Invitation for review

[stevertigo-2]

User:Tznkai would like your opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_for_review

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:
> User:Tznkai would like your opinion:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_for_review
>
>  
Good luck!  The process seems unbalanced.  Dealing with such sophistries
as "Holocaust denial is not the same as denial of the Holocaust" can be
very challenging. My impression was that a handful of true believers
have chosen to monopolize the Holocaust on behalf of the Jews.  NPOV
suffers when such a group takes possession of an article.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jay Litwyn-2]

"stevertigo" <stvrtg@...> wrote in message
news:7c402e010909232119j41f3a425l27bd1934c8b8c5a2@......
> User:Tznkai would like your opinion:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_for_review

...I think it takes for it to become clear if the editing environment has
normalized or deteriorated due to an editor being removed.--Tznkai (talk)
04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Way too much noise about meat puppetry or something is at the end of that
sentence. Commit to spending a probationary period outside of history, BLP,
policy, and anything else that yields to essays or popular opinion polls.




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:
> Good luck!  The process seems unbalanced.  Dealing with such sophistries
> as "Holocaust denial is not the same as denial of the Holocaust" can be
> very challenging. My impression was that a handful of true believers
> have chosen to monopolize the Holocaust on behalf of the Jews.  NPOV
> suffers when such a group takes possession of an article.

Well, my argument is fairly straightforward: Terms with variance need
a definition for each context in which they are used.

They don't have an argument, and thus keep resorting to abusive
tactics like repeatedly asking me to restate my points ad infinitum,
after which they make a tradition of mischaracterizing them, and then
berate me for going 'on and on.' The latest device is this notion that
we can just sort of pick from "reliable" sources. I would prefer
instead that we 'use sources reliably.'

Anyway, thanks Ec.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Risker]

2009/9/24 stevertigo stvrtg@...
<snip>


> The latest device is this notion that
> we can just sort of pick from "reliable" sources. I would prefer
> instead that we 'use sources reliably.'
>
> Well, that is not the same thing at all.

Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be reliable;
the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("reliable") manner; the
qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the
way that it is used on Wikipedia.

I sincerely hope that you aren't suggesting that the quality ("reliability")
of a source is unimportant compared to the consistency of the source's use
in Wikipedia.

Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Risker <risker.wp@...> wrote:

> Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be reliable;
> the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
> Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
> source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("reliable") manner; the
> qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the
> way that it is used on Wikipedia.

The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate
characterization of my point that we use "reliable" sources
"reliably": (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted,
inaccurately cited).

The source I cited was already in the article in first position, use
specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives
a "reliable" overview of the variance in the context term, and states
this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to
stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence
my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
in a "reliable" way.

A more recent argument suggested changing the current "reliable"
source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context
(subjectively "reliable"), and designating the current (objectively)
"reliable" source less "reliable" simply because it doesn't fit the
context.

> I sincerely hope that you aren't suggesting that the quality ("reliability")
> of a source is unimportant compared to the consistency of the source's use
> in Wikipedia.

I dislike your mischaracterizing insinuation that I don't consider the
issue of "reliability" objectively. It reads as disingenuous.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Previous post correction patch:

stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

- Hence my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable"
source in a "reliable" way.
+ My opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
in a "reliable" way.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Risker]

2009/9/24 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>

> Risker <risker.wp@...> wrote:
>
> > Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on the source to be
> reliable;
> > the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
> > Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
> > source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("reliable") manner; the
> > qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the
> > way that it is used on Wikipedia.
>
> The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate
> characterization of my point that we use "reliable" sources
> "reliably": (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted,
> inaccurately cited).
>
> The source I cited was already in the article in first position, use
> specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives
> a "reliable" overview of the variance in the context term, and states
> this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to
> stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence
> my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
> in a "reliable" way.
>

I wasn't commenting in any way on the sources you were using in any article.
I was responding directly to this sentence in your statement: "I would
prefer
instead that we 'use sources reliably.' "

I am questioning how that is at all a reasonable position.

>
> A more recent argument suggested changing the current "reliable"
> source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context
> (subjectively "reliable"), and designating the current (objectively)
> "reliable" source less "reliable" simply because it doesn't fit the
> context.
>
> > I sincerely hope that you aren't suggesting that the quality
> ("reliability")
> > of a source is unimportant compared to the consistency of the source's
> use
> > in Wikipedia.
>
> I dislike your mischaracterizing insinuation that I don't consider the
> issue of "reliability" objectively. It reads as disingenuous.
>

Stevertigo, you suggest there is a problem with the theory that sources
should be reliable and instead suggest that we use sources reliably.  The
word "objectively" didn't come into play in either the post I was replying
to, or in my response.

