The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your kindness and courtesy. IntensityCR7 ( talk) 04:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply |
Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your help - really appreciated. Denisarona ( talk) 14:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply |
You do know of {{ minnow}} and {{ whale}}, right? Also {{ chips}}. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Your admin status is so you can facilitate the building of the encyclopedia. It is not to be used as a tool of intimidation against people you disagree with. This is shockingly unbecoming behaviour for an admin and frankly this trout is letting you off a bit light. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am very well aware your opinion Mr Blofeld. You take every opportunity to point it out to me. I think you judgement in regards to me is flawed, and I think you wait around all day looking for reasons to disagree with me. Your criticisms are vague and unhelpful. If you want to gather evidence I have done anything wrong then please do so and present it, but your unsubstantiated comments amount to little more than heckling and will be treated as such.
I think you will find that the comment was worse than "less than savoury", I think you will also find if you do your homework that I do not give out trout without a good reason. Chillum 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I have little to do with you. If you didn't stray into Eric's and Cassianto's and several other talk pages all of the time with sanctimonious little remarks I wouldn't be commenting on you. It just looks like you're just waiting to bite at them all the time. It makes me question your existence on here. You are aware that this is an encyclopedia essentially right? How often exactly do I see your name in an article history with something constructive you've contributed? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree that people should be nicer to one another. But like in the real world, people have their differences. You should know that issuing a warning to either Eric or Cassianto though is more likely to irritate them more than calmly dealing with a heated situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Instead of prolonging the endless dramah with needless posts like this, perhaps turning a blind eye once in a while over very, very minor comments may make things go a little more smoothly? Going to all the trouble to post on something so petty and minor doesn't help the situation, it racks up the tension, and that is something best avoided. Pot-stirring never ends well, so just let things die down next time, rather than inflaming the situation. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Frankly based on my observations of you I don't think I have much faith in your ability to interpret our policies, best practices, or the consensus of the community. You are a fine content creator, but I think you have strong personal biases regarding our policies that cloud your interpretations of them. Regardless you may be interested in User:Chillum/recall. You have already exhausted steps 1 and 2 unless you have something based in evidence to present. I don't think any admin has ever been desysoped for giving a sincere personal attack warning to an editor that has engaged in recent personal attacks. Chillum 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
In a recent scientific study of all ongoing threads in the entire English Wikipedia, this one was selected as the one least likely to yield a useful and positive outcome. Perhaps you could all agree to disagree at this point? Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I had to laugh a bit when I read this. Looking at my very first contribs will tell you why. -- NeilN talk to me 19:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I've pretty much had it with the Lorge family ( Robert Gerald Lorge, Gerald Lorge, William Lorge). Disruptive editing of their articles has been going on for close to a week. In fact, Runningfox34 was blocked for 31 hours for that. Now a new account, Smartvoter2006, has begun making the same types of edits to their articles. This is in addition to several IPs that appear to have been used to deflect attention from the registered accounts. It's unclear whether they're sockpuppets or meatpuppets or what, but there is certainly a concerted effort to disrupt and to ignore all WP rules. I'd like to make some sort of report, but no one ever listens to IPs. It would just get lost in the shuffle. What to do? 32.218.45.136 ( talk) 00:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
[2] 32.218.33.216 ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
We may be running an op-ed soon in favor of the RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Would you be interested in writing a counterpoint offering a dissenting viewpoint? Gamaliel ( talk) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your kindness and courtesy. IntensityCR7 ( talk) 04:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply |
Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your help - really appreciated. Denisarona ( talk) 14:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply |
You do know of {{ minnow}} and {{ whale}}, right? Also {{ chips}}. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Your admin status is so you can facilitate the building of the encyclopedia. It is not to be used as a tool of intimidation against people you disagree with. This is shockingly unbecoming behaviour for an admin and frankly this trout is letting you off a bit light. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am very well aware your opinion Mr Blofeld. You take every opportunity to point it out to me. I think you judgement in regards to me is flawed, and I think you wait around all day looking for reasons to disagree with me. Your criticisms are vague and unhelpful. If you want to gather evidence I have done anything wrong then please do so and present it, but your unsubstantiated comments amount to little more than heckling and will be treated as such.
I think you will find that the comment was worse than "less than savoury", I think you will also find if you do your homework that I do not give out trout without a good reason. Chillum 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I have little to do with you. If you didn't stray into Eric's and Cassianto's and several other talk pages all of the time with sanctimonious little remarks I wouldn't be commenting on you. It just looks like you're just waiting to bite at them all the time. It makes me question your existence on here. You are aware that this is an encyclopedia essentially right? How often exactly do I see your name in an article history with something constructive you've contributed? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree that people should be nicer to one another. But like in the real world, people have their differences. You should know that issuing a warning to either Eric or Cassianto though is more likely to irritate them more than calmly dealing with a heated situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Instead of prolonging the endless dramah with needless posts like this, perhaps turning a blind eye once in a while over very, very minor comments may make things go a little more smoothly? Going to all the trouble to post on something so petty and minor doesn't help the situation, it racks up the tension, and that is something best avoided. Pot-stirring never ends well, so just let things die down next time, rather than inflaming the situation. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Frankly based on my observations of you I don't think I have much faith in your ability to interpret our policies, best practices, or the consensus of the community. You are a fine content creator, but I think you have strong personal biases regarding our policies that cloud your interpretations of them. Regardless you may be interested in User:Chillum/recall. You have already exhausted steps 1 and 2 unless you have something based in evidence to present. I don't think any admin has ever been desysoped for giving a sincere personal attack warning to an editor that has engaged in recent personal attacks. Chillum 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
In a recent scientific study of all ongoing threads in the entire English Wikipedia, this one was selected as the one least likely to yield a useful and positive outcome. Perhaps you could all agree to disagree at this point? Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I had to laugh a bit when I read this. Looking at my very first contribs will tell you why. -- NeilN talk to me 19:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I've pretty much had it with the Lorge family ( Robert Gerald Lorge, Gerald Lorge, William Lorge). Disruptive editing of their articles has been going on for close to a week. In fact, Runningfox34 was blocked for 31 hours for that. Now a new account, Smartvoter2006, has begun making the same types of edits to their articles. This is in addition to several IPs that appear to have been used to deflect attention from the registered accounts. It's unclear whether they're sockpuppets or meatpuppets or what, but there is certainly a concerted effort to disrupt and to ignore all WP rules. I'd like to make some sort of report, but no one ever listens to IPs. It would just get lost in the shuffle. What to do? 32.218.45.136 ( talk) 00:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
[2] 32.218.33.216 ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
We may be running an op-ed soon in favor of the RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Would you be interested in writing a counterpoint offering a dissenting viewpoint? Gamaliel ( talk) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply