Mind Your Own BusinessEdit
This is nothing to do with you. Eshe and I are discussing it: you editing the page under advisement is helping nothing. –rpeh•T•C•E• 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- As a member of this community, RobinHood has every right to be a part of this discussion. Please discontinue this highly unproductive and rude behavior. –Eshetalk 01:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- He has a right to comment, NOT to jump in to the middle of a discussion that takes place in the middle of another discussion. It is totally inappropriate for RobinHood to revert my edits to SerCenKing's talk page when YOU have already said you want community input. –rpeh•T•C•E• 01:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- By that argument, it would also be inappropriate for anyone else to continue messing with the edit, yourself included. Again, please contribute productively so that we can all come to an agreement. –Eshetalk 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (multiple e/cs...this may be an out-of-date reply at this point) You've both mentioned input from "the community" in the discussion on Eshe's page — last I checked, I am a member of "the community", so I have provided my input. I have to wonder, though, at your insistence on putting the link in. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- By that argument, it would also be inappropriate for anyone else to continue messing with the edit, yourself included. Again, please contribute productively so that we can all come to an agreement. –Eshetalk 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No, you said you were awaiting further input from the community. Somebody steaming in and reverting the edit isn't "input", it's a decision. And you KNOW that. Input means debate. So leave the link in place while the debate takes place. Anything else is censorship. –rpeh•T•C•E• 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (e/c...again) As mentioned in the various discussions, per BRD etiquette, it's appropriate to leave the contentious material off the page until the discussion has concluded. Again, why is it so urgent that you have that link posted that it can't wait until the discussion is over? —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
(u/d) To be honest, I find it interesting that both of you have put more effort into this one discussion with me than you have in trying to improve the site over the last couple of weeks. Tells its own sad story really. –rpeh•T•C•E• 01:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Frankly, I couldn't care less at this point who the blogger is, and I've stopped reading the site altogether as the comments there are generally petty and unhelpful. Who's who is not the issue here, however. Your violations of BRD and 3RR, however, are. As a former administrator on this site, I would've expected better behaviour from you. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- BRD has nothing to do with TALK pages. TRR would be relevant, but only if you and Eshe weren't violating other policies by editing other people's talk page posts. –rpeh•T•C•E• 01:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Excuse me for interuppting, but RobinHood is right, this conversation is getting out of hand. Your comments are clogging up the recent changes page and basically preventing you guys from helping the site out. There must be some agreement you two can come up with until someone can sort this out. I just would like to see us working together to make the better, instead of wasting our time with arguing. Can we at least leave the link up so we can refer to it later? Jplatinum16 01:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Rpeh, if you think I've put "more effort" into this than other recent contributions, you obviously haven't paid attention to some of my recent edits (like the discussion immediately above) and patrols—many of which took time in the CS to examine—nor to the message at the top of my page that says I'm likely to not be particularly active for a while. In truth, the fact that I've paid even this much attention to the issue was a coincidence of timing. I typically look at the site once or twice a day at most and patrol/correct anything on my watchlist (which includes all Patrollers and Admins) if I can...that's about it. You happened to contribute to SerCenKing's page just as I was wrapping up several days of watchlist backlog.
-
-
-
-
-
- As to Jplatinum's comment, I'm actually done for the day; I'll leave it to others to decide whether to leave or remove the link. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The comment at the top of the page was partly what motivated me to post the comment. Second to that was a quick glance at the recent changes page. And when it comes to looking up stuff in the CS, I'm gonna pull rank. Nobody. Nobody removed more VN tags than me, so don't try to tell me how long stuff takes to check. The sort of stuff you've been doing? 10 mins. Tops. Have a good evening. –rpeh•T•C•E• 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The preceding discussion took a couple of hours of CS and in-game checking, but what does how much effort you put into things at any point have anything whatsoever to do with this discussion? —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have put more effort into this site than anybody else with the exception of Nephele and Daveh. So I know exactly how much time the sort of stuff you've been looking up takes. Or at least, I know how long it would have taken me to do. I can't help it if it takes you considerably longer. –rpeh•T•C•E• 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
(outdent) Low blow, considering I'm chronically ill (which you know) which includes impaired concentration and cognitive function. Good job, rpeh. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Didn't know that. You had never given me more than brief details about your condition. But I apologise for any and all offense caused by my comments, despite their having been made without cognisance of the facts. Having said that, one of the things that pissed me off about the whole "incident" was that people (especially you, in fact) said a lot of things that I would have expected to have been ruled out by prior experience. But that's another whole story. –rpeh•T•C•E• 01:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Truthfully, rpeh, I don't think anyone here wants anything from you. We just want to be left alone, and to allow the UESP to continue improving itself. Now, if you want to help with that goal, you're welcome to do so, but you're going to have to abide by the etiquette rules that we have here at the UESP. That's all we ask.--Ratwar 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ratwar, that's exactly what I've just been doing. I replaced a set of images that had better, previous alternatives and posted a reason on a user's talk page. That is exactly how a wiki is supposed to work. You, RobinHood and Eshe are only making such a big deal over this because it's me making the post. If it was any other user you'd take it in your stride. I have done nothing wrong. I was not, for instance, the person who decided to start censoring talk pages because they felt like it. –rpeh•T•C•E• 02:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nobody gives a damn that you edited here. What we do care about is you advertising a site created to insult UESP editors. Edits that advertised that site were reverted before when they were made by anonymous IPs.--Ratwar 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's called a link. On something called the Internet. Deal with it. And yes, you pretty clearly all do care that I edited here before or we wouldn't be having this debate. At least be honest here. As I've said earlier, I don't agree with that site all the time: in fact, I disagree with it the vast majority of the time. I'm more concerned with what's happening here, since I put so much damn time into it. UESPWatch seems to care about that too, although the most recent post makes me wonder... If you are starting to censor talk page posts because it's something you don't like, then you're going far too far down a road I don't like. Nobody has provided a sensible reason, explained from a base in site policy, why the link I used on SerC's talk page should be removed. Until you do, leave it alone. –rpeh•T•C•E• 02:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
As I've said before, it isn't about removing links to a site because we don't like what they have to say. It's about what content is or is not appropriate here. We all know the disclaimer that appears upon visiting the site will have absolutely no impact on who decides to enter it. While the site may at times try to be helpful, by and large it is rude, vulgar, and (for the millionth time), completely inappropriate. If I posted the link myself, or if anyone else posted it, it would still be inappropriate. I'm sorry, but there is no good reason to leave a link to a site of that nature in place. –Eshetalk 02:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- And (for the millionth time) (since hyperbole is the order of the day) you don't have the right to remove that link. Please indicate to me the line in UESP or WP policy that you think gives you that right. –rpeh•T•C•E• 02:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I plan on dealing with the link. I plan on deleting the link for being spam/breach of etiquette as three editors on the site have now defined it as such. I am merely attempting to explain the decision to you and give you time to attempt to change my mind. At this time, I believe that Eshe, Robinhood, and I have all give a spirited attempt to both explain ourselves and for you to change our minds. You have failed to change our minds, and thus our consensus is to remove the link. I will take such action directly.--Ratwar 02:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Actually, as Ratwar has pointed out, links to the site have been posted before by random users; these links were also removed, and there is no policy stating that removal of inappropriate content is not allowed. There are, however, many pages encouraging the removal of such content. This instance is in no way meant to target you personally. We're dealing with an inappropriate link to a hateful site, not with whatever personal opinions we all may or may not have about one another. –Eshetalk 02:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Er...I'm fairly certain the entire style guide alone would rule that out! –Eshetalk 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(outdent) As mentioned in my private e-mail to you, I don't bear you the grudge you seem to be assuming here. I can't say I'm thrilled with many of your actions, but I don't have anything in particular against you. Much like the post you just put on Daveh's site, I really don't feel that the site you linked to belongs on this board. The mud-slinging is, of course, undesirable in its own right, but the simple fact is that there's too much vulgar language and general vileness there. This site is supposed to be a friendly and helpful place, and while I realize that you may think that's the height of irony given recent events, I'm hopeful that it will be again. Posting the link to that site was simply contrary to that goal.
As regards policy, the simple fact is that the site is governed first and foremost by common sense. You're right, there's no policy that says you can't fill every page with the word "Teapot!", but you know as well as I do that anybody coming across it would've reverted it as vandalism. Your link to the blog falls under the same common-sense rule. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- If that was the case, we'd have more policy pages than content pages. Look, rpeh, I know it's late over there. Let this end for tonight. If you still feel like arguing over it in the morning, we can continue down this path, but seriously, get some sleep, and stop worrying about it for the moment.--Ratwar 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- It's a site devoted to commenting on this one. As I've said, much of what it has to say is rubbish. Much other stuff is inflammatory and much of what's left is nonsense. I picked up on ONE instance - about images. The only reason I even came back is because I read that post. I took a look at the latest image uploads and... well, you can see that I found fault. They are simply not as good as the ones that were there already (not all mine). If you (or anybody else) disagrees you can undo my undo. I'm not going to edit war over that.
- I feel a connection to the images on this site because I made so many of them. When I see what I consider to be inferior images overwriting the ones I uploaded then I'll take a stand on that.
- Fact is, nobody has done that. Instead of commenting on the substance, it's been all about the post I made explaining what I'd done to the only editor affected.
- The "No! No! No!" attitude from you all makes me want to go back and re-evaluate just how much other stuff was true. –rpeh•T•C•E• 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)