Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MickMacNee (talk | contribs)
23,386 edits
ErrantX (talk | contribs)
Administrators
21,970 edits
Line 113: Line 113:


I don't think you should be closing your own proposals at ANI Errant, that's not an expression of consensus. Plenty of people have commented in good faith expectation of a proper closure, and you've effectivley nullified those completely, and made it inadmissable in any future DR aswell. You have simply reinforced the toxic idea that 'there's nothing you can do about Giano'. Fair enough if the consensus outcome is no sanction, but this isn't the consensus outcome. Because of that, as a conclusion of a process, your statements cannot be used for anything except your own view. And in that regard, it's not news to most people that Giano would not accept any sanctions, but for proposals made at ANI, that's really beside the point. RFC/U is the venue where he gets a say in the content of any proposed sanction, or is at liberty to ignore/ivalidate it. ANI is not. RD232's point was not exactly relevant either, there was nothing in your proposal that is not compatible with how such things work already. It was effectively a formal NPA probation. If I'm wrong on any of these points, it's for an independent closer to say so, so I'd appreciate it if you re-opened it for that purpose. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you should be closing your own proposals at ANI Errant, that's not an expression of consensus. Plenty of people have commented in good faith expectation of a proper closure, and you've effectivley nullified those completely, and made it inadmissable in any future DR aswell. You have simply reinforced the toxic idea that 'there's nothing you can do about Giano'. Fair enough if the consensus outcome is no sanction, but this isn't the consensus outcome. Because of that, as a conclusion of a process, your statements cannot be used for anything except your own view. And in that regard, it's not news to most people that Giano would not accept any sanctions, but for proposals made at ANI, that's really beside the point. RFC/U is the venue where he gets a say in the content of any proposed sanction, or is at liberty to ignore/ivalidate it. ANI is not. RD232's point was not exactly relevant either, there was nothing in your proposal that is not compatible with how such things work already. It was effectively a formal NPA probation. If I'm wrong on any of these points, it's for an independent closer to say so, so I'd appreciate it if you re-opened it for that purpose. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:Mick; I had a total of 18 emails arrive overnight in my Inbox and 3 more this morning when I was considering matters (and a few more since closing). Ranging from vague threats, to genuine concern (for me), to thoughtful advice, to basic incomprehensibility. People obviously feel extremely strongly about this - I already knew that before embarking on the shennanigans, but it is dragging on and on and, honestly, I had other things to do today :) I've no issue if people feel it is essential or useful to re-open the thread and continue the discussion, but I will no longer be involved, sorry. Giano has said he will ignore whatever is agreed anyway, so I am treating it as a dead end from my perspective. BTW, I found your comments insightful in the thread :) thanks --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]])</sup> 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:16, 3 March 2011

Please click here to leave me a new message.



Hi

Hi, perhaps you could give a third party opinion on a dispute I am having over the removal of content from the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest with user Parishan. I believe that the removal of the sourced content is politicaly motivated. Not wanting to write my reasons all over again I am giving you the link to the discussion in which Orphan Wiki also agrees with me. Hope you can see my point.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like it you can check out my stub for Emilia Carr.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article Emilia Carr has now been put up for Afd. I believe it is yet another similar situation as with the Murder of Joanna Yeates etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, I've been real busy today :) will try to look at it asap. --Errant (chat!) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Emokid

Regarding your message: Honestly, I don't know. I just stumbled on what he did while for Favonian's response to my message there. Emokid did change names (making my message his) and inserted a message with false links. And my message is actually related to several Russian addresses used by a vandal, which I posted at WP:AN/I. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you have time later, you can check out my report at WP:AN/I about those Russian IPs that I mentioned and leave your say there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into it now --Errant (chat!) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD close

Hi Errant, would you close this afd early, they became notable during the discussion as promoted to the Irish parliament.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Mitchell_O%27Connor Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got there before me :) --Errant (chat!) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking Errant. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer

Hi Errant, You know that there are more computers without keyboards (in your car, control systems, satellites, toasters...) that there are with keyboards. What you have described is a PC, not a computer. Please name one computer that is not Electronic besides the first few (less than ten), compared to billions now. There hasn't been one computer built in the past 50 years that wasn't electronic! I was trying to keep the introduction simple so that a non wizard could understand what was happening, you have drowned it in words and concepts that will prevent a ten year old from understanding what it is. Memories and peripherals were in the third paragraph, taking the novice's mind from one concept to another, one new idea at a time. Just a thought! Cheers Ezrdr (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intro you wrote is better integrated into the section describing the computer. Regardless of when computers were mechanical they can be mechanical and it is incorrect to describe them purely as electronic. It is definitely worth noting somewhere that most computers today are electronic. In regards to your first point; that was just an example of an interface. If you read the article in detail then it explains it; a computer conventionally consists of a processing unit and some form of memory. Then onto that we add any manner of peripheral I/O devices, connected by Buses. We don't really have a reading level to aim at in articles - but simplicity is good, as ytou say. Unfortunately my opinion was that what you wrote was pretty incomprehensible to a non-expert. For example Test and jump instructions allow to move within the program space and therefore to execute different instructions as a function of the current state of the machine or its environment. certainly is a high level concept :) --Errant (chat!) 12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks! Now I can log in and create pages again :) --173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent WQA thread

Hi Errant. I noticed you responded to a recent WQA thread regarding Giacomo, and I also read over the comments you and another editor left on his talk page. I must admit I'm a little confused; Giacomo seems to have a long term pattern of incivil behaviour and at least one prior successful (ie. expired, not lifted) block for such. I see that in the past it does seem that some incivility accusations against him could be considered light, but the evidence provided in the WQA thread was, in my opinion, nothing short of atrocious.

I'm curious about the reasoning you've employed here, as I'm not familiar with Giacomo's history other than a few ANI threads and the WQA thread - why do you believe that it was more appropriate to simply talk to Giacomo (unsuccessfully) when his conduct seems to warrant a stronger response? Particularly in light of the fact that this seems to be a case of ongoing repeat offences, I'm unsure of how this conclusion was reached. Are there mitigating circumstances or other pieces of information that might help me understand the rationale here? Regards, TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Well the history of it is that any discussion about Giano's civility descends into nastiness and drama as his supporters and haters (both of which are equally problematic) get into slanging matches. I mostly closed it and attempted to talk to Giano because the admin that brought the WQA thread was already getting messages on his talk page chastising him for what was a clear good faith action. To try and mitigate that and the impending disaster I hoped a personal approach would work. It has not, and having slept on it I am now prepared to raise the matter myself for the community to discuss on [{WP:AN/I]] --Errant (chat!) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo

I think you are mostly right, I think nothing will happen, I don't know how to improve the situation, but boy, would I have liked it if you had posted your request 5 minutes earlier or half an hour later ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are 100% right. Sadly I can't in good faith let it ride. :( (ah.. sorry for that, I'll take a look at it myself before work consumes me) :) --Errant (chat!) 10:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

Have you been checking the Commons versions of the files you're deleting? I'm finding almost every one of them needs to be fixed in some way, you're deleting them faster than I can look. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek, yes I have been checking all of them. I haven't seen an issue needing fixing, apologies, got any specific examples? --Errant (chat!) 12:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the Greek Prime Minister images had the wrong link, and almost every "own work"/"self" image that is transferred credit the person who transferred it to Commons rather than the original uploader (example). --Closedmouth (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see your fixes... some of those didn't occur to me (the death dates thing) because of the commons differences on licensing, but I should have caught the links :s I checked the other images & I think ZrO2powder is the only one I could see at a double check that I got wrong (actually I saw it was credited to MS and missed that the link and source were wrong). I'll dial it back, was fitting in deletions between spates of work ;) --Errant (chat!) 12:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I make the reasonable assumption that images uploaded under the same username on Commons within a reasonable timeframe of the original upload are from the same person. I take it that is acceptable? --Errant (chat!) 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Files at F8 specifies the (stringent) requirements and death dates are mentioned. Thincat (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

So was that what you were looking for?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to say? Oh noes, drama!! :) Apart from the aside involving Giano it is very restrained. I think support for the sanction is actually firming up and I am confident that this time it might stick. I am less confident it will impress on Giano, but I am always hopeful :) --Errant (chat!) 20:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a yes. It's what I expected, and I always prefer the truth.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You added this. Apart from the aside involving Giano it is very restrained.. That's fantastic considering entire thread is involving Giano. If that's not a perfect example of asking Mrs. Lincoln how she enjoyed the play I don't know what is.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't really understand what the point of this specific discussion is exactly :) but I'll try to respond. I find Giano's response somewhat perplexing and disappointing. *shrug* Outside of it conversation is fairly restrained. Is there a point you are trying to get across? Because I am afraid I am missing it. :( --Errant (chat!) 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that you were aware of the negative quality of your actions and how opposed they were to the action you made in closing the WQA thread. I was hoping you on reflection wished you were more like yesterdays ErrantX than today's ErrantX.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's the same ErrantX. :) I closed the thread on the hope that Giano would respond to the concerns raised in the way expected by WP:NPA but without causing drama. He didn't. So this happened, it is, sadly, on him. I sat and reflected for some time before posting the thread, and took my time to carefully express my thoughts. I am happy with what I did; ultimately if it stops the behaviour issue then it is a positive action. Thanks for your thoughts, though. --Errant (chat!) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still think this will end well. It will not. But at least you-re happy. "Regards".--Cube lurker (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was obviously going to be a big discussion about it, with people holding viewpoints on both sides, but is that a reason to be afraid of the discussion? Why should the community not have the opportunity to comment on the issue? Why does anyone who tries to give the community that opportunity, get badgered like this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was honestly hopeful that drama could be avoided, the thread was going really well, and to be frank I think there was strong support. But once the close war starts and some of the more dramatic commentators come on board it risks devolving into a slanging match. I'm not sure I meant to imply people should close it on my behest, but that's my fault for a poor choice of words ;) --Errant (chat!) 23:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider my communications with ErrantX being termed badgering a personal attack.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA has more information on how to identify personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have an opportunity here. Giano was referred to as a twat in the ANI thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good thing I wasn't holding my breath.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not I needs my beauty sleep :) If it's madly urgent and prompting email will usually wake me up. Issue is now addressed. Look, you seem to be here to provoke a reaction or to prove a point about my actions. That's very unlikely to happen. But in light of it I think this discussion has reached a natural conclusion. --Errant (chat!) 08:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Cube lurker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have you even read what i write?

I have read some extraordinary statements in my time at Wikipedia, but I believe yours here has just taken the proverbial biscuit for underhand misconstruction of fact. [1]

"Someone incapable of interacting pleasantly in difficult situations should not be doing article work - it is simply fortunate that Giano works in a relatively non-contentious area” I consider this to be an attack far worse than any I have ever made. Has it occurred to you that the reason I don't have problems writing and editing is not that “I work in a non contentious area” but that those of us in that field are able to understand each others views and and debate them accordingly in a civilised fashion and I do so with them. How dare you say “I should not be doing article work” I expect were my interest those of image fiddling, porn stars and comic characters I would find those with similar interests just as agreeable, as it is I don't even bother those pages or dive in with my opinion. In fact, if you check my edits, everytime I go near an area of contention, I seek outside advice from other editors, often from those I know will have a different perspective in order to avoid contention.

This recent problem arose from gross stupidity and it was not mine. So when writing your “thoughtful” conclusion, try and do some thinking and if you think political and social history is not contentious, especially when it touches on Ireland and Jews, then you really are a little out of touch - or is it that you don't even know what I write and where I write. If you want to malign my editing, get your facts straight first.Giacomo Returned 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giano; The comment was not brilliantly expressed, on reflection. I have ckarified it. My point was a more general one along the lines of "you can be an awesome article contributor but if you end up being nasty in content disputes it will never end well", with the addendum that this was not the sort of dispute I've ever seen you in. Hopefully that is clearer, and intended as a positive note.
DGG has a comment (which I've lost for the moment) which epitomises my thinking entirely; I agree entirely with your comments about the underlying problem, but disagree entirely your response is appropriate or helpful --Errant (chat!) 09:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why mention content disputes at all then? - I have never been directly involved in a serious one - perhaps one (I say that just to cover myself, but I can't remember one) - in 7 years of editing 1,000s of articles and certainly never one that has required the community or the Arbcom to add their ten cents worth anywhere but the talk page. I am begining to wonder quite where your information about me is coming from, but I can't be bothered to go there. Please check out your sources before mentioning me in future. Heresay can be very misleading you should not beleive everything you are told about me. Giacomo Returned 10:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW no one has "given me" any information on you. I act on my own volution. Believe or disbelieve that as you wish. The "content editor issue" is a wider part of the discussion, I didn't disengage it well from the specific discussion about you in that case, for which I apologise --Errant (chat!) 10:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you seem to have a very narrow idea of the areas and places in which I work. Well, I will disengage with you now, I can't say that I have enjoyed meeting you - hopefully our paths won't cross again - unless you suddenly develop an interest in architecture, social history, boxing, historic political biography or politics. I'm at a loss to know why our paths did cross, there was certainly no crossing on my part - ever. Let me give you some parting advice: If you don't like somebody here, wait for them to come and chase you, never go chasing them. It's my golden rule here. Later, it's always interesting watching those who come chasing me - it may take a year or so, but they always prove their true colours eventually. There used to be a page "The spooky curse of Giano" - I was too lazy to keep it up to date so I deleted it - pity. Farewell. Giacomo Returned 10:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be closing your own proposals at ANI Errant, that's not an expression of consensus. Plenty of people have commented in good faith expectation of a proper closure, and you've effectivley nullified those completely, and made it inadmissable in any future DR aswell. You have simply reinforced the toxic idea that 'there's nothing you can do about Giano'. Fair enough if the consensus outcome is no sanction, but this isn't the consensus outcome. Because of that, as a conclusion of a process, your statements cannot be used for anything except your own view. And in that regard, it's not news to most people that Giano would not accept any sanctions, but for proposals made at ANI, that's really beside the point. RFC/U is the venue where he gets a say in the content of any proposed sanction, or is at liberty to ignore/ivalidate it. ANI is not. RD232's point was not exactly relevant either, there was nothing in your proposal that is not compatible with how such things work already. It was effectively a formal NPA probation. If I'm wrong on any of these points, it's for an independent closer to say so, so I'd appreciate it if you re-opened it for that purpose. MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick; I had a total of 18 emails arrive overnight in my Inbox and 3 more this morning when I was considering matters (and a few more since closing). Ranging from vague threats, to genuine concern (for me), to thoughtful advice, to basic incomprehensibility. People obviously feel extremely strongly about this - I already knew that before embarking on the shennanigans, but it is dragging on and on and, honestly, I had other things to do today :) I've no issue if people feel it is essential or useful to re-open the thread and continue the discussion, but I will no longer be involved, sorry. Giano has said he will ignore whatever is agreed anyway, so I am treating it as a dead end from my perspective. BTW, I found your comments insightful in the thread :) thanks --Errant (chat!) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErrantX&action=historysubmit&diff=416924718&oldid=416923980