP was established long before I ever sighne up as editor.
When I signed up to be editor I did not sign up to be falsely accused, insulted, lied about, a subject of attempted smear, or defamed. One can simply not respond I know, that is a valid intellectual decision and choice, but for now it isn't my decision or commitment. I refuse to play a game where I am like Jesus in a den of vipers. The vipers will get stepped on by me, and I'm well aware of their nasty fangs.) I don't initiate anything personal here. (If you think I have please point it out I'm willing to examine.) If something is an initiation by me (not a response) and it is deemed hostile or aggressive, check again, read it again. I don't do that kind of thing. Northern does. I don't. Big difference. You compared us as basically from the same cloth. So I'm here with this paragraph for your attention. Thanks for your consider. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, as I already explained to Northern, I believe the reason he reacts to me is because the blow-back from me is unexpected. He characterizes it as exploding over trifles. Well, it isn't for him to decide what is a severe offence, like calling someone a "hypocrite" without basis, which he already express he considers very minor, and I already told him to me it's not--that we must have two different value systems and he should respect that, rather than papering over my value system with his preferences. And at least one of the reasons he considers the blow-backs "explosive" is because, in this sick culture where lies, false accusations, insults and incivilities abound, he has found a comfortable spot where he accepts and participates in that culture. I don't. (The culture is strange and evil to me.) So I erupt in his face, and, he is "shocked". I'm a "shock" to his "system". (From my view, because I'm healthy and not "of the body", which is sick and diseased. From my view, the culture is polluted here and he has been breathing and feeding off it. So he gets blow-back and is shocked. Fine by me. He just ran into a healthy person. So I get blamed and attacked further, for essentially being different [being healthy]. Anyway that is my view.) (Northern Antarctica = sick body; Kevin Gorman = sick body; Kaldari = sick body; Eric Corbett = healthy body; Giano = healthy body; Penyulap = healthy body. These things are clear.) I want to stay healthy. I appreciate there are some healthy people here already, and that is one of the few motivations that keep me happy when I edit here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
One last thing: I've already told Northern, I'll not engage with him about anything substantive, without a third party moderating. (And, WP does not provide that assistance. So, that takes care of that.) It's a no-win situation I've concluded, a time-sink with questionable or even impossible benefit. IOM Northern is on an agenda or campaign of some kind, and doesn't listen to reason or care to. It's clear for instance he obsesses over the lyching of Eric Corbett. Even others have pointed out how his resentment of me is an extension of that impulse. (Did even *he* say that!?) Anyway, I see that as irrationality in motion. (Look how the same impulse describes Kaldari's recent choices, and despite what Kevin Gorman says I do not believe him--his statements reveal to me that his *entire* motivation that explains all he said and did, is the same.) The pattern here of "Malleus-hatred" driving editors to irrational acts, is undeniable. Blaming Eric for their wild decisions and actions (as Resolute has attempted to do to Eric [re Gorman], and Northern has attempted to do to me [re Kaldari]) is absurd. The responsibility for their conduct rests with them. That's so true it is boring. (Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Ihardlythinkso. I am on my way out the door now, and as such, do not have sufficient time to adequately read and comprehend this, and in all honesty, I can't guarantee you that I will until tomorrow afternoon EDT. Please no, however, that I am not ignoring this comment, just want to ensure I sufficiently read it before responding. Thanks. Go Phightins! 10:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's no hurry at all. And you do not have to respond. When you do read it, if something surfaces in your feelings/thinking equlivalent with "But that's not true!" please let's examine it. (Diff it, explain what you think is inconsistent. Even what you think is a worst-case example of anything I wrote. I am not on WP to initate drama or contribute to an irresponsible tacky environment where people throw irresponsible accusations. [For an example, admin Drmies accused me of having a "Talk page full of lies". Great. But he didn't bother to diff even one. That is so irresponsible, and coming from an admin, an it is also a personal attack as well, suggesting someone is a chronic liar. Those are the kind of shit-accusations made in the current hostile and abusive culture of the WP that existed long before I signed up. I guess what I'm saying is that I've aimed to be different or counter to that culture. I want any editor, if they want, to demand responsibility from me, for every post, every sentence, every word. The tacky culture at the WP is extremely counter to that. Editors like to make bogus accusations against character, calling another editor "hypocrite", or "liar", with nary a diff or backing up said accusations/allegations.
I don't do that kind of thing. Ever. I'm human and if I slip up, if I write something irresponsible, I want to be shown it and corrected. I'm human and can make mistakes. But I try to take care not to. The culture here, and Northern and Drimies are participants, is not to try. And to exploit an environment where discussion regarding someone backing up what they say is "beating a horse" or "ranting" or "not dropping the stick" or other of a litany of dumbed-down tempated expressions designed to replace thought with ad hominem dismissal. The cure for all of this sickness is simply to endeavor to not write something irrespnsible in the first place. Then there is nothing to have to back up. But WP does not value resonsibility, therefore irresponsible comments and accusations against people's character flourish like weeds in an unattended garden. That's the cesspool that has formed here over how many years. That's the culture that is accepted and unconsciously adopted by many editors. Unless one struggles against, a person will adopt and "become" the environment where they are.
