User talk:Lexlex/Archives/2020/04
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lexlex. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Soapbox
Please read wp:not, note as well that trying to dismiss users arguments with ad hominems is never a viable tactic (here).Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- A retelling of sophistry is not an ad hominem attack but merely a statement of a fact and easily verified. While understandable some may be offended, it's not a pass to bully people with whom you disagree. With your edit history here, you should know this. Please stop such behavior. Lexlex (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe not, that would be for admins to decide. But accusing other users of being ideologues is. As wp:npa says "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.)" and "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.". Do it again and we shall see if admins think it is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Declaring behavior as dogmatic and/or someone an ideologue is a statement of simple fact. Interpreting such declarations as pejorative is just that (and frankly, not my concern). You may choose to be offended by whatever you like, but your assumption I should therefore respect and lend fealty to your offense—at the truth—is fatuous. Your choice to engage, bully and now threaten me on my talk page—completely out of nowhere as we had never previously engaged—feels weirdly and aggressively desperate. Please consider pounding some sand. I will continue as always, posting truthfully as I see fit. Cheers! Lexlex (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Then you may take this as my final word and as a warning, continue to violate the spirit of wp:npa when dealing with debates I am involved (so no not out of nowhere) in and I will (not might, will) report you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Bring it on, happy to engage! Greetings from Berlin!Lexlex (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Then you may take this as my final word and as a warning, continue to violate the spirit of wp:npa when dealing with debates I am involved (so no not out of nowhere) in and I will (not might, will) report you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Declaring behavior as dogmatic and/or someone an ideologue is a statement of simple fact. Interpreting such declarations as pejorative is just that (and frankly, not my concern). You may choose to be offended by whatever you like, but your assumption I should therefore respect and lend fealty to your offense—at the truth—is fatuous. Your choice to engage, bully and now threaten me on my talk page—completely out of nowhere as we had never previously engaged—feels weirdly and aggressively desperate. Please consider pounding some sand. I will continue as always, posting truthfully as I see fit. Cheers! Lexlex (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe not, that would be for admins to decide. But accusing other users of being ideologues is. As wp:npa says "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.)" and "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.". Do it again and we shall see if admins think it is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)