User talk:Nscheffey/Archive 3

This 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.

==August 2006==

IP was unblocked

Try editing. If you still have an issue, you can email me. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't taunt banned users

This type of message isn't appropriate. Being banned isn't an excuse to kick him/her while s/he's down. Just ignore Ste4k. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Dumb thing to do, let my emotions get the better of me. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable mistake

Just checking, but did you mean to add this speedy-delete notice to User:HumphreyB? Careful with those tools, if it was a mistake ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 08:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, definitely a mistake. Didn't even realize I'd actually done it. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Now I'm going to go apologize to Humphrey. Thanks again. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Badlydrawnjeffs talk page

Speedy keep isnt a policy, its a guideline. And the admin you speak of agreed with me and in fact relisted it (also "voted" as keep after relist). Please try to not confuse the situation. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I mis-spoke, and have corrected it in the comment. However, my issue is not with Speedy Keep, it is with your reaction to jeff's request. I understand that you and Samir agreed on the outcome of the AfD, but his handling of the situation seems far superior to yours. If someone has issues with a speedy close, it is best to take their considerations into account and let the process play out. Also, you referred to Speedy keep several times, condescendingly suggesting Jeff reread it, when in fact you were wrong about what it said. I don't think that type of behavior helps Wikipedia at all, and I don't think I'm confusing the issue. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I had already once noted afterwards to him, that the close as speedy for whichever AfD it was, was in fact wrong. And I'm not even sure which AfD you were talking about either. My comment was that you were confusing the situation, not the issue. The situation at that time, moved from too many topics, and your comments are heavily belated. I also would like to know where I was uncivil to Badlydrawnjeff, as you provided no evidence. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what AfD I was talking about? From the second sentence of my comment: "Your comment on Maggot's talk page that he not speedily close the Boston, Ontario AfD was a civil and reasonable request." Hope that clears it up. Whether you think my comments regarding something that happened three days go are "heavily belated" is not relevent. As to where you were uncivil, let me, to use your preferred terminology, "hold your hand."

• First Jeff made a reasonable and correct comment on your talk page.[1]
• You then suggest he "Try rereading" the guideline in question.[2]
• Jeff responds, correctly, that it meets no speedy keep criteria.[3]
• You then again suggest that he "actually read it", and go on, inexplicably, to quote a sentence from the guideline that directly contradicts your point.[4]
• When Jeff points this out to you using basic logical operators, you finally say that you are "sick of [him] questioning [you]."[5]

This is an uncivil way to deal with someone. You were condescending until you were proven wrong, and then you were hostile. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It still would be belated, due to the timing of the matter. Boston was speedy kept for a different reason. It was kept to relist with a better reason to delete, not reopen. Now you say I was hostile, well, I wasnt hostile, or uncivil. I was a bit sarcstic but none of the diffs you show were actually uncivil. Check out WP:CIVIL. I'm taking your talk page off of my watchlist, not because of this, but I really want to let this situation go. Stop by my talk page if theres anything I can ever help you with :) Regards. SynergeticMaggot 16:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

MD quandary

Deleted, as requested.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

talk:set (mythology)

Talk:Set_(mythology) Thank you for your reply.

You write that you do not understand it fully. Hence again: the talk contribution does enlist variations of sexuality related terms, without containing real information, or a specific relation to the article. Further, it is possible to read a political announcement into the lines. Citation "we are going to repaint...blablabla". I do not like it, because it does not spell "who is we", it is rather threatening.

In addition, i have asked not to spread the words in charge (same sex relations) more than neccessary!
The talk contribution contains the words more than 30 times. It is absolutely low quality talk contribution.
I do not see a relation to ancienct egypt, to the Set article. If it is related to egypt, then it is most likely a performance of original research WP:OR, not NPOV WP:NPOV.

I do not understand, that overly long talk contributions in this style gets allowed on wikipedia. The style is obviously BBS-like communication, not geared towards improving the article.
I am asking to verify existing policies, if the talk contribution is wiki, otherwise to remove it.
If you have any questions, i am absolutely possible to discuss on a basis respecting wiki etiquette. I am asking not to use vulgar words more than absolutely neccessary.
If it is required for the article to keep this discussion, then i do not wish to discuss it further, just to proove a point. I do not want to proove a point WP:POINT
However, there are ongoing discussions on wikipedia, if it should express any pro attitude about same sex relations; this stands in contrast to WP:NPOV. Hence to use the words in charge not more than absoutely neccessary.User:Yy-bo 11:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. The thing is, WP:OR and WP:NPOV only apply to articles, not talk pages or user pages or anything else. So, while you may feel that the discussion is POV, and you may be right, that still doesn't mean it should be deleted. Keeping old discussions helps prevent the same thing from being discussed over and over, for example if future editors have a problem with the wording of this article they can check the Talk page and see the points that have already been made. Deleting it would not be bhelpful to the project. Anyway, happy editing, feel free to contact me anytime. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the immediate reply. I understand your argumentation. Previously i did not knew NPOV, OR only apply to articles. It helped to have a few words about it; and to read the opinion of someone else. Before doing a meaningful edit, editors are given good advice to seek feedback (and not, for instance, to remove stuff out of own conclusion). Maybe i move it to an archiv page soon. User:Yy-bo 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)~