User talk:Whiffle

Whiffle is Bold!

Whiffle is Fearless!

Whiffle knows what you are thinking before you think you are thinking it!

Whiffle knew that you were thinking that!

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, Whiffle. Or, if you've been around awhile (which seems to me to be the case based on some of your comments), congratulations on your new registration.

You are freely welcome to edit Wikipedia articles, but it is imperative that you do so according to the rules. For starters I suggest the Five Pillars.

Please remember in editing that the aim of a tertiary source like Wikipedia is to accurately reflect the sources we cite. Sometimes this means including complicated concepts in articles that are about complicated things. There is a Wikipedia for simple explanations in uncomplicated language; that is Simple English Wikipedia.

Happy wiki'ing! If you have any questions I'd love to help. - Che Nuevara 04:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Simplicate and add lightness." - Colin Chapman

Yoshiaki Omura

I recommend you stop what you're doing and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy.

Reverting a page four times within eleven hours is a violation of the three revert rule.

Statements like this:

Do you have any actual verifiable facts to verify this man's claims or this journals claims. Or would an actual verifiable fact be too much to ask? You prefer word games and opinionating?

could very easily be interpreted as a refusal to assume good faith in other editors. Likewise, comments like this:

Is this an entry or an excuse for a virtual circle jerk of people who are Look, I Are A Editor !!! wannabees? Fish, cut bait, or hang, bated, thrashing your wings pointlessly about. I'm not your mommy, and I don't want to spank you. I'm here to be right, not to be kind. Got the concept? Good !!!

are inappropriate; incivility and personal attacks are destructive to the Wikipedia atmosphere and are not allowed.

I cannot strongly enough recommend that you attempt to work with the other editors within the framework of 'pedia-acceptable behavior.

Peace - Che Nuevara 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This deletion is surprising. Please read, digest and follow CheNuevara's sage advice. A request for evidence (in itself, an excellent request) needn't and usually shouldn't be accompanied by speculation on the reasons for the failure to provide evidence so far. -- Hoary 03:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Has it ever for even the briefest of moments occurred to you that your attitudes are condescending and offensive in the extreme? I will delete this when I deem it appropriate. If you find that problematic or offensive I suggest you not causally insult others all the while earnestly invoking WikiMantras as to civility. If you doubt the validity of my interpretation of the essential character of your remarks I suggest you offer comparable observations to someone in what passes for the real world and see what their evaluation of your attitude may be. Peace, indeed. Whiffle 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would further think that editing another user's page might, incidentally, be considered an attempt at deliberate provocation and be judged in that light as to matters of good faith. Then again, perhaps I presume too much as to matters of consideration on the part of those who advise others as to appropriate consideration :-) Whiffle 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In Hoary's defense, blanking your talk page without archiving it is considered poor Wikiquette. I think that's what he was trying to say. - Che Nuevara 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it constitutes yet another instance of the plain fact that Wikipedian notions of civility are at variance with life on earth. Whiffle 02:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle Notice !!!

Now Whiffle will, on his own bidding, in his own good time, blank this page.

Whiffle likes things neat and tidy !!!

If anyone wants to read History, fine.

( Personally, though, I'd suggest Herodotus – or, better still, Joyce – at least he set that Odysseus/Ulysses stuff to rights, sure a little trouble with those pesky corpuscles, but those things happen, then it's straight sailing, a long reach ad introibo for . . . home? )

Of course, that's only a whiffle.

Try and adapt, now. Whiffle knows it's hard. Grit your teeth, though, Whiffle knows you can do it !!!

(Okay, so sometimes Whiffle falls into the WhirlPool of Hyperbole (Just outside Synecdoche, NY, where the chronosynclasticinfundibulum was first discovered – or so legend has it – by an obscure terran (okay, so not so very obscure on terra, but obscure everywhere else that matters)

[End]

Whiffle 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your User talk page

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

please stop

Please stop leaving crude (1) and insulting (2) comments on talk pages. You keep calling upon the civility guidelines but continually display an unwillingness to act civilly yourself. This sort of behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia. - Che Nuevara 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A test in which fingers formed in a circle are pulled apart is a circle jerk. WP has any number of entries which offend quasi-Victorian sensibilities, including an ongoing debate on the exposure of young children to its content. I suggest you direct your preferences as to matters of decorum elsewhere. Whiffle 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

1 Just so you know, I'm neither an administrator nor offended by vulgar language, but there are people on Wikipedia who are one, the other, and both, and I wager you'll find yourself blocked if you attract their attention. - Che Nuevara 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whiffleicious!!!

