User:Hastur/discussion page

ListenerX's remarks

Does Proxima Centauri merit all her efforts at improving the wiki be met with insults and reversions? I would not go as far as insults, but I have had to revert a lot of her edits. The problem with a lot of her contributions is that she tacks random bits of text or links onto articles without thinking out how to work them into the general flow of the article, so a lot of the time they just do not fit.

As to your consistent talk of persecution, I suggest that you read the first mythic quote on my user page. If you support the goals of the site, then you should not consider yourself as being among enemies, and you would probably get on better here if you took it on the chin more, no matter how unjustly you think you are being treated. This is the Internet, after all; it is not like you are getting hauled off behind the gym and beaten up once an hour. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, some of the people of this site are behaving reprehensibly, and I do not consider them kinsmen. And I've been very patient with all of the users I have issues with except Nutty Roux, who burned any reservations I had for criticizing him with just two edits- the first time I noticed him. Human? I first interacted with him on his talk page when he came across my massage article, and was very civil in discussing it. ArchieGoodwin? I spent a lot of time carefully explaining my positions to him in the Saloon Bar- this was our first interaction. These are the pure trolls of the site (hell, most of ArchieGoodwin's edits are instances of him trying to troll me), and I have tried to be slow to anger, but they persist in their poor behavior, behavior that hurts and drives away other users (many of which are productive users). It's a shame that their behavior is tolerated, and in some cases mimicked. And really, what good does mockery do for reasoned discussion? How do insults help refute pseudoscience?--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As for Proxima Centauri, the best way to respond to her work is to improve on it. If her edits don't quite fit into the article, smooth it out, don't revert it. That is the correct way to do things.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

there isn't a correct way of editing/cleaning up someones poor edits. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 05:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC²) Mockery, when rightly applied, is very good for keeping things real — especially when one is dealing with unfalsifiable bullshit, instead of lies that can be demonstrated to be untrue with facts and reasoned argument.

Repeat: You would probably get on better here if you took it on the chin more, no matter how unjustly you think you (or other people, who do not really need you to speak up for them) are being treated. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For an example of what it takes to integrate one of Proxima's tacked-on additions into its article, here is what I had to do to integrate this addition. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

They are repeatedly pestered and stalked across the wiki Brx has repeatedly been asked to cease doing this very action by many other editors. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 05:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What you think is pestering and Wiki-stalking, he thinks is retaliation against persecution. If you want him to stop such behavior of his own accord, then looking at the question from his perspective might be more helpful than contributing to a vicious cycle of accusations and counter-accusations. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about jumping into a heated debate between two users (me and Blue for example) and lashing out at one or another party when he really shouldn't because he never says anything helpful to the situation, draws immediate attention to himself and almost always inflames the situation. It makes him a lot harder to ignore. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 05:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I used to draw that sort of complaint for making apparent non sequiturs about communism, in response to which I made my fuss closet to minimize the damage. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Archie's statement

You really are a moron with no critical thinking skills aren't you? And if you think Proxima is "improving" anything you are sadly mistaken. Godot, Stabby, Human, Reckless Noise Symphony, Ty, TheoryOfPractice, ListenerX, and others have spent untold man-hours rewriting and reverting her assaults on the English language. That they do not simply revert on sight is a testament to their patience. Your defense of Proxima is especially funny as you are an extreme accommodationist while Proxima is arguably one of the most anti-theistic people on this website. However, she frequently argues with Godot and Godot is a "bloated old hag". You've put aside your own beliefs in order to follow up on a grudge. Kudos. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My beliefs do not call for automatic dismissal of another editor's contributions, thank you very much. This is actually a testament to my consistency, that I remain tolerant, even accepting, of a good faith editor with views wildly dissimilar from mine. Proxima Centauri and I have worked together well in the past, due to our patience with each other regardless of ideological differences.

And I would not have mentioned PC if people weren't reverting her on sight. That is the complaint. They are being unproductive antagonistic assholes. Me, I integrate PC's edits if they don't quite fit with the article, or I take the time to explain why I reverted them without insulting her in the process. Yes, it is possible to talk without insulting someone. You really ought to consider it.

And you don't get to complain about people's mainspace edits, being that most of your edits are devoted to flaming me, and few, if any, are about improving mainspace.

Finally, I am not an "extreme" accomodationist. I merely try to understand other people's view points, and I don't bother mocking people for harmless beliefs, like some others on this site. Something you, too, seem unable to comprehend.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thing this was the result of me being extremely competent but it seems more like someone is not. I am sure the people above, all of whom on a quick check have 6X-35X your mainspace contributions under their belts, will be thrilled to know they are unproductive. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly am. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 16:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Brx, what you are missing on Proxi, is that she has been given ample time to address these issues. I have discussed in detail on her page, and on the edited pages what is wrong and why it's wrong - and really, why it's CONSISTENTLY wrong. If we were talking spelling, or bad grammar, yes, we would incorporate it into the wiki and move on. When an editor consistently adds things that are unsourced, wrongly understood, and overly biased they will be asked to change those behaviors. when they say "I don't care to change", in words or actions, it's legitimate to say "then I don't care to look at each site you claim to be using and fix it. I'm just reverting it till you fix it yourself". why is this a wrong attitude. and the idea that you have "worked well with her" is laughable, as you've barely edited this site. yes yes, I know, "Look at these french articles I google translated wrote." (I wasn't even going to comment, cept you are defending something you *as usual* know little to nothing about.GodotQu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)