User talk:Bittergrey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Miszabot config

Note that you've added Misza to autoarchive and set the archive counter at 2. This means Misza will have to create a second talk archive the next time it kicks in. You've got your configuration set to 70K. The size of archives doesn't really matter but the lower that number, the more archives Misza will create. I believe the informal standard is 250K but you're free to choose whatever you want. Note however, that your current archive is about 52K long, which means you'll have uneven-sized archives. I would suggest you reset the counter = field to 1 and Misza will fill up your first archive before setting up a second one. No particular reason beyond it's a bit neater and takes advantage of Misza's capabilities. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate that I'm the better Wikipedian than you. My previous suggestion to you was ignored and deleted, with the edit desc "I can just delete this without reading it"[1]. Reciprocation would only bring me down to your level. The only unknown now is whether you will leave anything for the next disgruntled waves to delete. The article I donated to and then developed at Wikipedia is actually in competition with my own website. Watching others take their aggressions out on it or threatening it as some sort of blackmail hurts Wikipedia more than it hurts me. BitterGrey (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with your Miszabot configuration. I'm just pointing out that your current configuration will result in different-sized archives, and a greater number of them. You are free to ignore this message, delete or archive it, these are just some technical feature of the bot you may not know about and implementing my suggestion would cut down on server demands a little bit. Please feel free to ignore and/or erase this section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation bot

I've updated the {{cite pmid}} citations on the page. Apparently there's a bug and you have to do it by hand now, but all of the citations are now complete. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question here, ELNO 10 and 11 would not be mutually exclusive. One can have a personal webpage on which one runs a web forum. Though Crohnie is referring to the "social networking" aspect of ELNO 10 I believe. Also, #11 alone is a reason not to link to a page. The fact that it is a personal webpage makes it likely it also contains factually inaccurate material and it certainly contains unverifiable research in the form of the surveys. Again, factual inaccuracy doesn't have to mean deliberate deception - if I give someone the wrong directions on the street I'm not necessarily lying to them, I could simply be mistaken. You may maintain the website with the best of intentions but that doesn't guarantee accuracy and it increases the likelihood you are applying your own personal preconceptions, experiences and interpretations to the information. Oversight, editorial review and peer review all attempt, albeit imperfectly, to address this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are discussing this here instead of limiting debate to the currently two locations because...? BitterGrey (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That sort of question is one that needs to be addressed at an individual-editor level; it's like informing someone they can't use a primary source by a user talk page posting rather than a talk page posting. It's the kind of thing most editors are familiar with, thus don't need to be informed of - but individual editors who are not aware can be made aware by a posting on their talk page that isn't relative to the discussion as a whole. I'm trying to elaborate on my points as an experienced editor while on ELN it's more an argument against policy. Meh, it's a judgement call and ELN is already quite a lengthy section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Note that there is no centralized repository dedicated to resolving disputes between User:Bittergrey and User:WLU. What you see as "starting a new fight in a new location" is simply normal editing across a related set of subjects. If you genuinely believe there is a dispute between that is personal rather than simply disagreements, bring it up at one of the dispute resolution pages. Posting a notice at WT:DAB is a normal way of soliciting external linput. The only person who sees it as the extension of a single dispute originating on a completely unrelated page is you. No-one else, including me, cares, and continuing to bring it up discourages external input - please stop it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is true that I'm only hurting myself, why do you care? I understand why you would want your efforts viewed singly, as opposed to having the pattern shown: The pattern betrays intent. BitterGrey (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Because if you can be persuaded to edit in a more appropriate way, you could be a good editor. If you persist in approaching every single disagreement as a personal dispute with no appreciation for the policies and guidelines beyond how they support your own perspective and this becomes disruptive, then a page ban or block may ensue. These interventions require evidence of good-faith efforts to try to reason with the editor. Personally I also keep hoping that you will approach the issues as topics to be discussed toward a consensus rather than a bitterly personal grudge match but since my attempts to calmly explain the policies and guidelines have to date fallen on deaf ears, I am reaching the point where I will consider it futile. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good-faith efforts such as reading notes? I think I continue to demonstrate that I'm the better editor because I read your notes, while you deleted the last one I sent you with the edit desc "I can just delete this without reading it"[2]. That didn't seem very civil, especially now that you are here implying that I'm the one who isn't listening. BitterGrey (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering your posting on WT:MEDCOI, and later at ELN (and again at PPdd's talk page, and again at talk:adult diaper, and again at talk:infantilism, and again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation as well as your time spent at WT:MED) consisted initially of attempting to demonstrate that another editor was unjustifiably persecuting you (when all that is happening is a routine effort to resolve disagreements between editors), I held little hope for your comment being useful. Editors should inform other editors they are being discussed when it is substantive, such as an administrator's noticeboard posting, or a user request for comment. You are not expected to drop a note on someone's page every single time their name comes up. I repeatedly praise the work of TimVickers and SandyGeorgia for being excellent - but I don't let them know about it because no-one cares. Similarly, I've both defended and criticized PPdd's edits on various talk pages, and he wasn't involved in some and wasn't informed in any - because no-one is talking about blocking, banning or anything else important. If someone were discussing doing something about your behaviour, then a note to you on your talk page is appropriate. Since my sole comment about you on PPdd's talk page was a throwaway comment in the context of trying to make an editors' contributions create less drama, I thought and still think you're over reacting. You seem to see persecution everywhere, and seem to think everyone is going to leap to your defence. They won't. You'll turn away contributors and ensure you don't get the neutral review of edits that is being sought. Note how my initial comment at ELN was a brief, neutral summary of the issues including why I thought the ELs were inappropriate. Notice how my initial post at DAB was a brief, neutral request for a comment. Yours, in contrast, brought in two completely unrelated pages. WAID didn't remove the external links, and didn't suggest they be removed. The removal of two clearly inappropriate external links didn't start at WT:MEDCOI. Your response included no reference to policy or guideline, linked to a completely unrelated section of a draft user essay and your next reply reiterated the same complaint (which boils down to - an editor disagreed with me on a different page on a different topic about a different set of issues totally unrelated to external links). I'm dumbfounded that you think anyone at ELN cares about any of the edits you cite, and even if they did, ELN is not the place to raise them. Frankly, I doubt anyone would care if I was simply motivated to "get" you, so long as my edits were substantiated by reference to policy or guideline. That you escalate simple editing (such as what I undertook at paraphilic infantilism, adult diaper and infantilism - removing clearly inappropriate ELs, an unreliable source and refactoring a DAB page to the best of my understanding of MOS:DAB) to some sort of personal dispute or vendetta is not only a terrible habit with a corrosive effect on civility and good faith, it's actively interfering with the ability to get real work done in addition to alienating contributors. Make no mistake - my edits to all these pages were unambiguous improvements in all cases, and I can only see your objections to them being based on a lack of familiarity with wikipedia. That's why I take the time to leave posts like these ones on your talk page with a generous sprinkling of links to policy and guideline pages.

