User talk:SirFozzie/Nationalism

Thoughts? This is just an attempt to get this out of my head, what's been rattling around, dealing with the ArbCom etcetera... SirFozzie 16:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think there needs to be a stronger line taken. The problem is that any time an admin takes any action it embroils them in massive and energy-draining consequences. We could have done collectively as admins what ArbCom is (presumably) about to do, but the effort to do so is stupefying, which is why admins get defeated, until it escalates to Arbcom. I think Wiki is now the 9th most popular site in the world out of 100,000,000, by the way. Tyrenius 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good essay SirFozzie but as Tyrenius says more must be done to stop editors from abusing this excellent project. As an editor who has been accused of being a "team editor" (ujustly in my opinion), sanctions should be severe for people who abuse WP.But is anyone ever able to be truely NPOV or does ones prejudices get in the way all the same good essay. BigDunc 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an outrage!

This is awful. Truly awful.

This Fozzie bloke says that one of Wikipedia's five pillars, viz NPOV, is really important. Disgraceful!

And he says that editors who can't work towards NPOV, should go away. Scandalous!

What next? This is a slippery slope, and next thing this Fozzie will try to expel editors who don't want to create an encyclopedia.

He must be stopped! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PS Anyone know how to undo a tongue which has been superglued into one's cheek? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He'll be book burning to try and rewrite history next, this censorship cannot be permitted!!1!1!!!1! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. He clearly has a deep prejudice against obsessive people with blinkered prejudices. The man is obviously thoroughly guilty: all that's needed is to decide the charges. Maybe these people could manufacture some evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism

Seems more like an essay on agenda pushing not specifically nationalsim and its the agenda pushing and not particularly nationalsim that is the problem for wikipedia, LaRouche immediaterly springs to mind. I believe developinbg a policy on SPA agenda pushing would be a useful way forward, SqueakBox 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a policy would be a good idea, but I suggest that it should not be restricted to SPAs. One of the notable features of the RFA on The Troubles is that there have been several editors who have made substantial contributions in some areas, but also had a sideline of POV edit-warring (in one case, an editor who had done a lot of good work descended into an SPA POV-warrior). Rather than getting bogged down in who is (or is not) an SPA at any given time, wouldn't it be better to focus on the agenda-pushing, and stress that good work in other areas does not give a licence to disrupt in other areas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hail, Sir Fozzie! Are you better yet? If not, what the hell are you doing exerting yourself - go back to bed immediately! If you are - good to see you back! Interesting essay; I had to take a couple of minutes to decode the references. The only thing I'd say is <deep breath> while I agree with you about ONiH's (considerable) contribution, he does himself no favours by acting as an apologist-in-chief for his friend. I can understand why he does it, and to that extent it's a commendable loyalty, but sometimes the best thing that we can do for our friends is to tell them to stop being a prat. Anyway, that's my take on it, I don't mean to be offensive, and I only set this out in public because I don't believe in talking about people behind their backs. Which is my other point; I've finally got my e-mail link working (thanks to Rockpocket), but I'm probably going to dismantle it within a week because I'm nervous about nutters following me home! So, if you want to e-mail me, you've got a week to do so! (And for God's sake take care of yourself.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you could take your blinkers off for a second, you'd realise I've criticised VK on many occasions. In fact, you won't be aware of one particular action I took to try and avoid this whole situation in the first place, as it took place via email. The best thing you could do is to stop being a apologist yourself, I've seen you berating admins and defending the undefendable conduct of editors who were rightfully blocked. Strangely enough it's always the anti-Irish republican editors you're always defending, funny that isn't it? Still, never let the facts get in the way of a dig at me will you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a dig at you at all, and I'm surprised that you think I have. I also thought that we had parted on reasonably good terms after you took down your sub-page and I apologised to you for losing my temper over it. Rather than being partisan, I categorise editors in this dispute as being either conciliators or shit-stirrers. Users such as Name dropper and Stramash, to take two random examples, who emerge to play politics or make POV edits, are not helpful; and nor is the inability of Vintagekits and (in my opinion, Giano) to avoid personalising any differences of opinion. Whilst writing, congratulations on your recent successes.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"apologist-in-chief" not having a dig? It doesn't even take much effort to prove that wrong, and posted in a very prominent place. I'm sure you've been following the ArbCom, so haven't you noticed my statement for that says "While his (Vintagekits) conduct has at times been deplorable"? As for the rest, if you don't have any bait you won't catch any fish. You're also showing your own colours by the selection of accounts you're using. How about General Peabody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I'm not having the subpage he created undeleted, but ask Fozzie what the general gist of User:One Night In Hackney/terrorist was. Attempting to put all the blame on Vintagekits regarding personalising differences of opinion is incorrect as the ArbCom shows other people are just as guilty, so you're still showing your own inherent bias. Let he who is without sin and all that..... On and thanks for your last comment, I figured it was a good idea to make hay while the sun shines! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

10:05, 12 May 2007 . . General Peabody (Talk | contribs | block) (42 bytes) (←Created page with 'THIS USER IS A TERRORIST PLEASE BLOCK HIM') That should say whatever is necessary. SirFozzie 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, SirFozzie, I don't approve of that sort of thing and, despite the implication above, had nothing to do with it. Rather than somehow 'showing bias' by not referring to General Peabody, it's a display of my ignorance - I never came across him and never knew he existed. And I'm afraid that I see it as rather hypocritical to complain about abusive sub-pages whilst posting them oneself. --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I seem to remember someone trying to get that page deleted, and it didn't work. It wasn't abusive, it showed the disgraceful POV pushing of certain editors who cried like babies when their true colours were exposed for the world to see. Here's a suggestion, instead of playing the old "reasonable routine" (which fools nobody by the way), why don't you stop stirring up trouble where none exists? As that's all you seem to do to be fair, you don't actually contribute much to the encylopedia constructively. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, One Night In Hackney. I notice that you are dogging my recent edits, none of which have been addressed to you, and taking the opportunity to snipe at me (including in the edit summaries). I'd have thought that you were skating on thin ice in relation to two obvious core policies and the recent ArbCom judgment, no matter how amusing you and Giano find your behaviour.

I've told you that I've nothing to do with General Peabody; if you don't believe me, either go for a Checkuser or let the matter drop. In any event, I'd suggest that you stay away from me.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)