The Invisible Policy!!! [1] Whiffle 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually ... Nihonjoe never used the word "policy" when he was saying not to blank your userpage. He said it's frowned upon. You asked what policy it was in. He said it's not in a policy, but it's still frowned upon. - Che Nuevara 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reread that link/reference again. If you call that 'frowning' you have a singular personal construct as to the semantics applicable to English. He is clearly threatening banning for violating a policy which, when he is challenged, he waves his arms about vaguely to invoke, all the while chattering with you elsewhere as to how to cleverly 'trap' poor Whiffle [Whiffle sobs and WhiffleWhipes Eyes&Nose]. Lose the disingenuous pose and have the courage to stand behind your words rather than bluster, bait, then backpedal. It would be helpful. As I said elsewhere, I'm out for the present. Put your time to good use in the interim. Ciao for now, babe. [WhifflePOOF!!!]Whiffle 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you reread what I wrote, I never once wrote that it was a policy; rather you wrote, "Where is the policy to which you refer posted and defined?". After getting clarification about what you were referring to, I wrote, "It is generally agreed that users who receive such warnings should not remove them from their talk page if they are valid. There's no one pace that discusses this; rather, it's split across multiple locations in the policy and guideline pages (as well as associated discussion pages)." I also wrote, "Policies do not define every last instance of something as that would take insane amounts of space and time." If you read through the various policy pages (and their associated discussion pages), you'll find that this last bit is mentioned many times. It's the same kind of thing that applies to laws whereever you live: no law defines absolutely every possible way to break it. Likewise, the policies on Wikipedia do not define every possible way to violate them. There has to be some leeway to interpret them according to each situation, and there are checks and balances in place on Wikipedia to make sure administrators and other editors do not go outside the spirit of the policy or guideline.

Your actions during the last week have been pushing the envelope (and may have breached the envelope in some cases) of several of these policies and guidelines, and you have been given several sincere notices and warnings about this. Your reaction to these notices and warnings has been less positive than desired, and you continue to show an arrogant attitude toward anyone who attempts to work with you. As I indicated before, you seriously need to look at how you are interacting with your fellow editors here on WIkipedia, and bring your interactions inline with the civility and assume good faith policies and etiquette guideline. If you can't do this, you will continue to attract unwanted attention from administrators, and you may invite some of the consequences you mentioned.

Those of us who are administrators have plenty of more important and more productive things to do instead of dealing with people who only wish to throw sand at everyone else in the sandbox. You are obviously a very intelligent person, so please focus that intelligence on being more productive in your contributions. It will make things much more pleasant for you and for everyone else working with you. We appreciate your cooperation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your argument unconvincing. Any who read it as well as the references made will, of course, draw their own conclusions. I will post a final below, then part. If it's vitally important, as it seems, to you or others to have the last word, you are welcome to have it. Whiffle 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whiffle Is Byes For Now!!!

I shall leave your own dialogue here so that your own words may characterize your attitude and your conduct. That was the intent all along. Later . . . Whiffle 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

If Wikipedia is to evolve beyond its present pitiful state its present approaches will not serve. Whiffle 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that significant changes must be made to Wikipedia's function, feel free to try to bring them about. That's the beauty of the wiki process -- it is infinitely mutable. There are, however, established avenues for this on the English language Wikipedia. Every policy, guideline, and essay has a talk page where it can be discussed and where changes can be proposed. Straw polling an idea can expose the community to it and gague support. If you have criticisms and issues you feel should be raised, I recommend you take them through the appropriate channels, rather than simply announcing that Wikipedia is broken. - Che Nuevara 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an argument of the form customarily advanced in a political context. If a structure is dysfunctional it is unresponsive. That is clearly the present state of Wikipedia. Hence the high probability of a forked effort or efforts at some point supplanting it. There is no point in laboring 'within the system' if the system is dysfunctional. It will insist on its right to failure. Wikipedia is generally perceived at this point as a joke, with good reason. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid, sorry. Whiffle 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, you're making the mistake of taking this person seriously. He/She announces "bye-byes" and then returns a day later; dismisses WP as a joke yet writes within it and about it, and so on. PDFTT. -- Hoary 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On most planets it is considered ill-mannered and provocative to speak ill of someone after they leave the room. Pretend to the small measure of Wiki:Grace to hold your figurative tongues and I will, indeed, happily fall figuratively silent.

It's easy. Try hard. Whiffle 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)