User:The Cunctator/Conversations with DreamGuy

Edit warring

You both are in violation of the 3RR rule. I am going to give you a chance to avoid being blocked by asking you not to make any edits to that page for 24 hours and to discuss any further edits on the talk page before making them If you can't come to a conclusion start an RFC to get some outside opinions, do NOT engage in edit wars. — Ocatecir^T 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, the 3RR says "Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours [...]". More than three, not three. So I'm not in violation of it. But I'm used to admins not quite understanding it claiming I am. Sad fact of life here, I guess.

But you already know, as the admin who warned him off, that he was harassing me on my talk page and wasn't listening to reason, so a discussion with him certainly isn't oging to work. Probably would be better to get a row of other editors to revert him anytime he tries to ignore WP:EL again, though. DreamGuy 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Above you say:"so a discussion with him certainly isn't oging to work.", I'm missing the reason a discussion with me won't work. I'm not listening to reason? Please list some reasons and then I'll listen to them. I'm the one who wants to have a discussion, it is you who refused to talk to me and kept erasing all my comments off your talk page. In this edit:High IQ Society I give a reference for the material on the link you say is "nonencyclopedic estimates of IQs" and "put in a horribly unreliable one, period" and "not known to be notable". So it is encyclopedic by the reference I cited, but not only that nowhere in WP:EL does it say that external links must be notable or encyclopedic. In fact this is a red herring fallacy argument, the reasons he is saying he is removing the links for are not even part of the policy he is citing. WP:EL#What_to_link says almost the opposite:"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This User makes repeated claims like " claim to be following WP:EL is nonsense" and "please go read WP:EL and stop reverting" and " remove links that are not encyclopedic. reliable, etc. see WP:EL" but apparently he himself has never read it. When I asked for clarification before here he erased all comments, so I think it is him who will not have a discussion.Tstrobaugh 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering does not get one out of violations of edit warring. And what you did above is exactly wikilawyering. Instead of quoting the specific language of the policy, you should be responding to the intent of the policy. Were you engaging in edit-warring or not? Do you see the point in cooling off periods, even if you feel you are in the right? Do you see the point in convincing other Wikipedians that you were in the right? Or do you think it is a more effective strategy to tell others that you understand how Wikipedia works better than they do? Just some thoughts to consider. --The Cunctator 04:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, an RFC might be the best way to find resolution for this. — Ocatecir^T 04:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. From this comment and the one below you sound like you are trying to claim nobody can know how anything works better than anything else and that it's wrong to claim otherwise. It should be common sense that some people know better than others how things work, and obviously it's more likely when they take the time and effort to do so. If people are wrong, it should be pointed out to them so they can learn from it... especially admins trying to enforce rules. That should be a no brainer, but if you'd rather be offended that I dared to point out someone was wrong, I guess that's your right.

You talk about the presumed intent of the 3RR policy but are missing the intent of an encyclopedia. There are too many people running around acting all offended and putting up red tape instead of doing what it takes to make an encyclopedia: a real encyclopedia, and not just some website full of trivia, spam, and talk pages. DreamGuy 05:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What did I write that made you believe I was offended? If you're willing, I'd love for you to directly respond to any of the questions I posed. I asked four specific questions above, and you didn't respond to any of them. Yours, The Cunctator 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good vs. bad

You write: "The bad thing about Wikipedia is all the people who want things to be wrong (either from bias or cluelessness) outnumber the rest." Do you have any evidence for that? It seems pretty clear to me that that vast majority of contributions and contributors to Wikipedia are both well-intentioned and at least moderately helpful. Assuming bad faith generally leads to frustration and ill will. --The Cunctator 04:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not assuming bad faith, it's recognizing that all the good faith in the world alone doesn't turn someone into a good encyclopedia author or editor. We could make a WikiMedicine and people around the world aren't going to become doctors and pharmacists just because they have good intentions.

And, on top of that, like anything on the Internet, the people who want to abuse it flock to it to exploit it to their own devices in much greater percentages that the average public. That's not bad faith, that's common sense, and pretty obvious once you've looked at more than a handful of articles. DreamGuy 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's common sense, do you have any *actual evidence* for your claim I quoted above? --The Cunctator 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who has edited more than a couple of pages here has all the evidence they could ever hope for to show that. DreamGuy 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work catching the White43- spammer, btw. That use of the trailing hyphen is a interesting sploit. --The Cunctator 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's an example of experience trumping mere good intentions, by the way. DreamGuy 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that good intentions are in opposition to experience? Or did you mean "That's an example of experience combined with good intentions."? --The Cunctator 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an example of how all the good intentions in the world don't mean anything without the knowledge to figure out what needs to be done. And, oh, gosh, there's a good example of someone operating in bad faith.

You have no reason to post on my talk page other than to try to chastise me and not be able read clear sentences for understanding. I don't need to convince you of anything. I don't need to show you any evidence, especially when the evidence is right in front of your face. Please go away and don't come back unless you have something important to say. DreamGuy 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Friendliness

I'm sorry you felt I was chastising you. I complimented you on your work and asked some questions about your perspectives on Wikipedia and working with other editors. The questions were meant in good faith; I'm not sure why you considered them to be an attack on you. Frankly, I find it somewhat ironic; usually people get upset with me for much greater affronts (like the battle that drove Larry Sanger from Wikipedia). --The Cunctator 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking irrelevent questions, ignoring the answers, and then demanding answers again is not friendly. As I said, please do not post here unless you have something substantive to say instead of just arguing over philosophies. You obviously believe whatever you want to believe, and your comments aren't about to make me change my mind about what I believe. DreamGuy 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)