ChrisO~enwiki (
talk |
contribs)
→Thanks: - heh, no kidding |
HuntClubJoe (
talk |
contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{User talk:Rrius/archivebox}} |
{{User talk:Rrius/archivebox}} |
||
==RE: Okay, martyr.== |
|||
Even a noob like me knows that you can't insult people, it's actually the first [[Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable|"don't"]] on the talk guidelines page. You should at least try to conduct yourself with some class, especially after repeatedly reverting edits for fallacious reasons. Your insults impress nobody, except perhaps yourself. Keep it relevant, "pal". |
|||
== Iain Duncan Smith == |
== Iain Duncan Smith == |
||
Revision as of 23:36, 28 May 2010
 |
Welcome to my talk page. |
|
 | Things I can do to help
WikiProject U.S. Congress
edit list
|
RE: Okay, martyr.
Even a noob like me knows that you can't insult people, it's actually the first "don't" on the talk guidelines page. You should at least try to conduct yourself with some class, especially after repeatedly reverting edits for fallacious reasons. Your insults impress nobody, except perhaps yourself. Keep it relevant, "pal".
Iain Duncan Smith
"The first since his predecessor, William Hague, which isn't as special." That is not correct, William Hague did lead the Conservatives into an election in 2001, Duncan Smith who became leader after the 2001 election was forced to step down in 2003 way before the 2005 election because his colleagues did not think he was good enough for him to present the party's case to the people. I think you may have gotten confuse with the fact that Hague was the first Conservative leader not to become Prime Minister since Austen Chamberlain rather than the first Conservative leader not to lead the party into an election. The fact that Duncan Smith was not Conservative Party leader at at the time of a general election is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread it; I thought it said "election victory". - Rrius ( talk) 03:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and
Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. This edit in particular
[1] --
Rumping (
talk)
00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, you're wrong. The Skype thing was introduced in
this edit. My edit merely reverted to it. -
Rrius (
talk)
00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough - I did not spot yours [2] was a (self-)revert -- Rumping ( talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Labour Leadership
Here is my source:
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/category/inside/
-- Matty1019 ( talk) 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hoopy frood
What is it?(discovered for myself)- Have you read Gormenghast?
Kittybrewster ☎ 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- A hoopy food is a really together guy (or, I suppose gal) in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I have to admit I hadn't heard of Gormenghast until now. The closest I've read is A Song of Ice and Fire. - Rrius ( talk) 11:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
RE: TBSDY
(Continuing here per HJ) I think that may be you're problem here. You're looking at a single talkpage comment when most of the other people involved have watched a week of events that eventually led to the user being blocked, resigning his adminship "under a cloud", having his talk page deleted by an arbcom member and retiring. I think you're seeing a single tree, but there's a forest you've apparently missed.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- The issue brought up AN/I was the talk page comment and whether it is a personal attack. That's it. I think others may be missing the tree for the forest. -
Rrius (
talk)
19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figured that you had an excuse, that you didn't have knowledge of the previous events. Now it appears that even knowing there's more to the story you want to cover your ears and pretend you didn't hear it. Fair enough. If you want to keep arguing, feel free. If you want to go beyond editing and take action, you may get that answer as to was it an arbcom action or not.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no question of covering ears. An issue was brought to AN/I, and I spoke up. If the editor who is alleging a personal attack feels that a past arb com action is relevant, it is for him or her to bring it up, not for editors arriving to discuss it to go off and try to find links to a discussion that may or may not be relevant. For the time being, no one has pointed to any particular arb discussion, so I have to assume that it is not necessary to be aware of any to answer the simple question of whether the particular comment in issue was a personal attack. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I said the actual arbcom involvement was off-wiki however the notifications of results are here.
Wikipedia:BN#Admin_status &
User_talk:Newyorkbrad#At_this_time. That is if you are concerned about giving a more informed opinion. Here's the initial event if you have some free time.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Tbsdy_lives.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- None of that answers the question of how
this is personal attack. The first discussion you link to only proves what was already so obvious from the revision history it went without saying, namely, that the remark from Newyorkbrad at the top of the page was about all revision history prior to his deletion remark. I'm trying to disengage from this idiocy rather than get further into it, so I don't think I will read the second set. While I think it is wrong both to leave the page protected and to insist on the removal of what amounts to a harmless snit, I don't have the energy to discuss the matter further with a cadre of editors who are emotionally involved from prior experience with him. I would say, in parting, that you still fail to see that if those discussion somehow make the actual comment, which was the only issue at AN/I, a personal attack, they should have been raised there. If they are not, then they are irrelevant and your expectation that others should have read them is a bit much. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- My only expectation is that when people realize they're opining on a subject that they only know a fraction of the story they pause and consider. Remember the point I was trying to make to you. Not was this a personal attack, but was the protection arbcom related and unwise for HJ to restore those edits.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted the edits because the rationale was retarded. The editor I had reverted had already reverted on the grounds of personal attack and had been reverted on that score. HJ then reverted with unexplained support for the personal attack theory. I took issue with his conclusion, but asked him to take his opinion to the place where the discussion was taking place. I don't really see where the arbcom comes in to that or where you get that I was urging him to restore anything. - Rrius ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- My only expectation is that when people realize they're opining on a subject that they only know a fraction of the story they pause and consider. Remember the point I was trying to make to you. Not was this a personal attack, but was the protection arbcom related and unwise for HJ to restore those edits.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- None of that answers the question of how
this is personal attack. The first discussion you link to only proves what was already so obvious from the revision history it went without saying, namely, that the remark from Newyorkbrad at the top of the page was about all revision history prior to his deletion remark. I'm trying to disengage from this idiocy rather than get further into it, so I don't think I will read the second set. While I think it is wrong both to leave the page protected and to insist on the removal of what amounts to a harmless snit, I don't have the energy to discuss the matter further with a cadre of editors who are emotionally involved from prior experience with him. I would say, in parting, that you still fail to see that if those discussion somehow make the actual comment, which was the only issue at AN/I, a personal attack, they should have been raised there. If they are not, then they are irrelevant and your expectation that others should have read them is a bit much. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I said the actual arbcom involvement was off-wiki however the notifications of results are here.