Even I despise ANI venue and the irresponsibility there, I have never to my knowledge written anything irresponsible there. ("Anger" does not equal "irresponsibility". "Shouting" does not equal "irresponsibility". So the argument that I've written something with passion or conviction or even upset anger, doesn't make it "irresponsible", and the irresponsible quality of ANI where people write any smear they please and attack with any fiction they please or make any manipulative bogus argument they please without cause or obligation to back up, is what accounts for it and why I call it a cesspool.) Many intelligent editors have said the same thing re ANI, not only me, and even before I was an editor here. I've been accused of not being a proper Wikipedian because I have this view of ANI. If I have to have a positive view of a cesspool then I do not want to be an editor here.
When one is in any culture, there will always be pressures to conform to the culture. That was an example of such subtle pressure coming out. All of these things seem plain and clearly obvious to me. Now I have given you more to read. Not with an interest to waste your time. I would like to come to an understanding with you based on sensible argument. I can hack it. Many editors here just like to attack and flee. In my town that is called vandalism. Like teenagers throwing eggs on my house at night, then fleeing in the dark. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well IHTS, that's quite a lot of text, and while I don't think any of it necessarily justifies a lot of the comments you have made (if you want diffs, look at the ones on the ARB page - provoked or not, they were uncalled for). To me, this all goes back to a pro-Eric editor vs. an anti-Eric editor. At one point, I probably was an "anti-Eric editor", but at this point, I couldn't care less. I analyzed the situation as I see it - not just this scenario, but all of the clashing that goes on between you and Northern on AN/I, and commented on what I saw. I understand that you don't want to "turn the other cheek", but in what universe do the statements Northern compiled at the arbitration case help anyone - you, Northern, the community at large, or most importantly, the readers? I understand you could compile a list from what he's said, but I was more than an equal opportunity critic in my statement. The bottom line is that both you and Northern would do well to take some time off AN/I, ignore each other, and work on some articles, file categorizing, article assessment, or pretty much anything other than the drama boards. That was the point of my comment. I understand your assertion that Northern "started it", but come on, can we please be adults and not treat this like a playground fight - "he started it"? In closing, let me say that my comments were worded strongly so as to emphatically say what I have tried to subtly say in the past, which is that we have readers to serve, and this childish bickering does not help them. That's where I am coming from. Go Phightins! 19:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- You don't get it. (Northern calling me a "hypocrite" is not "childish bickering". It's an offense to my character. The sleazy WP environment, which was well established before I never signed up here, allows that kind of thing with abandon. I already told you I'm not inclined to ignore insults of that nature. I'll give blow-back. You call that bickering. I call that lack of ethics on the name-caller, and an editor who does not swallow the cesspool pill here as a condition of editing.) Your reference to diffs at the Arb page, to me Phightins, is a cop-out, since I came to you personally and asked you if there were any diffs you were personally concerned with re my editing and open to discuss with you. To point a vague finger at "diffs listed at the Arbcom", and especially "if [I] want them", shows me you have no interest to dialogue here what was a personal interaction invitation from me to you. You might have just as well told me: "Get lost. I like to make my opinions any way I want, and I don't want to reconsider or be challenged. If I'm superficial you can't complain, I have a right to be superficial. This is WP, didn't you know??" Chiding me to "go write articles" is further condescension. (It is a pat insult that where the issuer claims superior interest in the central purpose of the encyclopedia, and ignores the effect of incivilities thrown at editors who neither deserve them, nor signed up to receive same, and the affect those incivilities have on real people on keyboards.) I find your response dismissive. Good luck on the WP. Nice to meet you. I won't be sending text your way again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Jackson Peebles' Grant Idea Proposal
Hey GoP,
Remember this proposal? All of the original participants at the proposal are rediscussing it currently so we can re-hash it in time for the next IEG deadline on 31st March. We are discussing the same by mail and on google doc but will soon move over to meta. Are you still interested in lending a hand? If so, please respond to the mail I sent you now so we can add you
Regards, Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 00:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2014
- Traffic report: War and awards
- Featured content: Ukraine burns
- WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology
Your GA nomination of John Mayberry, Jr.
The article John Mayberry, Jr. you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:John Mayberry, Jr. for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Paterno
Hey fightins, I disagree with your revert. "There is no word on his future as a coach" doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Paterno's run for governor belongs in the "after Penn State" section, not in personal life. As for McGloin's criticism, it's inappropriate that the only subjective evaluation of Paterno's career is one statement from one player from one article that doesn't even focus on Jay Paterno. Orser67 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Orser67. Did you see my subsequent edits? I tweaked the content; it would be good to find some other evaluations, but that can still be done. Go Phightins! 01:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2014
- WikiProject report: We have history
- Featured content: Spot the bulldozer
- News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny
- Traffic report: Into thin air
- Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report
A beer for you!
|
Sorry Cody Asche couldn't work this time around. I'd also like to apologize for going AWOL and not notifying you, et al. Enjoy the beer and may you enjoy your camping, now that it's officially spring. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
- Hi Sportsguy17. Real life takes precedence - I understand. Replied at your talk more in depth re Asche. And camping was a blast and a half. Go Phightins! 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
When I read this I thought of your User page quotebox. "Winfield goes back to the wall, he hits his head on the wall! And it rolls off! It's rolling all the way back to second base. This is a terrible thing for the Padres." ```Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's one of my favorite quotes of all-time. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's pretty funny. I was thinking about adding: "Wikipedia is like crack. Those who like it can't get enough of it, and those who don't think it should be illegal." It was on my talk page for a while, but it's pretty funny as well. Also, I will award this week's EotW momentarily. Go Phightins! 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)