Arllaw
|
Archives
| |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
- No, the proposed change is not sufficiently clear. From the best I can make out from your long circular arguments, the proposed change is completely unnecessary. And frankly you've bludgeoned multiple discussions here to the point other editors have walked away. This feels very disruptive, and I think you should stop. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have been very patient with you, and have treated your often insulting posts as having been made in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making this personal, or engaging in further personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Arllaw, please show me a diff of a personal attack I have made, or retract that accusation. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Scroll up to your last post. Really, consider posting non-personal, relevant commentary that advances the discussion, or leave the discussion to others. Arllaw (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Give me a diff of a "personal attack", or stop. Also retract, but definitely stop. Valereee (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Let's take this to your talk to keep from creating issues here. Valereee (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Give me a diff of a "personal attack", or stop. Also retract, but definitely stop. Valereee (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Scroll up to your last post. Really, consider posting non-personal, relevant commentary that advances the discussion, or leave the discussion to others. Arllaw (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Arllaw, please show me a diff of a personal attack I have made, or retract that accusation. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have been very patient with you, and have treated your often insulting posts as having been made in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making this personal, or engaging in further personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, the proposed change is not sufficiently clear. From the best I can make out from your long circular arguments, the proposed change is completely unnecessary. And frankly you've bludgeoned multiple discussions here to the point other editors have walked away. This feels very disruptive, and I think you should stop. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
So, telling me to 'scroll up to (my) last post' and figure out what you mean is an example of the refusals you've been making to explain things to people, in this case refusing also when directly requested to provide diffs to support an accusation but instead asking me to go read back and figure out what you mean for myself. I made no personal attack in that post. I told you I thought you were bludgeoning the discussion, that bludgeoning was disruptive, and that you should stop.
The exchange that led to these is another, and also an example of your bludgeoning causing other editors to leave conversations. In fact although you have only been posting to that talk for less than six weeks, you are now the leading author of the talk page, with a full fifth of the page both by number of posts and volume of text being from you. The next four most frequent posters to that page have been contributing there for over three years. This is practically the definition of bludgeoning.
If that's literally all you've got to support your accusation that I've made a personal attack, you should consider this a warning that you should not make unsupported accusations. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you would end your one-sided grudge match. Your act is tedious and if you don't understand how rudeness, condescension and other obstruction of productive discussion is inappropriate for talk pages (including this one) I have much, much better things to do than to try to explain it to you. Arllaw (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- No grudge match, guy. You made an accusation about me, and I objected and asked you multiple times to support that accusation with evidence. I was literally just trying to get you to either back it up or retract it. You're going to do neither. It's fine. Best to you. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You are continuing with your rude, accusatorial behavior, right here and right now. If I tell you to read what you are posting and think about your words and tone, will you continue to protest that you don't understand how rude you are being? I have already asked you to stop. I would prefer not to have to ask again. Arllaw (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- No grudge match, guy. You made an accusation about me, and I objected and asked you multiple times to support that accusation with evidence. I was literally just trying to get you to either back it up or retract it. You're going to do neither. It's fine. Best to you. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 17
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Baldwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friends & Lovers (film).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Massive revert of content
editHi Arllaw, I don't know why that happened, but I saw today that you made some massive revert of content to many articles, with the edit summary "Promotional". For example reverting more than one year of modifications of the article artificial intelligence act. Is it a dysfunction of a kind of automated process? Anyway, I am undoing these reverts. Feel free to clarify what happened. Alenoach (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I saw that many edits intended to remove references from Mason Hayes & Curran. So I suppose it's indeed an error when executing an automated or semi-automated script. Please be careful when doing big modifications, and happy editing. Alenoach (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is not an error. The links were added to promote the site by an editor with a COI. Arllaw (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no issue with removing promotional references. But then only the reference, and perhaps the corresponding content, should be removed. But several articles were reverted to old versions. For example, the one on the artificial intelligence act was removed to a version more than one year ago, which is obviously not good. Alenoach (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, when I looked again I saw that I inadvertently reverted to an old version. I am sorry for that error. Thank you for catching that. Arllaw (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no issue with removing promotional references. But then only the reference, and perhaps the corresponding content, should be removed. But several articles were reverted to old versions. For example, the one on the artificial intelligence act was removed to a version more than one year ago, which is obviously not good. Alenoach (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is not an error. The links were added to promote the site by an editor with a COI. Arllaw (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Changes to event data recorder page
editYou have removed all changes that I made stating they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Could you exapnd on that please and give me an idea why they were inappropriate? NBS2024 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please review the link provided on your talk page, about what links are appropriate for use as references, and admonitions against self-interested and promotional editing. Arllaw (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)