User talk:Bittergrey

Interesting...

It seems that dc.dc.cox.net might actually be in Virginia[1].BitterGrey (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note

Do not tell me what I need to do. I told you to stop posting in the section and take things to ANI if you so desired. The others have also moved on from WQA as it was closed. If you dislike the response you get at WQA then you can escalate things. WQA is not a place where administrative action is dolled out. Your thread of some time ago at FTN was also grossly inappropriate [2]. Do not conflate me pointing out the inappropriateness of a post with defending a specific editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am curious about why you felt it necessary to manually archive the discussion. If you were certain that the thread was being ignored by "all but one," why not let it time out? Also, given that you are supporting the use of cracks about my sexuality as ad hominem attacks against me, what exactly in my FTN comment do you consider "grossly inappropriate"? Since you are censoring discussion - effectively acting as judge and jury - I think it reasonable to ask you for specifics. BitterGrey (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I felt it was necessary as the discussion was closed, and most of the participants have moved. You appear to be unwilling to move on to the correct venue. It is obvious that a complex dispute like this can't be adequately dealt with at WQA, and it isn't the purpose of WQA; WQA is to bring editors to an amicable agreement and deal with any misunderstandings etc; this is clearly not possible in this dispute. WQA isn't dispute resolution, and isn't there for administrator action.

Your comment at FTN from 7 months ago was inappropriate as it was focused on another editor not on the issues. Me pointing out inappropriate behaviour on a noticeboard is not the same as support; as far as I remember I didn't get involved and have no intention of editing in that topic area. I'm also judging this from the context because I did not remember your post at FTN until you provided the diff accusing me of being some sort of WLU compatriot (note the low interactions here: [3]). When editors start making bad faith assumptions about volunteers it is apparent that no amicable solution is going to be arrived at, at WQA. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So you assumed that I would keep asking and asking the same question over and over, like WLU ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]...)? No, I would have accepted the last word and if, in fact, no one cared, let it archive quietly. However, you edited based on an assumption of bad faith, so now you'll never know. It is a shame that I have to point out the importance of AGF to someone who acted as judge and jury at WQA. BitterGrey (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Medicine talk page.

Labelling editors as part of a "gang" or "mob" is unacceptable. Carrying on an editor-behaviour dispute on the WP Medicine talk page is also unacceptable. You've been around long enough to know where the relevant forums are for such issues. My deletions of your posts were not "selective". I'd delete those from other editors too if they fail to respect our guidelines regarding personal attacks or what talk pages are for. Your dispute with WLU/DreamGuy will not be resolved by making further posts to WP:MED. Take it elsewhere. Colin°^Talk 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The personal accusations made against me weren't deleted. My responses were deleted. That is selective. BitterGrey (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Behaviours...

I couldn't help but notice Colin's spelling of "behaviour." This is right after I tried to use IRWolfie's open residence in Ireland to try to get his objective opinion about ad hominem attacks. He seems to believe that it is OK for WLU and WAID to make cracks about my sexuality as part of ongoing ad hominem attacks. This wouldn't be a double standard if he also believed it was OK for any other editor to equally use any other detail as part of ad hominem attacks against anyone. His association with Ireland, clearly listed on his user page, was the first detail that was convenient for the example. (I never did get an answer on that, by the way.)

Now go to the archives, to the previous thread from my talk page[13] (skipping the one I started). Unsurprisingly, it is yet another of WLU's supporters claiming that WLU's ad hominem attacks about my sexuality are OK, but that it is not OK for me to comment about WLU's editing practices. According to his talk page, he in Canada. That discussion also involved an IP supporting WLU from New Zealand, with some highly suspect editing practices to say the least.

One of the many, many edits that WLU reflexively reverted was my change from "behaviour" to "behavior" in an article that used the US English spelling. WLU uses the British spelling, as did the person who briefly but energetically supported him at the article. It would seem that a lot of editors taking WLU's side use the British spellings. What are the odds? BitterGrey (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)