User talk:Pam

For rules lawyering right off the bat. Bongolian (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Other Essays with Drive-by template
Since you falsely claim on your user page that "No other Essay has such template", let me introduce you to the Category:Drive-by_essays. 10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction.Pam (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Constructive dialogue.
You seem to be confused as to how this works. While other users are indeed supposed to treat you with good faith, they are not prohibited from being critical of your views, or you theirs. Indeed, the page on Constructive Dialogue itself explains that "If you choose to travel down path 3, we expect you to be willing to defend your essay on its talkpage, and you are strongly encouraged to take on board the comments made there and consider changes if you feel any are necessary. " Thusly, in my opinion, reaction to your essay has been quite mild. 21:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is confused. I never said that "being critical of [my] views" is contrary to constructive dialogue.Pam (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "You are the one who is confused." I think not. Your reaction to the template, as well as your related reactions to the article/essay originally being deleted, then restored and turned into an essay, suggest to me that you do not view this critical approach as being in line with constructive dialog. This combined with your comments on the ATIM talkpage suggest to me that you only skimmed the related rules and did not fully process them. This isn't bad per se, but it does mean that you come across as a bit mistaken in your impressions. This isn't a condemnation, rather I'm trying to make you aware of where you made mistakes so as to help you avoid them in the future. This site only works if we help each other improve, rather than remaining rigid in our views after all. 15:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "your related reactions to the article/essay originally being deleted, then restored and turned into an essay" I turned it into an essay.
 * "this critical approach as being in line with constructive dialog." One user single-handedly deleting my page without any discussion, another user blocking me with no reasons except he disagrees with my view, another one and a moderator forcing my view to the marked as "spam"... Is this what you call "critical approach"?Pam (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that me blocking you was naughty since you couldn't unblock yourself, even if it was a fairly short block for being a Very Fine Person. So I apologized for it. Everyone else has been justified in their actions and GC is being downright civil with you here.  16:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly I'm going to say that most of that either wasn't appropriate or at the very least could have been handled better. Secondly, we'll go into discussing the template, in particular your weird hangup over the wording of said template. "For your information: Some drive-by editor spammed us with this, and though we decided not to delete it, we don't really care much for it. The talk page is probably a lot more interesting than the actual essay." This is the exact wording of the template in question. Now, to be honest, the template is a bit snarky. However, it is at least partly a tongue in cheek view, and the word "spammed" is easily one of the least relevant portions of the template. Honestly, I fail to see why you seem to be so hung up over this one piece of wording, when a strict reading of the sentences in question results in the conclusion that the essay is viewed as not reflecting the wiki as a whole, and is such sentiment is being conveyed. 17:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "even if it was a fairly short block for being a Very Fine Person [links to the page Neo-Nazism]" You just accused me of being a neo-Nazi (which, by the way, it is another violation of RationalWiki's rules).Pam (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What rule says I can't call you a neo-nazi again? I mean, Godwin's Law says that I lose the argument by doing that, but you admitted to having attended the Unite the Right rally you are defending people who were at the Unite the Right rally, and even | Mike Godwin thinks those guys should be called nazis. So at the very best you're a nazi apologist. 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence of this alleged confession of attending the UtR rally? Just for clarity mind you. 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I struck that. I think I mixed that with something that was in one of her essays sources. 17:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reworded now with the incorrect stuff struck. 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "but you admitted to having attended the Unite the Right rally" You just proved that you have a gigantic lack of reading comprehension. I never admitted to having attended the Unite the Right rally and, indeed, I never attended such a rally.
 * "you are defending people who were at the Unite the Right rally" This is false too. The section that you linked as a "proof" contains no defense of the actions of the people who were at the Unite the Right rally (In fact, the Unite the Right rally is not even mentioned in such a section).Pam (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)