User talk:Whedonette

Archive.

Question

Are you a sockpuppet? Yuser31415^@? 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I Googled the term, and found this. No, I'm not. This is the only username I edit under at Wikipedia. The kind of person who does that sort of thing, however, doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would be honest about the question. So, I suppose it's a Catch-22. This is, honestly, the only username I use at Wikipedia, but a sockpuppet would say the same thing, I imagine. — Whedonette (ping) 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's what the word "this" links to. :-) — Whedonette (ping) 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What I don't like about you. As unfair as that is.

I will be as civil as possible.

You are overly aggressive, combative, and quick to attack the logical fallacies and weaknesses of others without seemingly considering their points or attempting to gently correct their flaws. You are mocking, sarcastic, acerbic, and (while obviously both highly logical and highly intelligent) cruel at times. You remind me of the sort of a certain type of user: someone who knows they're smarter than most people, who has no patience for idiots, and is all too quick to apply that label.

I despise hypocritical activities and thinking (which is why I agreed with your delete rationale) and I fully admit that I suffer from many of the same flaws, if not more so. But I also attempt, at times, to soften my fangs. There are a lot of solid people in that flamewar fighting you, including at least two full-blown Deletionists who usually have orgasms over the deletion of articles like this.

If I were you I would step back from AfD. Work on something else at Wikipedia. I know the Wikipedia is not only full of piles of POV screed-shit and obvious fallices but total and complete trash....but focusing on it just burns one out. You feel like someone who is familiar with Wikipedia and who is upset at it.

Finally, I probably went too far in my statement on the AfD page. My own problem is that my anger flares very quickly and I'm very good with cutting sarcastic remarks. If I offended you I apologize.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Softening my fangs is often hard. I, myself, before I hit that save page button, make myself stop and re-read what I just wrote. I ask myself "Am I getting carried away here?" When I try to explain things or discuss things, I have to realize most people aren't members of Mensa or really concerned about what I think. It comes down to what you want to happen. If you simply want to eviscerate idiots (a guilty pleasure if there ever was one, and WP is such a target-rich environment) then you can just post whatever. But when you're trying to make a point, especially about something that other people feel strongly about, you have to keep on the "line". I do that by restating the pertinent arguments, and ignoring the strawmen, the ad hominem attacks, the logical fallacies, and instead focusing on the basics. If people won't accept that, then you've done all you could do, in the most civil manner, and assumed good faith as much as you can. That's what I do. My methods work for me because I'm a cruel, sarcastic bitch who is all too often actually softer -hearted than I show. You appear to have a certain level of ... hardness and an edge I don't. It might be harder for you. Then again, argue with badlydrawnjeff a few times and you might contemplate murder. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

.... yeah, that's what I mean. And that guy's an idiot of such caliber that he can kill small woodland animals by inducing spontaneous brain tumors from IQ loss just by listening to him. shrug The more vitriolic someone is, the quicker you will be targeted and plastered by some admin with an inappreciation for sarcasm and a damaged humor capacity. I've seen it enough times that I've scaled back my own levels of sarcasm drastically after an admin basically threatened to ban me for the hint of incivility to a troll. Just so you know. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. That was being nice and civil, even when dealing with a person who would try the patience of Phaedriel. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Sean gorter

I agree with most of what was said on his page. But there's one thing I'd like to draw your attention to:

Please note that continued recreation of content deleted as a result of a community deletion process is against Wikipedia policy, and violation of this policy may lead to administrators implementing appropriate disciplinary measures against you, assuming they judge such measures as appropriate.

This is a misunderstanding of the way that blocking works. Blocks should never be implimented as a "disciplinary measure"- though it's sometimes hard to see that if you don't really know why someone was blocked. Blocks are preventative measures, to stop people from damaging the encyclopedia. That's why in the past I have blocked someone for 10 minutes when I asked them to stop doing something and they didn't, because it was damaging the encyclopedia. That user didn't deserve a punishment (which blocks aren't), but did need to be stopped so they could realise the mistake they were making. I hope you understand this. Thanks. --Deskana talk 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for you

And please note that one Celestianpower's userpage, he has permission to upload a header for himself. Why can't I? ~~•Sean•gorter• ^{Get a signature!} 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it

Trying to figure out what did happen to it though. At least I know it's not just me seeing it. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, just so you know, Wikipedia thinks you did it. — Whedonette (ping) 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case it appears that Wikipedia is wrong.  :-) It looks like there was a system wide hiccup that affected edits across the project that were made during a short time span. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this was something similar. I most definitely didn't blank that page ... — Whedonette (ping) 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinking no, it's not related. All of the related glitches appear to have occurred at the same time over a span of just a couple of minutes. The edit you reference was several days ago. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your behavior on the page was fine

Perhaps abrupt a time or two, but I didn't understand what people were complaining about. I don't know you, so I can't defend the sockpuppet claims, but as far as civility, I saw nothing amiss whatsoever and will support you on that issue whereever required. Please don't let other people beat you down—listen to them, consider their point of view, but don't abandon yours if you believe you are correct. It's OK to make accomodation to get along, but don't do it to appease other's poor behavior or whining (and before anyone gets upset at this, I'm not characterizing anybody in particular's behavior). —Doug Bell ^talk 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem

Hi, please don't remove MFD tags from pages. Consensus must be reached before it can be moved. bibliomaniac15 01:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Judging from the contents of your talk page, you've come under some diatribes. Here are some tips to help you keep the cool.

• Ignore. This often works the best. When you participate in a consensus-type "meeting" (can't find any better term), just keep it at that to prevent future attacks.
• Prevention. Of course, not participating in such controversial deletion consensuses is the best way to avoid such things, although that doesn't completely safeguard you.
• Polite reminders. If you feel like you are being attacked, leave a polite reminder on their talk page (neutral or positive connotations). If something is really drastic, e.g. if someone is attacking you with death threats or the like, ask an admin.
• Not everyone is perfect. Of course, there will be times were others and you will make mistakes (tell me about it...). Just remember, be civil, take deep breaths, go to the sandbox activities, or just find some way to let out the wikistress. Don't make sudden accusations at others.
• Some people have different beliefs. On your present talk page, they all seem to be from the so-called "deletionist cabal" with the "dark armies of cruftslayers" (see Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#After the whole of Esperanza gets nominated for MfD - fears that the whole of the Department of Fun may be nominated for MfD). Don't tangle with them, or inevitably, something will burst out from you, and you'll have sudden wikistress, as myself and many of my Esperanzian buddies can attest to.

I hope my rather large edit will help guide you through your status as a Wikipedian, and though I'm somewhat slow to get things, I'll help you to the best of my ability. :)

Yes, don't tangle with us, we're clearly evil since we went after Esperanza. cough

My own recommendations for avoiding trouble.

• Qualify. Look at the fights you get into and the discussions, and most importantly who's involved. Some topics (Judaism, LGBT issues, linguistics, anything racial or nationalist, and 9/11 conspiracy theory) is like you get you banned if you oppose certain admins positions.
• Good faith. Never forget that sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice. When you see red, ask yourself : "Can this person chew gum and walk at the same time, based on the coherence of his arguments?" If your answer is no, then don't waste time arguing.
• Cluesticks. If at logic doesn't succeed, there's always the Calton approach: point out the policy, clearly, and without any insults and rancor. Sooner or later, the person ignoring policy will make a personal attack, and they will destroy their own arguments.
• Not everyone is perfect, but most people are actively biased. I know I am. Remember that the other person has a stake invested in something -- a personal position, months of hard work on a page, etc. Try to compromise before staking them to the wall, and never use the threat of banning or whining to admins to reason.
• Write articles. Find a topic to write about, and do so! The more actual contributions you have, the more leeway you have and the less likely people are to hurl accusations of sockpuppetry or bias at you. Steer clear of the Cabal of Kittens, Hope, and Hugs, since these people are inclusionists (which doesn't seem to fit your style) and can cause you wikistress, as my Dark Cabal of Deletion buddies can attest to.

Hopefully, you'll realize that no matter how much advice we give, what your time like is on Wikipedia is up to you, but you might try checking out the IRC channel. It's usually great fun. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC), Mistress of the Deletionist Cabal

Coming in on Elara's sockpuppetry point, I will be watching your contributions from now on. Please consider editing more in the main article namespace if you are not a sockpuppet, as your current history looks deeply suspect. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What I will never understand is the deletionist cabal. I agree with Elaragirl's recommendations, but I find the sarcasm rather unwarranted. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Yes, I read your message on Doug's talk page, and I see why you're upset with the ad hominen attacks. Although personally, I would not have made the argument that the users like AtionSong didn't work on anything but the poem.

My personal guideline for staying out of trouble is:

Assume good faith, and assume others are clever but that they don't understand what you are saying. Always be ready to explain something, and if you are civil and calm, then if you are correct in your arguments you will win.

(Hey, I don't always follow that! Help! :).

