This user is a WikiSloth.

User talk:Nigelj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPA[edit]

To assert that another editor is removing "people they don't like" from articles is a personal attack. As a matter of fact, I quite like Klein as a writer. It is an easily checked matter of record that the ref I removed was an essay she wrote (as part of the roll-out of her recent book). Her opinion piece in the Nation is reliable for her opinion, per policy. That is why I removed the ref. Attacking the editor, as opposed to discussing the edit or adding better ref, is uncivil and inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hardly. It might - maybe - indicate doubt about the other's good faith, but its hardly a personal attack. Unless of course you don't assume good faith yourself. That does open the door to your interpretation of this ambiguous example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi NAEG! Well, I took it that way (removing people they don't like from articles is an act of malice). If the statement was not, I apologize. I find the idea that editors publicly attribute motivations and malice to the other editors generally to be a bad idea. We should, in my opinion, discuss edits their form and their compliance with policy and guidelines. We should not be speculating on the imagined likes and dislikes of other editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You're reaching when you just assume other's motivations involve "malice". Could be any number of emotional states, or none at all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I may have been reaching. I "assume" that I was being accused of an act of malice. But perhaps you are correct, I think taking material out of articles by people I don't like because I don't like them is a bad thing and malicious. So I assume when accused of it I am being accused of being malicious. Some people may think removing the material of people they don't like from articles is a good thing and thus could be a compliment in certain circumstances. In this circumstance, however, Niglej clearly didn't think it was a good thing because he reverted the edit with an observation attributing the edit to my personal animus. That's why I assumed it was a personal attack. Again, if I have misunderstood this assertion I apologize. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I will take some time to consider that this was a mere mistake by Nigelj or oversensitivity on my part as I generally think Nigelj a very good editor. Perhaps that's why the edit summary was so jarring. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sig[edit]

You may wish to sign this comment. Am currently thinking about how best to word my own support, . dave souza, talk 18:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks Dave. --Nigelj (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your use of the rollback tool[edit]

This was an inappropriate use of the rollback tool, which is never to be used except in cases of edits obviously made in bad-faith. Reverts related to content disputes require manual edit summaries explaining your action. Thanks. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. My apologies for that. I normally use the Twinkle links, and on that occasion I expected to be presented with a textbox for my summary too, but my memory of that style of rollback link's behaviour was faulty. Therefore I immediately wrote my rationale onto the Talk page. In your experience, though, are there many occasions when deleting an entire section, title and all, is constructive and done in good faith? --Nigelj (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I've probably made the same mistake. Thanks to both of you for the reminder. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Occupy Wall Street[edit]

can you help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Huge_section_on_Police_infiltration_is_completely_gone.21 16:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

After all these edits by you and other people, I'm afraid I can't, easily. I think that all of you need to stop hacking away at the article in this way, set it back to a stable version, and discuss the proposed edits before making them. --Nigelj (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)