User talk:Why Do You Hate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Why_Do_You_Hate%3F
Personal Attack Policy and such things[edit]
About your recent edit on User:Essjay's page; for starters, please try to keep your tone more neutral in the first place. Being rash and (quite frankly) a bit rude won't really help you get anyone's attention. Secondly, please do not make baseless accusations; if you feel it is a private matter, please use the email button on the left side of the screen. If you intend to bring it to public knowledge, then provide this "transcript" that you claim to have (I'm not doubting you, but usually people who proclaim such things don't have them). I'm also not wishing to hear any "Well, he called me that and this;" please, sir, we're not kids. Civil discussion is key, with unrefutable evidence also vital. "Note:" I'm not seeking to involve myself into the conflict, but instead mediate. Thank you and have a nice day (respond on my talk page, here or on User talk:Essjay's if you have any comments). Thank you again, _-M o P-_ 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Launch as many more personal attacks against me as you wish -- we are recording this. If you plan to communicate with me you will need to start by listening and internalizing what I've said. I'm not inclined to talk with people who tell me what to say and how to say it. I'm also not inclined to converse with people who attempt to impose on me their ideological values. Neutrality is a philosophy related to content of articles. Even considering your demand for my neutrality, I stated facts which are pretty darn neutral. Senior staff in one department of a major university witnessed in about 20 minutes time a mob attack in the IRC channel that silenced discussion of typical editorial concerns. You have expanded the attack by appearing here to tell me your demands comprise an attempt to mediate a conflict about which you know nothing. Why Do You Hate ? 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, I'm sorry... there have been a few things I've been told however, so I'd like to ask you to try to calm down. Senior faculty or just another AOL user, it doesn't matter; you're still a human being, and the reason we as humans are more advanced than apes is because we have language to settle disputes, rather then use our fists to clobber the opposition into defeat. Anyway, please provide evidence; without it, the Apollo moon landing was a shoot at a film studio. And I do know something; I've been informed by a user (who, frankly, I regard as a very good role model and excellent, civil person) that your IP address itself is an AOL address. I don't note seeing universities use AOL in the past. Again, please be civil; I'm trying to help, and you're not really doing your case any good by being rude and disrupting Wikipedia. So to sum up my point; please provide evidence so this can be settled civilly, or drop the issue and try to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Thanks, _-M o P-_ 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but I am typing with my fingers, not hitting with my fists. Do you understand that your request that I calm down is a personal attack alleging that my reason is instead an emotional outburst? Do you realize that calling me rude when your peer interupted my rational, concerned interaction on the IRC channel by calling me "troll" is no less than participation in an attack mob? Deriding my civility when I have been nothing but civil, all the while insulting me, supporting an abusive peer who insults me and demanding evidence about a discussion you have no role in is patently abusive?
- Your impressions that your friend who personally attacked me with a derogatory name is a "very good role model and an excellent, civil person" tell us more about your character than anything else. It tells us something else about a person who claims to be senior staff at a University but who thinks that if Scottsmen drink a lot, anyone who doesn't drink can't be a Scott. Of course we used AOL for this demonstration. Your organization has blocked an entire IP range from a fellow institution and we anticipated your reaction to our planned approach. We have enough IT expertise in this department to know when to use alternate connectivity to protect our university resources. If we did this through University networks in our formal capacities we would have needed to consult our IRB, which we decided was unwarranted for an investigation more related to student life than academic research. Thank you again for responding to our informal investigation. Porqué usted odia 05:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)why do y
- I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll take this further. You're obviously not senior staff at a university, and no offence, but your skills of persuasion could use some work. Sorry for wasting your time, but I think there are better uses of time than persuing this discussion further. Also, avoid from personal attacks in the future, as trolling on Wikipedia is generally not welcomed. Thank you. _-M o P-_ 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- If I could also note, you have still not provided anything but accusations. No hard evidence. Sorry again, but I think we can do better things then sit here and hit our keyboards with our fists. _-M o P-_ 05:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The evidence is on your talk page, if you need some evidence of uncivil behavior against me. But I didn't ask for your help. I was responding to someone else in the process of demonstrating how consistent is this organization's crowd psychology. Calling me a troll for daring to log on to the IRC channel and seek responses to today's news about Wikipedia is an unwarranted personal attack. Your inability to recognize hostility among your peers is something we are interested in formally studying. We noted you and S.J. had a good time calling me names on your user page, escalating your personal attacks by referring to my civil conversation as vandalism. You are correct that I am not senior staff -- I am a lowly assistant prof with no certainty of a contract next year. I was honored to have senior members of my department sit down to watch this demonstration. We even had a campus cop sitting in. I wish I could propose research about the specific linguistic device you employ to frame civil discourse as vandalism, but we aren't a language department. We are more likely to submit for IRB approval a proposal for more general study of group dynamics occuring when an isolated social unit functions in an extremely open networked environment. Porqué usted odia
- Well, I'm certainly sorry about my and Essjay's "personal attacks" on yourself and your "colleagues". As you haven't really helped your case at all, I think I'll leave you alone to consider leaving Wikipedia, unless you can contribute positively. Note that our "corrupt" system doesn't really like uncivil people, and there's always the "don't feed the trolls" rule. Unless you can sit down and talk properly, I'm afraid your "university" will have to find another place to have fun. MoppEr zOMG! 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that you systematically dislike people weighs against your system. How astounding that representatives of your group seeth with hatred even as the construe other's perfectly civil questions as somehow out of line. You comprimise your assesment of the matter by admitting it is based on your personal preferences. Calling people trolls and uncivil for daring to ask your writing club about how they were represented in today's news tends to limit your club to those who will agree with you about who is naughty and who is nice -- nice people being only those who agree with you. This isn't the kind of "knowledge" the world needs, no matter how much you discount or subsidize the price. Pacemaka 19:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)