Best wishes,

Yuser31415^@?clean 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

re: Heads up

I just saw your message on Elara and Doug's talk pages (they're watchlisted) and just wanted to let you know that Elara actually isn't an admin. Just to clear that up! Take care, riana_dzasta 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Although I am an admin (as of less than two weeks ago) and I have a high regard for her views, Elaragirl is not an admin. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just now noticed that riana already informed you about Elara...guess that's an problem with the + at the top of the page. I didn't see riana's post until I already left mine. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. Amended note. In any case, point made, and if need be, you could always hopefully assist Dev920 in finding an objective admin. Point being I'm not rejecting the concept of monitoring — I plan to have nothing to be afraid of anyone seeing — I just don't want Dev920 continuing to "monitor" me, given the way he conducted himself in the MfD towards me. — Whedonette (ping) 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Dev920 is not an admin either. You can see the list of current admins at Wikipedia:List of administrators. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Or to save a boatload of time ;) You can put something in your monobook that gives you a 'user rights' tab... I think it's User:Cactus.man/Scripts/MoreTabs.js. riana_dzasta 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thx! — Whedonette (ping) 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Some points to consider:

1. Despite being new, you don't have any more or less standing than anyone else here. That includes me, Dev920, etc. (I learned this in a somewhat bigger way after I'd been here around 3 months, so I can understand the feeling that you're at a disadvantage and need to defend yourself.)
2. It's probably best not to stir things up more than they already are until, and if, you are wikistalked or have a problem. As you've found out, there are avenues for resolving this. Although I'll admit that I might have been tempted to take the same route, trying to preempt the issue in the manner that you have is probably not helpful.
3. I've already warned Dev920 not to continue with the sockpuppet claims on talk pages until, and if, there is more to support the claim than one user's suspicion. There are appropriate channels for resolving these concerns. Unfortuneately, sockpuppetry is not uncommon here, so the concern is legitimate, but that doesn't justify being incivil about it.

So what I suggest is to continue to contribute, perhaps taking whatever lessons you think you've learned and advice you think useful. Don't anticipate problems or precipitate them until they are actually problems. If you need help or advice, I think as evidenced by comments on this page, you have some people you can turn to. Your skin will thicken as you gain experience here and hopefully you'll be able to better weather the little (and big) storms when they happen.

One last thing I'll repeat is what I said here earlier. I don't think you've been incivil nor have conducted yourself in a manner that requires admonishment at all. There are lots of different styles here, and I actually kind of like yours, so don't feel you can't be yourself. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikistalking"

I find it interesting that you accused me of assuming bad faith, but then assumed some bad faith of your own by believing I am monitoring you because I intend to harrass you. I said I was going to watch your contributions, not edit every single page you edit to let people know I think you're a sockpuppet. That would be wikistalking, and not only wrong but, quite frankly, I have better things to do. Simply monitoring an editor's contributions is not wrong, and one of the very interesting things you quoted at me also included this, which you apparently did not notice: Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy. I have no intention of "nitpicking", and would point out that your belief that I do constitutes bad faith. Please, go ahead and report me to an administrator, and I will refer them to the Incidents Admin board, where I reported you for suspected block violations here. Two editors, including an administrator, agreed with me that your editing history is suspicious. I will be continuing to watch your contributions. If you are not, indeed, a sockpuppet, you have nothing to fear, and I am simply checking another editor's contributions in the same way I check my friends', and I would suggest you edit some more articles before repeatedly nominating things for deletion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment here was going fine until and I would suggest you edit some more articles before repeatedly nominating things for deletion. That's really not appropriate. People are free to spend their time here working on what interests them. There's lots of stuff here that shouldn't be, and if Whedonette wants to work on good-faith nominations for deletion, that's really not your or my business to say otherwise. As I admonished Whedonette above, it's not a good idea to go looking for problems and trying to preempt them. Until, and if, Whedonette starts making a bunch of bad faith nominations, you should assume good faith. Oh, and the suspicions still don't amount to enough to warrant tagging Whedonette's edits on talk pages, but I think you already know that. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally Whedonette, had you bothered to take a look at my userpage before jumping into threats of ArbCom, you would know that I am female. Please stop referring to me as he. Thankyou, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Dev920? Perhaps I've not made this as clear as I could, so let me strip away just one layer of courtesy and say this bluntly: LEAVE ME ALONE. Also, for your reference, please see the last paragraph of the section that this links to. Obliged. Have a nice day! — Whedonette (ping) 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one may use he if a person's gender is not clear. Mine is clear. USE IT. I will let you go off and MfD stuff now. Have fun with that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, because the handle "Dev920" has several very clear gender cues, doesn't it, and in the absence of a gender cue in someone's handle, we should all take the time to go check their userpage for userboxes? Hell, people have been using the male prounoun with me, and my handle's Whedonette, which isn't very ambiguous. Okay, let's strip one more layer of courtesy away from this, since you're not getting the message: GO AWAY. LEAVE ME ALONE. YOU ARE NOT A NICE PERSON, AND I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU ANY LONGER. Are we clear yet? GO AWAY. — Whedonette (ping) 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You may not have realised by now, but simply shouting at people in bold doesn't tend to make them very inclined to acquiesce to your request. Particularly when you refuse to acquiesce to mine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)