Now, regarding talk:infantilism - I hope to get some input from the DAB wikiproject and am content to wait because I am uncertain of the actual rules in this case particularly since the page lacks a clear primary meaning (it's unlikely infantilism will ever be anything but a DAB page because you can't do much with the unmodified term except define it, and wikipedia is not a dictionary). Your claim of copyright violation is wrong, my definition was not a direct quote from dictionary.com (which would require attribution of the quote) but for one thing it's a general definition which doesn't come from one authoritative source, and for another DAB pages do not need, and shouldn't have references. My definition doesn't even line up with the dictionary.com definition that precisely since I was aiming to keep it short. Your comment about plagiarism is equally wrong since again, dictionary.com doesn't hold exclusive rights to a general definition. Second, dictionary.com doesn't include infantilism as a paraphilia at all - none of the definitions focus on sexual behaviour, it's all about adolescent physical or behavioural characteristics. Reference works carry far more weight than just google hits in my mind - so the dictionary definition would come first, followed by the medical examples in a common sense order. Again, this isn't a simple page where MOS:DAB can unfold in a logical way that I can understand. I realize I asked a question about the CC license for that PhD thesis, which is a genuine concern - it's the first thing mentioned at WP:ELNEVER. For you to bring it up at a totally unrelated page where WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:PLAGIARISM don't apply at all, then point it out, just looks like you're trying to get revenge. Finally, what the interwikis redirect to doesn't matter as this is English wikipedia. If the interwikis are wrong, they should be corrected rather than perpetuating the error here. Disambiguation is also highly language specific - the whole point of a DAB page is that the same word or phrase can have different meanings and that would very much depend on the language used. I've looked on google books regarding diaper fetishism, and couldn't find any specific mention that it was synonymous with infantilism. The diaper fetishism page itself doesn't make this link - in fact, it makes a point of saying diaper fetishism isn't related to paraphilic infantilism. I'll be making some of these points at talk:infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"...and again at PPdd's talk page, and again at talk:adult diaper, and again at talk:infantilism, and again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation ... consisted initially of attempting to demonstrate that another editor was unjustifiably persecuting you (when all that is happening is a routine effort to resolve disagreements between editors), I held little hope for your comment being useful." Those comments were posted _after_ you deleted my note. Using them as support for the deletion of my note suggests that you are psychic, or trying to justify a prejudice to some party whom you don't think will check facts.

As for routine, our only "edit war" involved my removing your repeated[3][4] violation of wp:copyvio and wp:plagiarism. (edit: this comment was based on WLU's claim that a particular definition was "taken from dictionary.com"[5] This claim was later shown to be untrue.) I do hope that is not your usual routine. BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they simply confirmed my initial belief was correct and you are indeed approaching every edit as if it were a personal grudge against you. If your belief is that including a definition on a DAB page is a copyright violation, your misunderstanding of copyright is so grossly incorrect I don't know where to start. If that's your reason why you've removed the definition, I've got nothing to say to you.

