→focus: new section |
→focus: focusing rp to Ched and IRWolfie |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
I'm not asking you to leave ... I'm not asking you to give up you beliefs .. I'm asking you to be considerate to others. — [[User:Chedzilla|<small><font style="color:#000080;"><b>Ched</b></font></small>]][[User_talk:Chedzilla|<font style="color:#FF0000;"><b><i>ZILLA</i></b></font>]] 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
I'm not asking you to leave ... I'm not asking you to give up you beliefs .. I'm asking you to be considerate to others. — [[User:Chedzilla|<small><font style="color:#000080;"><b>Ched</b></font></small>]][[User_talk:Chedzilla|<font style="color:#FF0000;"><b><i>ZILLA</i></b></font>]] 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Focusing. @Ched: you're giving a skewed picture of the editing and the talkpage interchanges of the two editors in question here (and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=579595087#Statement_by_Chedzilla_.28aka_Ched.29 here]. I'm sorry to have to say this, but, in my opinion, you wear different glasses for reading their respective posts. "Stalking hounding AE posts", "attempt to get Olive banned" — no. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Littleolive_oil That] wasn't an attempt to get Olive banned, it was a request for Olive to be warned not to violate the topic ban and for clarification that it applied to talk pages. The AE isn't closed yet, but it's clearly going to comply precisely with IRWolfie's request. The principle you state, "''As far as Wikipedia goes, both sides should be presented''" is simplistic. They should, yes, but saying just that says nothing: the point is they should not be presented ''in the same way'' nor ''with equal weight''. |
|||
:@IRWolfie: your attacks on Ched above are over the top and very nasty. I understand that your patience snapped. You're a very valuable editor and something of a hero to me, as are all the patient last-ditch defenders of the wiki against the inroads of fringe zealots. I hope you ''will'' come back. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 11:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC). |
Revision as of 11:48, 31 October 2013
List of Topics Characterized as Pseudoscience
Sorry I no longer edit here
|
---|
I think we are making good headway with our discussion. Thank you for that. Ronz has indicated that since he doesn't approve of the entry in any manner -- in spite of the reliable sources -- there will be no entry. I cannot imagine this is how Wikipedia functions; where a lone dissenter can dictate what goes into an article. I respect that you took out the entry in order to attempt to achieve an consensual version, but how can we ever achieve consensus when one editor has already decided that there will be no entry? Also, here is the preview of the book on Google where you can read most of the chapter in question. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Let me be clear
I don't give a good flying shit about TM things. As far as Wikipedia goes, both sides should be presented. Olive has been a focus of these things as has Keithbob ... you have also been heavily involved. Those who adhere to current "medical" things consider TM to be "hokum" .. which is fine. Cases have been had - sanctions have been made - STOP pursuing an agenda against an individual editor.
If I see you make one more attempt to get Olive banned ... one more stalking hounding AE post - I WILL dig out my admin bits and block you. period. Consider this a discretionary sanction. You can not attack Olive for 6 months, or you will be blocked. Am I clear on this? — ChedZILLA 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I will not lie. Your post has severely annoyed me. As far as Wikipedia goes, both sides should be presented. No Ched, that is your own naive misunderstanding of policy. WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE are quite clear where the weight is assigned, but I don't think you would understand. Of course you haven't reviewed the GAR that lead to the John Hagelin article being delisted for over-promotion of fringe theories, or the conflict of interest which I established in the AE. I would highlight the exact case, but I have done elsewhere, but lets not bother you with facts. Facts make opinions so much the harder.
- Ched, your editing contributions are negligible, please don't try and tell me about what should go in a wikipedia article, you don't have a clue. You don't know what any of these articles should look like, and you barely participate in talk pages or anything close to content. You haven't made a serious level of article editing here since 2009, and that limited to NASCAR racing. I see no useful mop work. Your words carry no worth with me. Your a non-contributor who uses wikipedia as a social networking site and who seems to base his decisions off his personal interactions and his personal feelings and not use the evidence from copious diffs and the edits to articles. I can absolutely guarantee you haven't bothered looking at the enforcement diffs or the talk page accusations which lead to the original ban, rather your gut instinct is probably on full speed. With you it's all about style over substance, olive is civil to you, so she's civil to everyone in your eyes. I have been nothing but civil to Olive and I have only received hate in return. Ched considering the requests I have made had merit and have been acted upon makes your assertions absolutely nonsensical. The idea that the request is closing with exactly the response I asked for; a warning, is somehow harassment is laughable, but perhaps not from the perspective of the social networking expert like yourself.
- You are the epitome of the worst admin. You don't contribute but stroll around and jump to the defence of "wikifriends" (it's no coincidence that you are in cahoots with some equally useless compatriots [1][2]).
- You don't understand content policies and provide little of merit here. Please get off my page and hopefully you'll stop wasting everyone else's time by staying off their user talk pages. Don't ever edit my page again. If I've repeated myself at any point it is because of my aforementioned annoyance. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I am done, thanks for all the fish
- I am done. In exchange for me you get Ched over here. He likes NASCAR and but doesn't give a "flying shit about TM things". He ain't one of them science folks, but he likes hearing them engines purr. He doesn't like editing articles, most likely doesn't understand what they are even about, but he's probably good for a chat. Good luck especially to Josh, MastCell, Dominus, Doug Weller, LuckyLouie, Dennis Brown, Paul B, Blueboar, Binksternet, Itsmejudith, John Carter, Ramos1990 (Who I respect though disagree with on most things), AndyTheGrumpy, Dominus Vobisdu, David in DC (I wish him well although I think he is misguided a little), vzaak, TheRedPenOfDoom, Bobrayner, Doc James, Zad68, Alexbrn, and everyone else I forgot who edits in areas I edited in. I may be back, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please feel free to delete any message by "don't give a good flying shit" Ched or any fringe proponent from my talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is always a healthy decision to leave this place, for whatever reason, and, because of that, I admire you. In a perfect system, the followers of the Maharishi would be banned from WP:OWNing pages on their pet subject, but Wikipedia is more-or-less the opposite of perfect. Unfortunately, the realpoliticking of certain mid-previous-decade folks made the admin class at this website predisposed to protect the Maharishi cultists. It's a sad state of affairs, but it is what it is. Hopefully, someday, the Maharishi supporters will be drummed out as Jossifresco or the homeopaths or the creationists were. Until such time, we'll just keep trying to make inroads in hope that fact and reason prevail.
- One piece of advice: install some good software that will block wikipedia sites for a predetermined period of time so you aren't tempted to see the kind of nonsense that dominates here.
focus
I'm not asking you to leave ... I'm not asking you to give up you beliefs .. I'm asking you to be considerate to others. — ChedZILLA 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Focusing. @Ched: you're giving a skewed picture of the editing and the talkpage interchanges of the two editors in question here (and also here. I'm sorry to have to say this, but, in my opinion, you wear different glasses for reading their respective posts. "Stalking hounding AE posts", "attempt to get Olive banned" — no. That wasn't an attempt to get Olive banned, it was a request for Olive to be warned not to violate the topic ban and for clarification that it applied to talk pages. The AE isn't closed yet, but it's clearly going to comply precisely with IRWolfie's request. The principle you state, "As far as Wikipedia goes, both sides should be presented" is simplistic. They should, yes, but saying just that says nothing: the point is they should not be presented in the same way nor with equal weight.
- @IRWolfie: your attacks on Ched above are over the top and very nasty. I understand that your patience snapped. You're a very valuable editor and something of a hero to me, as are all the patient last-ditch defenders of the wiki against the inroads of fringe zealots. I hope you will come back. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC).