User talk:The Rhymesmith/Archives/2010

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Jujutacular ^talk 11:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

I urge you to look carefully at edits before you accept them. In the meantime, a message I left at User_talk:WikiCopter#Venice_High_School_.28Venice.2C_Florida.29--where you may also take it upon yourself to undo the edit you accepted, an edit which restored unverified and non-neutral information to an article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wittgenstein

You are currently using a non-free image in the Template:Wittgenstein that appears to be a work in progress. Please note that non-free images aren't allowed in the template space, only the article space. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may be involved. Thank you. --Lucy-marie (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your editing style

I believe that this essay accurately sums up your poor approach to conducting a discussion with a user you disagree with. I also find you a very bad character as you trawl through historical editing to try and paint the current editing as poor. The historical editing from over three years ago is not an accurate reflection of current editing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusing me of adhering to a well-reasoned interpretation of Wikipedia policy is not the most demolitive of charges. Your record from what I can see (even recently) seems to be littered with instances of your disrupting consensus on other pages and being lambasted by other editors. The Rhymesmith (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What the essay actually says is you follow all of the rules blindly to your own interpretation to the point of obsession, without considering anything but your own interpretation as correct. Block quoting old discussion from three years ago is not helpful under any circumstances and claiming that I was “stopped” by another user on the US Senate page is disingenuous and a distortion of the productive discussion which occurred afterwards, raising the valid points regarding the oath and the affirmation.

I personally believe you are an editor who always wants to "Win" at all costs and will engage in off content discussion focusing on the user and not on the content of the discussion. I believe that you will continue to be judgemental, rude and inappropriate in what you comment on in discussions. Focusing you attention on topics and threads which have nothing to do with the discussion such as the editing history of a user or weather years ago they did this or that. Discussion must be based on the content and not the contributor and you have in my opinion wildly failed to understand that. I am not going to stop editing just because you continually try to ridicule, diminish and dismiss my edits as disruptive, incoherent, “bull”, etc. You will simply have to live with the fact that you may disagree with editors based on what they say in a discussion, but it does not give you the right to trawl up ancient history to try to use that to try and dismiss their opposing opinion to further your own arguments.

I look forward to hopefully being able to have a productive discussion with you in the future where you do not resort to trying the negative personal comments you have engaged in during the discussion over the phrase “World Greatest Deliberative Body”.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not particularly bothered by what you believe about me, because you've demonstrated extreme illogicality through your reasoning in our discussion. Over nearly 10,000 words of debate, you refused to admit that there was a distinction between the opinion "The Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body" and the fact that "the Senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body", until two third opinions quite conclusively established that that was the case. Multiple failures of logic of that ilk compel me to the conclusion that you either do not understand logic, or do not care. I examined your points of view critically, and pulled them to pieces, as one of the third opinions explicitly commented. If you would like to take the whole of the discussion and submit it to a philosophy professor or lawyer you happen to know, I'm sure you'd receive a similar answer about the usage of valid logical argument, and your responses, which generally are incoherent. If you submitted your arguments in a Philosophy 101 or introductory law school class, you'd receive a failing mark.

Moreover, the whole content of your debate with Rrius consisted of him hammering home the point that what you would like to be in the article does not allow you to alter the text of a statutory oath without a source, which resulted in your edits being reverted. Not quite a "productive discussion". The Rhymesmith (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a productive discussion as it started the discussion regarding the affirmation and not just the oath being able to be taken. You do not see that not all edits must be 100% in conformity with the owners of the article; of which you have been demonstrating in your editing style that you are one of them. You also fail to see that not all discussion must have a winner and a loser and that the article is subject to challenge and the content is allowed to change without the permission of other editors. Remember as you are after all a Wikilawyer WP:Bold. --Lucy-marie (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point of content commenting. If you had simply said the comments do not make sense to me that would have been content commenting. What you engaged in was trying to tear me apart as a contributor. You need to see that going after and focusing your comments in such a way as you did by quoting of ancient history and then writing the whole thing in bold where there is no content being discussed in commenting on the contributor and not the content. You are either failing to either admit to or failing to see that what you are actually doing is not commenting on the content but on the contributor. You may be blind to the fact you are doing it but you need to realise you are contributor commenting and not content commenting.

In future discussion will go far more smoothly if you don’t go trawling through a user’s ancient editing history and you focus your comments only on the content of the discussion e.g. weather the words actually belong in the lead or in the article. You attempted to turn the discussion in to how I have edited in the past and tried to further your ridiculous and unfounded claim that I was editing solely to be disruptive.

In future stay away from commenting on the contributor, or at least stay away from doing it on the discussion page of an article.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments make sense in that I understand what you're saying. I also understand that the logic behind them is incoherent, as I repeatedly remarked. I shifted my commentary to "you" when it became clear that this kind of illogical reasoning was not isolated, but symptomatic of how you argue, in which case speaking of "you" becomes a shorthand for your style of editing, just as calling someone who trolls or vandalizes a troll or vandal is an accusation grounded in behavior (not that I think you're a vandal or troll). If I have hurt you by referring to your editing history, I apologize, but what presents itself to me is a fairly consistent record of thrusting your point of view on others, supporting it with illogical reasoning, and insisting that your POV is equally legitimate. I referred to your prior editing not to paint you as an evil sockpuppet queen, but because the exact same kind of illogical rhetoric that you have used in the Senate talk page, and elsewhere, recently, was in use then. I have no idea who or what you are in real life, so I comment on the behavior I see here on Wikipedia, which is all I have to go on, and in cases where a user's conduct is repeated in patterns, the only legitimate way to comment on that is with respect to the user him(or-her)self. If I said, for example - "Lucy, you're a promiscuous whore"(or something similarly nasty and unrelated to Wiki) - that would be a personal attack, whereas commenting that you're illogical and have a history of declaring your POV valid without care for policy is not. The Rhymesmith (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the claims that I am currently a disruptive editor who thrust their opinion forwards regardless. That may have been the case years ago but is clearly not the case now. I also dispute that the reasoning presented was illogical, it was just coming from a different angle than what you are used to it coming from. Every person’s POV is as legitimate as the next persons it is just how verifiable and well sourced their POV is. If you take a look at 99% of my recent edits they have either been highly uncontroversial or were on a discussion page discussing issues such as during the requested move of Top Gear (2002 TV Series). It does though seem that you still fail to see that commenting directly on the user and posting large amounts of text about their previous editing is not the way it should be done. I accept your apology for your highly insulting comments made on the discussion page and I suggest we put this behind each other and take each other at face value from now on. I also suggest we do not go trawling through each other’s editing histories or make wild accusations regarding how logical or illogical each other is. The content is all that should be commented on and not the contributor.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. This may come from my own background as a logician, but what galls me the most (as I commented on the talk page) is that your arguments were indeed riddled with logical holes. I understand that you have a different POV, but many of your arguments represented a simple unwillingness or inability to actually address my points. You began by accusing me of original research (which had nothing to do with anything), could not see the distinction between an opinion and a fact describing the existence of an opinion, etc. Do you understand what's irritating me? I understand your arguments, and point out the holes in them, at which point you go off on another tangent, which makes me feel as though I typed an extensive argument for nothing. If you go through the actual text of our discussion, I reply to your points, whereas you ignore mine. I can show you, line-by-line, what I mean, if you'd like. Do you understand what I mean by illogical? If 1 + 1 = 3 from your POV, your claims that your POV is equally legitimate fall to pieces. The Rhymesmith (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your irritation, primarily being that I didn't address each one of your points individually and simply moved on with the discussion in an attempt to advance the discussion. As opposed to simply getting bogged down in the same portion of the discussion I had just finished with. If that is what sent you over the edge then I apologise.

I also now think that rather than labelling as POV which was inflammatory it should have been labelled more as a form of synthesis. Any way we are beyond that now.

I suggest that this be put to bed and we simply move on and edit like civilised people and do not use wording which is inflammatory. The best thing now is to just comment only on the content and not on the contributor.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)