User talk:Spaceclerk

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Spaceclerk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Tony Martin (professor). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Welcome

Not welcome! Any additional post here will be a matter for WP:AN/I under WP:HARASS.

Off2riorob
Carolmooredc

If you'd like civility, it starts with a simple sentence from you: "I'm sorry, I was wrong about the sockpuppet thing, and I apologize."

For the curious, here is the kind of crap I'm putting up with from them.

Spaceclerk (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncivility"

You appear to be coming across as more "uncivil" as the users not allowed on your talk page. Please take time to look at the situtation with a cool head and not with your current temper. Otherwise you might find yourself blocked for being uncivil. Thanks in advance! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind note. There has been quite a bit of tit-for-tat already, and you have been very carefully shown exactly one side. Will you also put a notice on her page suggesting that maybe bogus WP:SPI is not quite the height of wikietiquette itself, and that an apology for false charges is in order? Spaceclerk (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I gave you the notice. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a straw poll like that, even in good faith, is not acceptable behaviour. I have collapsed it; if you wish to discuss Carol's behaviour then please use the WP:RFC/U process. In terms of the issue you raised regarding previous off-wiki comments made by Carol; they were discussed here and I strongly suggest you drop it, as I also suggested to Jehochman at the time. It is unacceptable to bring up off-wiki comments made some time ago to attack an editor. Carol's explanation at the time (that it was an email sent in the hear of the moment after a threat) seems acceptable, and we should assume good faith on her part. Carol does hold fairly strong views; this is not necessarily a problem, more of something to bear in mind (as much for her as anyone else) when editing. The solution, if you oppose those views is not to attack her; it simply invalidates your position. If you have issues in how she acts then raise an RFC/U politely and sensibly - that way people will listen to you. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another nail in the Wikipedia coffin. Antisemitism is now treated merely "another view" one must be prepared to ignore in order to be "civil"; to be bothered by antisemitism is a worse Wikipedia crime than to be a known antisemite. And that is just another why Wikipedia will never earn the credibility or authority it's yearning for, and why it will never be more trustworthy than the nearest bathroom wall. If David Duke were caught editing Wikipedia entries about Jews, he'd be told it's just fine as long as he does so "civilly," and anyone balking at the obvious immorality would be castigated as - yes - "uncivil." Spaceclerk (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is; so long as they are not pushing anti-semitic views into the article, yes, it's fine. Do you see the irony of discriminating against them :) (BTW please avoid accusing people of serious things like that, it is simply not done, period, end of.) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for epitomizing the flaw so precisely. It's not a charge I make lightly, and the way it's being treated is a serious condemnation of Wikipedia procedures, both as designed and as executed by people like yourself. I had doubts when I heard people complaining that Wikipedia is institutionally antisemitic, but now I understand why that perception exists. I think the issue is that Wikipedia doesn't give a damn whether or not it's antisemitic, as long as its peaceful. And that is a truly terrible moral position for Wikipedia to take, as I am sure - on some level - you are aware. Spaceclerk (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PA

You are aware that you are not allowed to make personal attacks against other uses, even if you think they are justified?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

As you are no longer retired? If not would you mind removing what is a mis-leading banner from your user page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read Wikipedia, the more I understand Hitler's Germany or Soviet Russia, with their layers upon layers of mutually contradictory administration, quasi-rules that stack nebulosity upon nebulousness, and the utter chaos that ensues. Finally, it all seems to boil down to one view: you can apparently do whatever you want whenever you want on Wikipedia, as long as you're polite about it, facts and ethics be damned. So, no thank you, not interested in shouting into the whirlwind anymore. I just stepped back in because it looked, with Carolmooredc's block, that Wikipedia was showing actual signs of institutional wisdom. Natch, it didn't last even a fraction of a day. And that's why Wikipedia is slowly rolling up into a little ball. Spaceclerk (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]