Wikipedia:BN#Admin_status &
User_talk:Newyorkbrad#At_this_time. That is if you are concerned about giving a more informed opinion. Here's the initial event if you have some free time.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Tbsdy_lives.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no question of covering ears. An issue was brought to AN/I, and I spoke up. If the editor who is alleging a personal attack feels that a past arb com action is relevant, it is for him or her to bring it up, not for editors arriving to discuss it to go off and try to find links to a discussion that may or may not be relevant. For the time being, no one has pointed to any particular arb discussion, so I have to assume that it is not necessary to be aware of any to answer the simple question of whether the particular comment in issue was a personal attack. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figured that you had an excuse, that you didn't have knowledge of the previous events. Now it appears that even knowing there's more to the story you want to cover your ears and pretend you didn't hear it. Fair enough. If you want to keep arguing, feel free. If you want to go beyond editing and take action, you may get that answer as to was it an arbcom action or not.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
For fixing the categories on Richard Goldstone. I'd accidentally copied and pasted the new text minus the categories. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figured it was something like that, but figured I should show some uncertainty in case I missed something in all that talk page discussion, which I really didn't want to read. -
Rrius (
talk)
21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- No kidding. You didn't miss anything, I can assure you. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO~enwiki (
talk |
contribs)
→Thanks: - heh, no kidding |
HuntClubJoe (
talk |
contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{User talk:Rrius/archivebox}} |
{{User talk:Rrius/archivebox}} |
||
==RE: Okay, martyr.== |
|||
Even a noob like me knows that you can't insult people, it's actually the first [[Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable|"don't"]] on the talk guidelines page. You should at least try to conduct yourself with some class, especially after repeatedly reverting edits for fallacious reasons. Your insults impress nobody, except perhaps yourself. Keep it relevant, "pal". |
|||
== Iain Duncan Smith == |
== Iain Duncan Smith == |
||
Revision as of 23:36, 28 May 2010
|
Welcome to my talk page. |
|
|
| Things I can do to help
WikiProject U.S. Congress
edit list
|
RE: Okay, martyr.
Even a noob like me knows that you can't insult people, it's actually the first "don't" on the talk guidelines page. You should at least try to conduct yourself with some class, especially after repeatedly reverting edits for fallacious reasons. Your insults impress nobody, except perhaps yourself. Keep it relevant, "pal".
Iain Duncan Smith
"The first since his predecessor, William Hague, which isn't as special." That is not correct, William Hague did lead the Conservatives into an election in 2001, Duncan Smith who became leader after the 2001 election was forced to step down in 2003 way before the 2005 election because his colleagues did not think he was good enough for him to present the party's case to the people. I think you may have gotten confuse with the fact that Hague was the first Conservative leader not to become Prime Minister since Austen Chamberlain rather than the first Conservative leader not to lead the party into an election. The fact that Duncan Smith was not Conservative Party leader at at the time of a general election is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread it; I thought it said "election victory". - Rrius ( talk) 03:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and
Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. This edit in particular
[1] --
Rumping (
talk)
00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, you're wrong. The Skype thing was introduced in
this edit. My edit merely reverted to it. -
Rrius (
talk)
00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough - I did not spot yours [2] was a (self-)revert -- Rumping ( talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Labour Leadership
Here is my source:
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/category/inside/
-- Matty1019 ( talk) 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hoopy frood
What is it?(discovered for myself)- Have you read Gormenghast?
