User talk:Nick Thorne/Archive4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nick Thorne. 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. |
The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Amanda Long
So I have struck the part of my comment that might be considered a personal attack, which I certainly had no intention of making. I did find the nominator's constant demands for sources for obvious things to be irritating, and their constant argumentative replies to me BLUDGEON-y. But you were right that I approached (and may have crossed) a line there.
I do think the rest of my comment there was entirely germaine to the discussion, since if the nominator was not construing the acquisition of installations appropriately with respect to NARTIST that would skew the entire perspective they bring to the AfD, as I believe was in fact the case. That statement, I believe, is not any kind of an attack. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
IDHT
I tried, but he ain't listening. - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
About AN/I recently. Non hostile intention.
I'm truly sorry to disturb you here. But as AN/I closed my complaint, do I just feel, no need to at least try to explain some issues. I really hope you do not expload of anger. (That's not my intention anyways). First, I'm not struggeling with fine English, I'm not trying to become a new Shakespeare. I realize I'm not native in English. However, it seems to me as all others (including you, but that's totally unrelated) who made comments at AN/I actually avoided the real question. Here are just a two other examples from Plots, based on the films themselves - primary sources.
- Deliverance (a quite iconic film) - "While traveling to their launch site, the men (Bobby in particular) are condescending towards the locals, who are unimpressed by the "city boys"."
- Saga of a Star World - "It quickly becomes apparent that there is more to Carillon than meets the eye."
In the first case, am I absolutely certain, the underlined part is similar to my initial edits of "Stone-Putin". Have I interpreted, has someone else done the same here (there is no narrator explaining). The second example is from a film which I've never watched. But I would argue this is interpretation only (if my was) Can't you see any fundamental problems here ? Largely all Plots and Summaries are interpreted, at least partly. WP:PRIMARY gives no real help for these kinds of matters. I'm open for English discussions, negative criticism, if you like. But that's another issue. So, if possible, could you please just give me a brief reply what you think of statements such as these ones ? And about my English, have I had one expericence with AN\I before. Some were really angry - but never made any language related complaints [[1]] I believe one of the other editors to be a mocker, searching for other contributors weaknesses. But I refuse to let him scare me. Sorry again if I disturbed. I won't do it again. Just by the way, as I can see you're fond of aquariums. I once had 14 aquarium tanks myself, around 1999-2003. In liters, was the smallest around 60 and the largest 575. (however bought as a 540 ! first I thought the strip light armature was too short, but after a year or two, did I discover t was the tank that was 100 mm "too long"! ) I'm still using a 95 l tank for various kinds of Tetras and a 320 l for Jack Dempsys. American Cichlids are still my favorites. I'm sorry to say that I'm not very familiar with Australian fishes. I guess there's a ban on exporting Australian fresh water fish ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, easy thing first. You seem to have a problem with word order in English. Starting a sentence with "do I" (as you have here and several times in the AN/I case) is to ask a question, yet you do not continue on to actually ask a question. This is a relatively easy one to work out what you mean but you have made other similar errors in your editing that are not so easy to unravel. Word order can be particularly important in English as it does not have the formal endings to words to determine the subject, object and other parts of the sentence. A trivial example is that to say "John gives a box to Peter" is not the same as "Peter gives a box to John" and "A box John gives to Peter" is almost nonsense unless you then went on to say something more about the box. Well, everyone makes mistakes, and writing in a second language would have to be difficult, but you seem to resist having these errors pointed out and corrected and become very defensive about your English. Please listen to native English speakers when they offer corrections and please drop the "I speak English at an advanced level" defence when a glaring error in your English has been pointed out.
Now, to the issue of plots. If you can find a source, preferably a secondary or tertiary source that summarises the plot of a movie or video, then you can paraphrase that description and provide the source in the normal Wikipedia way. Typical examples might be IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, regular press sites etc. What you absolutely cannot do is view the video/movie and write your own version of what you think the plot is. No matter how obvious it is to you, it is not allowed. At all. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources. About the only way a primary source is OK is when we want to directly quote someone, which is certainly not the case here. I hope this clears this up. - Nick Thorne talk 11:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's far more easy to take criticism to hart, the way you express them, compared to an other editor. And I will. I do also accept all our guidelines, including WP:PRIMARY. And have always done. I'm grateful for your (good) efforts to explain how to deal with them here. I'm further certain your intentions are well meant. But I (still, despite your efforts) really feel that we have a general "Plot problem" (twice exemplified above, but could well be thousands). But from now on, will I leave all such matters behind. Thanks for your time. Boeing720 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Nick Thorne. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"Source mixing"
Hi Nick. I saw your comment on the admin page and I really feel that you took my comment out of context. Please note that I have a total of two edits on the page. But to the topic of source mixing, I am trying to understand your views. Where did I mix sources? On the contrary, the person I am arguing with is happy with the original sources for the foundation of the article, but replacing one specific naming convention? Isnt this the obvious example of source mixing? Really like to hear your thoughts. --Xinjao (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Xinjao My talk page is not the place for this discussion. If you have any comments about my post on AN/I, that is the place to make them. I will copy your comment to the relevant location on the AN/I thread. - Nick Thorne talk 00:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue">'''Nick Thorne'''</font>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]]: Nick Thorne talk
to
[[User:Nick Thorne|<b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<sup style="color: darkblue">''talk''</sup>]]: Nick Thorne talk
—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Martin (governor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
- updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Foreign languages
This [2] was a frivolous comment of mine (CFCF is also Swedish). Your comment used a bow as a metaphor which made me think of it. It's and old saying and means "It is better to hear the sound of a bowstring breaking, than to never draw a bow". In plain english, better to try and fail than to never try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, ah! I understand now, however drawing a long bow in English is a metaphor for something that is only tenuously connected to the subject at hand, so your old Swedish saying is non sequitur in this context, although I see how it came to mind. All good, I enjoy a little distraction now and then. - Nick Thorne talk 14:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- As a reply to your comment it was indeed non sequitur, my meaning was that while I don't agree with CFCF's arguments, there was nothing wrong with him making them. If you like longbows, I can recommend The Emberverse series, lots of longbows there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I tried to draw a longbow once, it's a lot harder than it looks in the movies! Anyway, back to building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne talk 03:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ambassis macleayi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ambassis macleayi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Arius midgleyi moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Arius midgleyi, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
ANI comment
Nick, I think there's an error in your comment at ANI. C22 put the Marine fauna category (which may contain crustaceans etc) in the Fish category (not vv). DexDor (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Clive Palmer edits
Hi, I took it to the article's Talk. Although my new edit took into consideration HiLo48's comment on the real-estate information. I removed the part he found "derogatory".
Flaminggoose 07/08/18 Flaminggoose (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Intrepid & Anchor Chain Room
Thanks for the revert on the Intrepid page. FYI, the other user (who doesn't have a talk space) is confusing the anchor & line handling space in the fo'c'sle for the anchor windlass space, which is located on Intrepid's 2nd Deck per the ship's plans. The anchor windlass is not open to the public. The museum currently calls the 'anchor and line handling space' the 'Anchor Chain Room' per the URL linked in my previous revert, and it's the subject of the relevant portion of the Intrepid page. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Finktron, well I don't have specific knowledge of USN terminology, in the RAN, I suspect the space might be called a cable locker, although I am unsure of what the space really is so I could well be wrong there, but in any case the IP editor was clearly trying to insert original research which as we know is not on. Have a nice day! - Nick Thorne talk 23:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Nick Thorne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ambassis macleayi
The article Ambassis macleayi you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Ambassis macleayi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
What is and what is not acceptable conduct
So, just to confirm, not only do you think it is unreasonable to indef someone who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to scare a complete stranger with the idea that they might have cancer, you also think it completely unjust to indef the "excellent editor" and "asset to the project" who, having been reverted with a plea from the recipient to desist, then forcefully reinstates the comment to scare the stranger even more? I think you need to have a word with yourself about what is right and what is wrong. -- CassiantoTalk 18:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Get over yourself already. That "stranger" was almost immediately blocked itself, and is still indefinitely blocked. While that in af itself doesn't excuse Wolf's comments and actions, it is ironic almost beyond belief. Wolf has been contrite about his actions, and pledged not to behave that way again. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, yet that is what this block has turned into. If he does something outrageous on this level or worse again, then I'll be the first to say we should drop the banhammer. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, what a nice surprise to meet the other supporter of Wolfchild on this page. "Wolf", as you like to call them, was only sorry because they were blocked. It's part of the appeal jargon. You are aware of that, aren't you? Had they not have been blocked, I'd have bet my life on it that they would've carried on like nothing had happened, minus an apology. Stranger or not (as suggested by your inverted commas), to scare anyone into thinking that they might have cancer - twice - is a pretty sick move. Have you stopped to think of the possible collateral damage this comment may've caused to other persons viewing that comment who may have been licked by their cat? CassiantoTalk 19:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I like to call him "Child", but was told to stop. :) What I support is fair treatment of Wikipedia users, and he's not getting that here. I understand that Wolf has made enemies who want to see him gone - I used to be one of them. But I like to think I'm fair-minded enough to recognize when a user makes progress, and Wolf has. And too be honest,I was initially thirilled to see he had been blocked, but when I saw it how it happened, I was alarmed. I really don't care in this case if his apology was sincere or not, as I can't read minds over the internet. That can only be evidenced by his behavior, which is what we're concerned about here. We can't control what people think, and it's dangerous to even try. As to what he actually said, if you "genuinely" (note the use of "quote marks", as we call them in English) believe his comments will cause "collateral damage", then ask to to have the comments deleted from the history. As far as I know, that hasn't even been requested, much less done. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- So you'll agree then that the treatment by "child" to the recipient wasn't fair either? If so, you should then support the block, no? I find it curious that you were more alarmed at someone being blocked for making a sick comment than them actually saying the sick comment in the first place. And you're quite happy to have an insincere apology rather than someone accept the block, ride it out, and return when they've pulled themselves together? Where is the lesson in that? We can all say things in the heat of the moment - I'm perhaps more guilty than others for doing that around here - but to present to someone the idea that they might have a terminal illness, simply because they disagree with them, is way below the morals of standard decency. I'm stunned you think this is something that should just be glossed over. CassiantoTalk 20:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I like to call him "Child", but was told to stop. :) What I support is fair treatment of Wikipedia users, and he's not getting that here. I understand that Wolf has made enemies who want to see him gone - I used to be one of them. But I like to think I'm fair-minded enough to recognize when a user makes progress, and Wolf has. And too be honest,I was initially thirilled to see he had been blocked, but when I saw it how it happened, I was alarmed. I really don't care in this case if his apology was sincere or not, as I can't read minds over the internet. That can only be evidenced by his behavior, which is what we're concerned about here. We can't control what people think, and it's dangerous to even try. As to what he actually said, if you "genuinely" (note the use of "quote marks", as we call them in English) believe his comments will cause "collateral damage", then ask to to have the comments deleted from the history. As far as I know, that hasn't even been requested, much less done. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- How do you ride out an indefinite block? It's indefinite. Yeah, he's been advised to take the 6 month offer, but that's different than a six-month block which then expires. He has no guarantee of the block being lifted, which is what "ride out the block" implies. I have previously stated on Wolf's talk page that I do support a finite block with a definite end period, so in no way am I saying that this should be glossed over. But that isn't what this is, and that's what I don't support. (At this point, I should probably wait on Nick to respond, assuming he does, and that he doesn't chose to delete the whole discussion, for which I wouldn't blame him.) - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- You request a return after a significant period of reflection, that's how. Unlike you, I'd respect that person more for doing that rather than coming out with a lame apology, purely to get their editing rights back again. I couldn't really care less if this exchange is deleted, I've got it off my chest and that's all that matters to me. If snowflake-like behaviour is exhibited here by the page owner deleting a civil debate on the morals of someone who can say such sickening things, then that is a matter for them. It won't be me being judged. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- What a load of self righteous nonsense. No one is suggesting that Wolf did not need to be sanctioned. However jumping straight to indef without prior escalating blocks is simply unconscionable and clearly breaks the not punative guidelines that are supposed to be followed by admins. Frankly it is an abuse of the tools and must not be allowed to stand. - Nick Thorne talk 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly I'm running up a treacle hill with concrete shoes on in trying to make either of you see sense. It's utterly bizarre that you are more offended by an admin stepping outside administrative protocols than you are about an editor telling another editor to get checked out for terminal cancer, twice, in response to a whacky, yet somewhat innocent, tangent on their own talk page. You may think it's semi-okay to do this, but frankly I don't and they'll be many others who agree with me. CassiantoTalk 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- What a load of self righteous nonsense. No one is suggesting that Wolf did not need to be sanctioned. However jumping straight to indef without prior escalating blocks is simply unconscionable and clearly breaks the not punative guidelines that are supposed to be followed by admins. Frankly it is an abuse of the tools and must not be allowed to stand. - Nick Thorne talk 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- You request a return after a significant period of reflection, that's how. Unlike you, I'd respect that person more for doing that rather than coming out with a lame apology, purely to get their editing rights back again. I couldn't really care less if this exchange is deleted, I've got it off my chest and that's all that matters to me. If snowflake-like behaviour is exhibited here by the page owner deleting a civil debate on the morals of someone who can say such sickening things, then that is a matter for them. It won't be me being judged. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- How do you ride out an indefinite block? It's indefinite. Yeah, he's been advised to take the 6 month offer, but that's different than a six-month block which then expires. He has no guarantee of the block being lifted, which is what "ride out the block" implies. I have previously stated on Wolf's talk page that I do support a finite block with a definite end period, so in no way am I saying that this should be glossed over. But that isn't what this is, and that's what I don't support. (At this point, I should probably wait on Nick to respond, assuming he does, and that he doesn't chose to delete the whole discussion, for which I wouldn't blame him.) - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)