You can underline text by adding <u></u> tags around charactes. This is only for talk pages though, you're not supposed to do it on main pages because it's a distraction for those looking for hyperlinks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly stated that the definition was "taken from dictionary.com"[6]. If this statement were true, it would be both copyvio and plagiarism. Having looked through dictionary.com again, I realize that your statement might not have been true. I'm pretty sure there is something in Wikipedia that says that knowingly making false statements is not good. Would you like to retract your comment that one or more of these are routine for you? BitterGrey (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you really think it's a serious copyright violation or plagiarism that places the legal standing of wikipedia or my credibility of as an editor in jeopardy, then raise the point at the appropriate page. Copyright violations are indeed a serious matter, and should be taken seriously. This isn't one. I can be blocked for repeatedly including a copyright violation on a page, so go somewhere else, raise the point, and see if any admins want to address this. I did indeed state that, I did indeed go to dictionary.com, yourdictionary.com, and wiktionary to check the definitions and its uses. I even used google's define:infantilism search feature to check it against several other sources. At no point during my placement of the definition did I make any attempt to indicate on the main page where I got my definition. I will argue against and edit to remove such indications in the forms of references or external link. I don't think this requires attribution in any shape or form, and I think this is uncontroversial at wikipedia. There's full disclosure of my blatant, willful efforts to include a valid dictionary definition on a disambiguation page. Go ahead, see if it gets me in any trouble. I doubt it will, because I doubt your interpretation of the plagiarism and copyright policies are flatly wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"I doubt your interpretation of the plagiarism and copyright policies are flatly wrong." Please remember that you are dealing with someone who, unlike some, actually reads notes. Here we agree: I too think my interpretation of the plagiarism and copyright policies are correct. BitterGrey (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're not willing to pursue it in any meaningful way, then please drop both the accusation that I am engaging in serious contraventions of important policies with significant legal implications and any suggestion that it should affect the editing of the page. Also, please replace the definition at infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall writing that I wasn't going to pursue this. Maybe I'm being patient, maybe I'm hoping you will settle down, or maybe I'm giving you enough rope to hang yourself with. On the subject of accusations, ELNO2 reads "Any site that misleads the reader", and you have repeatedly asserted that it applies to my website(eg.[7][8]). Integrity and accuracy are important to me. Please support or retract your accusation that I am misleading readers. If you continue to make unfounded accusations against me, you might start to become unwelcome on my talk page. BitterGrey (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're using plagiarism and copyright as a reason to leave the definition off the page, then do it or replace the definition and stop wasting my time. You've either never read, or never understood my point about ELNO#2. Not that it matters since there is no support for including the link to your personal website. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the definition, a third opinion has been offered. You can choose to accept it, or continue arguing with everyone because you (alone) want a definition.

Regarding ELNO#2, what part of "Any site that misleads the reader" do you think I am unclear on? Please note that while ELNO#2 is grounds for excluding a link, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not. Of course, JUSTDONTLIKEIT also would not have been a personal accusation, just as ELNO#11 (personal website) is not. And no, whether ELNO #11 applies or not does not support your accusation that ELNO #2 applies. Please support or retract your accusation that I am misleading readers. If you continue to persist in unfounded accusations against me, you will become unwelcome on my talk page. BitterGrey (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, followed the process and got a response, so no definition. Since you are not capable of understanding my reasoning on your EL despite many explanations, I'm not wasting time on that either. Your website should not appear anywhere on wikipedia, that's the consensus, so the problem is solved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So do you retract your accusation that my website violates ELNO #2, that I'm misleading readers? Please don't try to claim consensus support in this, since none exists. If you continue to persist in unfounded accusations against me, you will become unwelcome on my talk page. BitterGrey (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Hi, this is to remind you that you have been asked in this thread to stop attacking editors. Please remember no personal attacks and civil policies. Please, no further comments about editors. Please keep your comments to be about edits and not editors. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, in the phrase "puppetlike foible," (the foible was pointed out here[9]) "puppetlike" refers to the foible (the edit) not the editor. Again, let's stick to the facts. After you wrote "there is a social networking club available on the site [ Understanding.Infantilism.Org ]for people to get together"[10] I asked you for the URL of this club[11]. WLU responded about what you meant, but didn't provide a URL[12]. A unique property of non-puppets is independent thought. Crohnie, explain your independent thought process, leading up to your conclusion that ELNO#10 applies to Understanding.Infantilism.Org and you'll show that you aren't a puppet. Since real people make mistakes, it doesn't even have to be right, just independent. BitterGrey (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome. I thought that the previous situation was frankly ridiculous. As for the double redirects, they were all my fault (due to my page moves on the talk archives), so I had to clean them up. Graham87 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And I've just removed the duplicate link to archive 1 on your talk page. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 06:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks. BitterGrey (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

JC

Please make no comments whatsoever on JC's talk p. The explanation is at [13] DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Note

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)