Kittybrewster ☎ 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- A hoopy food is a really together guy (or, I suppose gal) in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I have to admit I hadn't heard of Gormenghast until now. The closest I've read is A Song of Ice and Fire. - Rrius ( talk) 11:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
RE: TBSDY
(Continuing here per HJ) I think that may be you're problem here. You're looking at a single talkpage comment when most of the other people involved have watched a week of events that eventually led to the user being blocked, resigning his adminship "under a cloud", having his talk page deleted by an arbcom member and retiring. I think you're seeing a single tree, but there's a forest you've apparently missed.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- The issue brought up AN/I was the talk page comment and whether it is a personal attack. That's it. I think others may be missing the tree for the forest. -
Rrius (
talk)
19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figured that you had an excuse, that you didn't have knowledge of the previous events. Now it appears that even knowing there's more to the story you want to cover your ears and pretend you didn't hear it. Fair enough. If you want to keep arguing, feel free. If you want to go beyond editing and take action, you may get that answer as to was it an arbcom action or not.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no question of covering ears. An issue was brought to AN/I, and I spoke up. If the editor who is alleging a personal attack feels that a past arb com action is relevant, it is for him or her to bring it up, not for editors arriving to discuss it to go off and try to find links to a discussion that may or may not be relevant. For the time being, no one has pointed to any particular arb discussion, so I have to assume that it is not necessary to be aware of any to answer the simple question of whether the particular comment in issue was a personal attack. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I said the actual arbcom involvement was off-wiki however the notifications of results are here.
Wikipedia:BN#Admin_status &
User_talk:Newyorkbrad#At_this_time. That is if you are concerned about giving a more informed opinion. Here's the initial event if you have some free time.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Tbsdy_lives.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- None of that answers the question of how
this is personal attack. The first discussion you link to only proves what was already so obvious from the revision history it went without saying, namely, that the remark from Newyorkbrad at the top of the page was about all revision history prior to his deletion remark. I'm trying to disengage from this idiocy rather than get further into it, so I don't think I will read the second set. While I think it is wrong both to leave the page protected and to insist on the removal of what amounts to a harmless snit, I don't have the energy to discuss the matter further with a cadre of editors who are emotionally involved from prior experience with him. I would say, in parting, that you still fail to see that if those discussion somehow make the actual comment, which was the only issue at AN/I, a personal attack, they should have been raised there. If they are not, then they are irrelevant and your expectation that others should have read them is a bit much. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- My only expectation is that when people realize they're opining on a subject that they only know a fraction of the story they pause and consider. Remember the point I was trying to make to you. Not was this a personal attack, but was the protection arbcom related and unwise for HJ to restore those edits.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted the edits because the rationale was retarded. The editor I had reverted had already reverted on the grounds of personal attack and had been reverted on that score. HJ then reverted with unexplained support for the personal attack theory. I took issue with his conclusion, but asked him to take his opinion to the place where the discussion was taking place. I don't really see where the arbcom comes in to that or where you get that I was urging him to restore anything. - Rrius ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- My only expectation is that when people realize they're opining on a subject that they only know a fraction of the story they pause and consider. Remember the point I was trying to make to you. Not was this a personal attack, but was the protection arbcom related and unwise for HJ to restore those edits.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- None of that answers the question of how
this is personal attack. The first discussion you link to only proves what was already so obvious from the revision history it went without saying, namely, that the remark from Newyorkbrad at the top of the page was about all revision history prior to his deletion remark. I'm trying to disengage from this idiocy rather than get further into it, so I don't think I will read the second set. While I think it is wrong both to leave the page protected and to insist on the removal of what amounts to a harmless snit, I don't have the energy to discuss the matter further with a cadre of editors who are emotionally involved from prior experience with him. I would say, in parting, that you still fail to see that if those discussion somehow make the actual comment, which was the only issue at AN/I, a personal attack, they should have been raised there. If they are not, then they are irrelevant and your expectation that others should have read them is a bit much. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I said the actual arbcom involvement was off-wiki however the notifications of results are here.
Wikipedia:BN#Admin_status &
User_talk:Newyorkbrad#At_this_time. That is if you are concerned about giving a more informed opinion. Here's the initial event if you have some free time.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Tbsdy_lives.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
20:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no question of covering ears. An issue was brought to AN/I, and I spoke up. If the editor who is alleging a personal attack feels that a past arb com action is relevant, it is for him or her to bring it up, not for editors arriving to discuss it to go off and try to find links to a discussion that may or may not be relevant. For the time being, no one has pointed to any particular arb discussion, so I have to assume that it is not necessary to be aware of any to answer the simple question of whether the particular comment in issue was a personal attack. -
Rrius (
talk)
20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figured that you had an excuse, that you didn't have knowledge of the previous events. Now it appears that even knowing there's more to the story you want to cover your ears and pretend you didn't hear it. Fair enough. If you want to keep arguing, feel free. If you want to go beyond editing and take action, you may get that answer as to was it an arbcom action or not.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
For fixing the categories on Richard Goldstone. I'd accidentally copied and pasted the new text minus the categories. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figured it was something like that, but figured I should show some uncertainty in case I missed something in all that talk page discussion, which I really didn't want to read. -
Rrius (
talk)
21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- No kidding. You didn't miss anything, I can assure you. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)