Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 109: Line 109:
:P.S. Looking at your interests here, I think you will find [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war this] amusing. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
:P.S. Looking at your interests here, I think you will find [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war this] amusing. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
::Didn't read. My interests (in terms of wiki process) is more about ''prevention'' of edit wars, amicable [[WP:Dispute resolution]], and retention of a diverse population of editors. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 10:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
::Didn't read. My interests (in terms of wiki process) is more about ''prevention'' of edit wars, amicable [[WP:Dispute resolution]], and retention of a diverse population of editors. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 10:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

== NPA ==
If it wasn't for the way that the other user spoke to me and threatened me then I would have not responded in the manner that I did. I hope that you have also spoken to him about his conduct. [[User:DaveA2424|DaveA2424]] ([[User talk:DaveA2424|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:48, 5 January 2017


Tricks for consensus in a heated environment
Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal remember that they are saying nothing about you and are instead telling the world they either lack discipline or else are consciously manipulating you to change the issue. So a personal attack by your assailant is nothing more than their own self-destruction. Smile to yourself, feel sorry for them, and move on. They are creating their own sanction by destroying their own editor-image. If you must stick with it, try very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. Then you don't have to get hot yourself.

Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. Besides, the exercise uncovers simple misunderstanding the majority of the time. If they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith, either way... know when to politely quit trying and stick to that decision. Don't waffle back and forth about it or you'll really get bombarded when you try to end it. Just don't shoot any parting salvos and leave the door ajar. (I don't know why doors like to have the company of jars, but it seems to help.) An interesting essay along these lines is writing for your opponent.

Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
13Y
15,000+This user has made more than 15,000 contributions to Wikipedia, on over 1,560 distinct pages.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

25-50-25

  • 25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.
  • 25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.
  • Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference.

Barnstars

Civility Award
For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles Dkriegls (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

For exceptional and tireless work on the Malheur Occupation article and its sub-articles. MB298 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 HighInBC 00:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Thanks, I self alerted at the start of my involvement there, and I've alerted several others, so I'm certainly on notice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good to know. Thanks. HighInBC 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to hit the sack for me.

Thanks for cleaning that up before anyone else read it. I need to grab some sleep as I'm obviously too tired to do a decent job. I reverted a couple of my own long edits a couple of months ago, accidentally. Also, I do find the political are an inseparable part of some of these situations which the articles cover. That's certainly the case with the Bundys, as is religion. I don't think any of the players were polygamists, but a great many were close to those FLDS and/or Centennial Park group communities. I haven't seen anyone take note of it in all the coverage. Ugh. Oh, are you going to the Wikipedia conference next month? Activist (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mormon connection is seriously under told, as is the context in the decades long Sagebrush rebellion. The story of the forest has been lost in the trees. Happy sleeping! I'm turning towards real life myself. As to the conference, nope, not going. You? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, going. Activist (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, enjoy! Ever been to such a thing? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't. I hope I won't be disappointed. Activist (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you post a write up on your talk page afterwards please ping me. Have fun NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy to. Activist (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In going back to review that article, when I noticed it had Finicum's domicile wrong, I noticed that many non-reliable sources referred to his death as a "murder." That even included the obit announcement on Legacy.com So I read it again today and noticed that the weasel word "allegedly" had been used to describe his reaching for gun before his death. I read the sources cited for the standing text and the word wasn't there. So I took your advice, wrote a TALK explanation, and changed the word to "apparently," and provided a definitive source. I posted to the article's TALK page and then made the edit. I expect I may run into a shitstorm. We'll see. Thanks again for the advice. Activist (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like careful editing, thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

housekeeping note, the following refers to this editNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got me bent out of shape when you accused me of inserting factual errors into the Ammon Bundy page and harshly criticized my approach to the differing viewpoint on the G4S penalty. I am very careful about what I write and took your charge as attacking my honesty. I left a long response as soon as I read your ping, reverted your undo, then went back and did a couple more additions. I'm cooling off a bit as I've gotten off my chest and out of my system. As with ParsleyMan, I've had a lot of respect for both of your work on difficult (high interest, fast breaking, multitude of editors, complex, etc.) articles and was astonished that you would make those accusations. I hope this doesn't affect our future Wikipedia relationship, should we be editing the same articles. I wrote this many hours ago but had to run off to be with friends doing a housewarming, neglecting to hit "send," so I don't know if you've posted anything about this in the interim. Activist (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usually a good idea to write that sort of thing but then get a good night sleep before sending. Sometimes, I write in Notepad just so I don't hit "send" before I can calmly consider the benefit and goal of my words. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-administered DS alert for climate change

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of file you uploaded

A tag has been placed on File:LaVoy Finicum - Truck stopped by Oregon State Patrol during failed arrest attempt's truck at the first traffic stop.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Majora (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Majora, copyright is a foreign land to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you send me a DS alert

I got a DS alert from you. What is this? and is it because Im conservative? --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS alerts are, by definition, no fault / no blame / no shame. They are FYI. Since you're making edits and/or comments about politics in the US, such as the Orlando shooting, I felt it appropriate to call the special rules about US politics to your attention. You can read about those behavioral rules in the links contained in the notice I left on your talk page. In particular, you seem ready to pick sides, or at least make assumptions about other people picking sides. See also WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you decline to read those things and modify your approach your stay here will likely be brief instead of effective. Your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (to Wikihounding inquiry related to edit at Wikilawyer essay)

Reply to this. No, we are on the same side if you want to improve WP. We just happened to disagree about one minor thing. Make your argument on the content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the essay talk page thread you started eventually; I'm more interested in something else right now, but I have already pinged you where that's being discussed and decline to start it up here too. See WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to make such a big issue from a single edit in essay? And what exactly do you expect from Bishonen? I do not think you understand the policy. It tells about actions "to repeatedly confront or inhibit [your] work". I did not do it. Even if you think I tracked your edits, it is allowed as long as my edits can be reasonably viewed as improvement of content. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those who do not engage in Wikilawyering might reasonably disagree as to the spirit of the Wikihounding policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for archival purposes making a note of an edit conflict exchange in case it comes up again
Edit conflict.... MVBW first said, and then deleted the following Just keep in mind that modifying comments made by other contributors (as you did) is against the rules and might be considered a blockable offense. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 1 Jauary 2017 (UTC) That was first typed as I made a reply at the wikilaywer talk page, after which I saw it and as I was typing the following reply it was deleted. My reply would have said Please provide a diff to where I modified your comment and note that the WP:TPG explicitly says that no one owns section headings so the heading you use (or I use) are not part of our comments, and can be changed in good faith by anyone for housekeeping purposes. If I changed anything you said other than a section heading, it was an accident and I will be glad to self revert to restore your original wording. I'm just making a note here for archival purposes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Looking at your interests here, I think you will find this amusing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't read. My interests (in terms of wiki process) is more about prevention of edit wars, amicable WP:Dispute resolution, and retention of a diverse population of editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

If it wasn't for the way that the other user spoke to me and threatened me then I would have not responded in the manner that I did. I hope that you have also spoken to him about his conduct. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply