User talk:Strange Passerby/archive5
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Fixed my page!
Thank you. :) It's been bugging me. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, it was getting to annoy me too—and I'm merely a TPS, let alone the talk page "owner". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
results of the sockpuppet investigation
If I interpret the investigation results properly, Alverya only shows up as "likely" rather than "confirmed" because he edits from the same workplace; however Alverya is quite different in behaviour from the other editors; and we know that Alverya edits from Ministry IPs.
Furthermore, these IPs never explicitly deny that they edit on the behalf of an interested party or the government -- they prefer to use "you too" arguments like "but you're a lesbian" instead. Why the authorities would bother with enforcing their particular version of copyrighted text is beyond me, but I now really really suspect that there is some sort government-sanctioned editing going on, if not at any high level, at least some sort of silly YPAP-coordinated activity as has been suspected elsewhere on the internet for years. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
La goutte de pluie
Would like your input over here. Also can you help to drop a note to User_talk:Zhanzhao about it as his page is protected. Thanks.202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment
Just wanted to mention, I'm not anti-admin. I've never considered a 'list of problems' page, and its unlikely I would. But I do think editors ought to be allowed to organize their thoughts in a way that works for them, and in userspace especially, which is our own domain to a small extent, we ought to be given more latitude than elsewhere. People have different learning styles, visual, verbal, tactile, auditory, and for some people, I can see where they might need to write things down before they present it to others, or just simply keep the info so they don't lose track of it.
If I actually thought Surturz was trying to game the system or pull a fast one, I would be opposed to his page. But I've looked at the page history and it never was mean spirited or revenge oriented. It was simple, short and professional.
I'm not particularly impressed with how he organized it or anything, but its super mild and I'm really puzzled why people seem to be so much in an uproar over it. I've seen much more contentious and bitter stuff in normal Talk pages and it doesn't get anyone blocked, banned, or deleted.
I'm just really puzzled why some people care so much what's in the user pages anyway, and if its not a copyright violation or BLP problem, I don't know how much I'd really worry about it. But everyone is different :) -- Avanu (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind note. Clearly, we strongly disagree on this. I have my (more personal) reasons why that I won't mention, but at the very least I think in its current form, it's problematic. If Surturz were to change the page to be more of a discussion of particular actions, including the reasons why he feel the admin was wrong, rather than simply listing admin actions he didn't like, that would be much more conducive and I would be far less inclined to !vote to delete it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- From what I understand in the discussion, the page was only 18 hours old when it got speedily deleted, so all this stuff over the last few days is just drama arising out of that. Its entirely possible that Surturz might have changed it or simply deleted it if more time had passed, or if *any* admin had just taken the time to discuss it on his User talk page, or that page, but maybe not also, but it sure would have saved a lot of drama if it had. -- Avanu (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I modified the list to try to make the page less article-like. Mind having another look at the FLC? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Done and supported. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The right to reply and defend myself
I'm entitled to reply to people - esp those who are simply joining in an attack on me based on "disruption" (sustained or otherwise) that I simply did not do (snowball Afd aside - I missed the first hour-long one). I just followed a procedure that is a mainstay of Wikpedia. Defending myself is not "repeating things over and over again". My comments with David were on his 'talk page - you cannot call that disrupting Wikipedia. If people don't want to read my comments there they can just avoid them. From some people there is real "NO CENSORSHIP HERE" POV going on when they are going after me (attacking my mental health for example - honestly). The last word was that I am "disruptive" and I had crap from people as a consequence of that - it's not my fault this has gone on and on. People won't leave me without some kind of smackdown. It's just not right that I should have to accept that. It is not a case of "the community has spoken" at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the personal attack on you accusing you of having unstable mental health was unwarranted and way over the top. That being said, though, have you at least looked at and read WP:Disruptive editing? Disruptive editing can happen in good faith. I know you believed your actions to have been in good faith, but they can still end up being disruptive. Perhaps there is a problem in communicating this point; many people only assume being "disruptive" to be acting in bad faith.
- I have much sympathy for the personal attack against you, but you must recognise that people believe you have been disruptive. Regardless of whether they are right or not (history will be the judge), you have to stop and take a look at the situation and see why they have characterised your actions as such. Always remember that while it's good to follow procedure, it's also good to carry some common sense when editing. I would strongly suggest to you that if you believe on-the-spot "reporting" of developing events is bad for Wikipedia, that you make a proposal to that effect at WP:Village pump (policy) and try to get consensus for a moratorium on such articles. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I said a while back that I'm planning to take it elsewhere. I'm thinking of a RFC on the general 'meta' matter, but I might go to village pump first. The thing is that I've not been allowed any closure at all. Every time I defend myself over an OTT comment I get a new disparaging comment based on not shutting up. It's farcical really. The reaction to me got OTT so quickly that was the problem - it's just cycled from there. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of your concerns have either been addressed or replied to. Regards — Bill william comptonTalk 14:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you please take a look there, I'm waiting for your response. — Bill william comptonTalk 15:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- As you may be able to appreciate from my recent contributions, my current Wikipedia focus is elsewhere more pressing, but I will revisit ASAP. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem StrPby! take as much time as you need. It's just that maybe after a few days I may get stuck into some other real life stuff, so won't be able to give appreciable time to Wikipedia. But I understand that you might be in same situation. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 05:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that one of the editors on Tony Tan Keng Yam, User:Tempwikisc, wrote an autobiography about himself, which probably explains why he is not above COI. You may wish to comment on the afd. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Astroturfing on Singaporean politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Posted on behalf of filing party User:La goutte de pluie by Arbitration Committee clerk Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Singaporean editor requested
At Talk:Eugenics in Singapore#POV, confusing. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
which biographies do you have a problem with?
As they stand? Why haven't you pursued the talk pages if you were dissatisfied? For articles that are not well looked at I've attempted to use (and get IP/COI users to use) the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
RFC
As to the comment that was made to you that the discussion was only about one issue of bad conduct, I checked and could find no justification for this so I "added" my accusation of bad conduct here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/La_goutte_de_pluie#Continuing_Bad_Conduct_Complaint as well and it was not objected to and she was forced to answer to it, though she answered untruthfully. My viewpoint is that it seems a waste of time to keep initiating new discussions when one is already underway and each accusation of bad conduct in one venue shows the entire picture whereas just limiting one bad conduct episode to every "new" RFC is a waste of time. The decision is, of course, up to you, but I thought I would let you know what I did. Mugginsx (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Um, your sense of "truth" is interesting. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:ITN/C - Yahoo
Hi Strange Passerby,
Thank you for your feedback on ITN/C for the Yahoo CEO [1]. I assure you I'm not a troll, I'm a good faith well intentioned anonymous contributor to Wikipedia. I would also like to thank you for your feedback on WPTalk:ITN, where you referred to me as a "damn troll" [2]. You'll find that in the second instance, user Modest Genius took the time for a thoughtful and considerate reply, which I found valuable and which led me to ITN/C when I saw the CEO of Yahoo was fired. As I expected, it was there nominated, and the Apple argument had been re-visited. I hope that this clarifies my "non-troll" status, and that in the future you'll offer thoughtful and considerate replies to my contributions. Please leave a talkback on my page if you choose to reply since I'm unable to maintain a watch list.
Sincerely, Non-troll anonymous contributor --108.132.91.68 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your repetitive insistence on the usage of a derogatory "Apple fanbois" remark in every comment you've made indicates that you're a troll. If you'd like to contribute positively, quite simply leaving that term out would make your arguments sound much more sound. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. "Apple Fanboi" is an alternate spelling of "Apple Fanboy", which is shorthand for "Apple Evangelist". Given the way these fanbois have been drawn to the debate over Jobs' worthiness on ITN, it seems relevant. That said, I'll use the term "Apple product evangelist" moving forward if you'll acknowledge that I'm not a troll and stop blindly reverting my contributions. Thanks. --108.132.91.68 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
1952 Winter Olympics FT attempt
Hello, I know we had talked about attempting to do a Featured Topic on the 1952 Winter Olympics. I see that User:Arsenikk has gotten the Venues list do FL, we have the medal table and medalist list as well as the article all at Featured. What else do you think needs to be done? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Think we should be able to push on with it. Don't think we really need anything else. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I've nominated the FT at WP:FTC. Fingers crossed. Here's the nom. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chief of Defence Force (Singapore)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) 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. Sp33dyphil © • © 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to do so. I'm on a bit of a hiatus from Wikipedia at the moment but will endeavour to look your comments over when I get the time to. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
2011 Southeast Asian Games
Hi, there has been concerns that the articles related to this event are not being expanded. Do you have any plans on expanding the articles? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Happy holidays
|
Happy holidays. | |
| Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
Wow it's been a long time since we first meet at AN/I. Hope all is well, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 06:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)