I have interpreted what you wrote in the comment I replied to as "Let's
change the way we use sources in xxx way". You haven't given me any reason
to rethink my interpretation, nor have you contradicted what I said except
to suggest I am being disingenous.

From what you are saying now, it seems more that you want to change the way
that sources are used in a *specific* article. We have three million
articles now. If you are going to propose a change in how sources are used,
please consider whether it is something that would make sense as a standard
throughout the encyclopedia.

Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
there is a point of wider significance to the encyclopedia.

You believe Holocaust denial can only be defined using the separate
definitions of "Holocaust" and "denial", and want the article to
reflect your definition. Others state (correctly) that the term
"Holocaust denial" taken as a whole is used to refer specifically to
denial of the Holocaust of Jews (Shoah). Perhaps if we try to glean
wider significance from this incident, it would be in the area of
dealing with specious arguments from editors of long tenure who have
become sophisticated in their misuse of dispute processes.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan <nawrich@...> wrote:

> There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
> don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
> there is a point of wider significance to the encyclopedia.
>
> You believe Holocaust denial can only be defined using the separate
> definitions of "Holocaust" and "denial", and want the article to
> reflect your definition. Others state (correctly) that the term
> "Holocaust denial" taken as a whole is used to refer specifically to
> denial of the Holocaust of Jews (Shoah). Perhaps if we try to glean
> wider significance from this incident, it would be in the area of
> dealing with specious arguments from editors of long tenure who have
> become sophisticated in their misuse of dispute processes.
>
> Nathan

This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust
denialists.

Even without the latter, and AGF, if what you're doing is semantic
original research and perceived as the community as disruptive, it's
the sort of activity which Wikipedia is specifically not here to be
driving.  Write an article elsewhere where it's appropriate.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Risker <risker.wp@...> wrote:
> I wasn't commenting in any way on the sources you were using in any article.
> I was responding directly to this sentence in your statement: "I would
> prefer instead that we 'use sources reliably.' "
> I am questioning how that is at all a reasonable position.

Do I understand correctly, that yours is question based in a less than
one-dimensional reading of my statement, with particular emphasis on
the word "rather," such that my point is inferred to mean rejecting
'objectively reliable sources' with only the "reliable usage of
unreliable sources?" Or am I misreading what you are saying, that you
are misreading what I wrote, by taking it out of context?

The context, just to save you the trouble, is that the opposition
argument promotes "reliable" sources of only their choosing in accord
with a subjective (unreliable) scope. I promote the usage of the
extant (reliable) source, only in a more "reliable" way. Does that
satisfy your topical curiosity.

> Stevertigo, you suggest there is a problem with the theory that sources
> should be reliable and instead suggest that we use sources reliably.  The
> word "objectively" didn't come into play in either the post I was replying
> to, or in my response.

Ha. That's not what I am suggesting at all. In fact if there were some
objective way to determine reliability of sources, why don't we do so
centrally?

> I have interpreted what you wrote in the comment I replied to as "Let's
> change the way we use sources in xxx way". You haven't given me any reason
> to rethink my interpretation, nor have you contradicted what I said except
> to suggest I am being disingenous.

Fair enough. But I hope from my above answer that you understand that
I did not mean what you state your interpretation to be. If you can
agree to keep the contexts of arguments in mind, I will agree to try
and make my points more clear for you.

> From what you are saying now, it seems more that you want to change the way
> that sources are used in a *specific* article. We have three million
> articles now. If you are going to propose a change in how sources are used,
> please consider whether it is something that would make sense as a standard
> throughout the encyclopedia.

Again with the unnecessary mischaracterizations. I am suggesting no
such thing. In fact that is one of my opposition's arguments - that we
change up the source to fit a special case context.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan <nawrich@...> wrote:
> There is a mailing list for block reviews, this isn't it. We also
> don't usually get into discussing specific content issues here unless
> there is a point of wider significance to the encyclopedia.

True, and there are also those that want to discuss things of
substance, as you yourself do in the next paragraph.

> You believe Holocaust denial can only be defined using the separate
> definitions of "Holocaust" and "denial", and want the article to
> reflect your definition. Others state (correctly) that the term
> "Holocaust denial" taken as a whole is used to refer specifically to
> denial of the Holocaust of Jews (Shoah).

That's not accurate. Its not about "separate," "[my] definition,"
"taken as a whole,"* or "specific[ity]." These are all your own
misconceived mis-characterizations.

> Perhaps if we try to glean
> wider significance from this incident, it would be in the area of
> dealing with specious arguments from editors of long tenure who have
> become sophisticated in their misuse of dispute processes.

Certainly. That is, if you want to just ignore those arguments on both
sides and treat this whole thing within some arbitrary notions about
behaviorism. But we would we not first have to show that those
arguments are in fact "specious?" If you want to help out in this
area, I'm already off to a very good head-start on the ANI page. :-)

George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
> disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust
> denialists.
> Even without the latter, and AGF, if what you're doing is semantic
> original research and perceived as the community as disruptive, it's
> the sort of activity which Wikipedia is specifically not here to be
> driving.  Write an article elsewhere where it's appropriate.

I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
"some combination of original research, disruption, or possibly active
but intellectual support of holocaust denialists" (its "deniers" by
the way) and then say well even it ifs just a a matter of "AGF."

I know its a cliche, but I'm going to answer your question is with a
question anyway: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

PPCP:

- and then say well even it ifs just a a matter of "AGF."
+ and then say 'well even it if it's just a matter of "AGF."
-  your question is with a question anyway:
+ your question with a question anyway:

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Summit]

stevertigo wrote:
>George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
>> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
>> disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust
>> denialists.
>
> I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
> "some combination of original research, disruption, or possibly active
> but intellectual support of holocaust denialists" (its "deniers" by
> the way) and then say well even it ifs just a a matter of "AGF."

And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond
of wordplay and intellectual arguments as you seem to be could so
blatantly miss the distinction between "looks like" and "is".

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

> George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
>> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
>> disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust
>> denialists.
>> Even without the latter, and AGF, if what you're doing is semantic
>> original research and perceived as the community as disruptive, it's
>> the sort of activity which Wikipedia is specifically not here to be
>> driving.  Write an article elsewhere where it's appropriate.
>
> I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
> "some combination of original research, disruption, or possibly active
> but intellectual support of holocaust denialists" (its "deniers" by
> the way) and then say well even it ifs just a a matter of "AGF."
>
> I know its a cliche, but I'm going to answer your question is with a
> question anyway: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

The answer is "Earth", all attempts to the contrary notwithstanding.

You threw the question of your disruption block out here on wikien-L
for comment.  You cannot reasonably object that people have responded
with their impressions of the situation.

My impression, to expand, is that you're playing language games and
attempting to support something which violates OR and is to me morally
repugnant.

I know better than to assume of anyone in this crowd that the
appearance of such a stance automatically equals that the person in
fact does hold the views which are appearing in the argument.
However, I see what I see, and I responded to your request for
comment.

At the very least, you have successfully identified a hot button that
you can push to the extent that it gets you blocked for some variation
on disruption.  The normal reasonable human response to "Doctor, it
hurt when I did that" is "Don't do that."

If you have underlying arguments that do not appear to be OR, semantic
lawyering, or supporting holocaust denial, I am willing to hear a more
general articulation of the problem and I invite you to take a few
steps back and clarify.  What you've done at every step so far,
however, has been to dig yourself in deeper.

Again - I know better, in this crowd, than to assume that such deeper
hole digging behavior is anything more than intellectual stubbornness.
 Hence AGF.  But at some point admins on wiki need to react to what we
see and not what we hope is actually underlying.

Whatever your deeper point is - you've presented it in a monumentally
inappropriate manner for the venues, and you're making yourself look
horrible.  I advise you to stop, or to start over again from the very
general description of the problem.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
>>> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
Stevertigo wrote:
>> I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
> And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond
> of wordplay and intellectual arguments as you seem to be could so
> blatantly miss the distinction between "looks like" and "is".

Well, in your view, would George normally say what something "is" (ie.
"this is a combination of"), or would he normally  just tell us what
something "looks like" (to him)? I mean if he can clarify his point in
this context further, in accord with your suggestion of what "is," you
might be even more astonished by my subsequent response.

And I don't do "wordplay." I do something quite.. different.

George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
> You threw the question of your disruption block out here on wikien-L
> for comment.  You cannot reasonably object that people have responded
> with their impressions of the situation.

Well, Steve (above) thinks I should have taken you literally, or
perhaps seriously.

> My impression, to expand, is that you're playing language games and
> attempting to support something which violates OR and is to me morally
> repugnant.

Again with your "impressions."
Yes the subject matter is repugnant.
No I am not someone who thinks the subject matter is good stuff.
Yes, I likewise find the very insinuations, accusations, and
implications repugnant, when misdirected, misfired, or misapplied.
Yes, I think the over-efficient usage of the accusation itself
demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty, and perhaps inadequacy, on
the part of my peers.

> I know better than to assume of anyone in this crowd that the
> appearance of such a stance automatically equals that the person in
> fact does hold the views which are appearing in the argument.
> However, I see what I see, and I responded to your request for
> comment.

Hm. And now you know better.

> At the very least, you have successfully identified a hot button that
> you can push to the extent that it gets you blocked for some variation
> on disruption.  The normal reasonable human response to "Doctor, it
> hurt when I did that" is "Don't do that."

No, I simply made a editorial argument about the conceptualization of
subjective concepts, the necessity for explanations, the reliable
usage of extant sources, and the problem that defending subjective
concepts makes for flimsy, disingenuous arguments.

> If you have underlying arguments that do not appear to be OR, semantic
> lawyering, or supporting holocaust denial, I am willing to hear a more
> general articulation of the problem and I invite you to take a few
> steps back and clarify.  What you've done at every step so far,
> however, has been to dig yourself in deeper.

Ah, so your "impression" is that the "underlying" part of these
"arguments" to you "appears" to be all sorts of nasty things ranging
from 'leaving the toilet seat up,' to 'Hitler-love.'  Certainly you
are right: I don't want give you the "impression" that I "appear" to
be digging myself "deeper."

> Again - I know better, in this crowd, than to assume that such deeper
> hole digging behavior is anything more than intellectual stubbornness.
>  Hence AGF.  But at some point admins on wiki need to react to what we
> see and not what we hope is actually underlying.

Finally something I can't take apart to the bolts. I will have to
consider this though as just 'admin AGF only goes so far' before they
'react' to something they don't actually understand.

> Whatever your deeper point is - you've presented it in a monumentally
> inappropriate manner for the venues, and you're making yourself look
> horrible.  I advise you to stop, or to start over again from the very
> general description of the problem.

Actually there isn't (a "deeper point") and I haven't ("presented it
in a monumentally inappropriate manner"). I edited. Got
reverted/slandered. Responded. Got dissed. Argued. Got misconstrued.
Got slandered some more. Responded. Taken to ANI. Responded.  If you
could say how any of these satisfies your monumentally hyperbolic
characterizations, please take the time to read the discussion and
then comment about your "impressions."

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Summit]

Stevertigo wrote:
>Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
>> And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond
>> of wordplay and intellectual arguments as you seem to be could so
>> blatantly miss the distinction between "looks like" and "is".
>
> ...I don't do "wordplay." I do something quite.. different.

Yes, we've noticed.  I couldn't think of a word for it just then,
either.

> George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
> > You threw the question of your disruption block out here on wikien-L
> > for comment.  You cannot reasonably object that people have responded
> > with their impressions of the situation.
>
> Well, Steve (above) thinks I should have taken you literally, or
> perhaps seriously.

Indeed I do.

George did you the courtesy of, rather than accusing you of
actually being something objectionable, mentioning that that's
the impression you were giving.  The underlying presumption, of
course, is that you'll be interested in changing your behavior
so as to avoid the (putatively incorrect) impression in future.

Now, the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that you have no
such interest, and therefore that we are all quite wasting our
time by letting you engage us in elaborate discussions like this.

Someone on-wiki recently accused you of being a troll.
I wouldn't accuse you of that, but it is certainly the
impression you are giving.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:

> Yes, we've noticed.  I couldn't think of a word for it just then,
> either.

"Pwnage" is the word you're looking for.

> George did you the courtesy of, rather than accusing you of
> actually being something objectionable, mentioning that that's
> the impression you were giving.

Um. No. He stated his "impressions." Fine. I stated my impression of his i
"impressions." Why then are you trying to take issue with me for doing
the same, albeit with more pwnage?

> The underlying presumption, of
> course, is that you'll be interested in changing your behavior
> so as to avoid the (putatively incorrect) impression in future.
> Now, the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that you have no
> such interest,

So, paraphrasing, your "underlying presumption" is the important
concept here, and I somehow am supposed to work at creating a better
"underlying presumption" in your head, by expressing "interest" in
"changing my behavior" to some other mode that is less consistent with
your "underlying presumption."

At least that's my impression. :-}

> and therefore that we are all quite wasting our
> time by letting you engage us in elaborate discussions like this.

I would have said it differently, but as long as you get the hint that
you are just wasting your time, then that should be close enough for
you.

> Someone on-wiki recently accused you of being a troll.

Who said that?

> I wouldn't accuse you of that, but it is certainly the
> impression you are giving.

{{cn}}

- Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

Would anyone care to define the boundaries or goals of this
discussion? Is it really going to be "Let's all analyse everything
Stevertigo has ever said or done, or had said about him?" That could
take a very long time.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Summit]

Stevertigo wrote:
> Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
> > Yes, we've noticed.  I couldn't think of a word for it just then,
> > either.
>
> "Pwnage" is the word you're looking for.

Ah, so you *are* a troll.

>> and therefore that we are all quite wasting our
>> time by letting you engage us in elaborate discussions like this.
>
> I would have said it differently, but as long as you get the hint that
> you are just wasting your time, then that should be close enough for
> you.

And (if only out of courtesy to the natives, who are getting
restless) this will be my last post to this list in this thread.

>> Someone on-wiki recently accused you of being a troll.
>
> Who said that?

Someone in the AN/I thread.  (Search for "troll".)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l