User talk:Oldperson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

TERF

This comment appears to accuse me of at hominem argumentation. However, when I said that Crossroads "is misunderstanding policy" that is a characterization of his contribution to the discussion, not a personal attack and most definitely falls on the angelic side of "comment on content, but contributors" as far as I can tell. But I would be interested in hearing your perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial and Crossroads:My apologies to Newimpartial. The structure of the thread in which I mentioned an ad hominem was confusing. My comment was directed to Crossroads and not Newimpartial.Oldperson (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What was Grahams characterization of Downer (source?)

Hi,

I'm not adding the refs to that TQ on the Trump page, but here's the article

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/06/us/politics/barr-and-a-top-prosecutor-cast-a-wide-net-in-reviewing-the-russia-inquiry.html

and Graham's letter

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LOG%20to%20Australia%20Italy%20UK.pdf

soibangla (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla Thanks and mind blowing, especially Grahams Letter. Why won't you add them as references>Should I?Oldperson (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have all the refs for the TQ, but I don't know how to add them without them appending to the bottom of the Talk page, which is annoying. You can see it all in my Sandbox soibangla (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

[[User:Soibangla)) I already added them, check it out.Oldperson (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Be careful about alleging that any editor is part of a cult, or anything like that, Oldperson. WP:No personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. JFG is right, you should strike your comment on sockpuppet of Trump. starship.paint (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

{[ping|Starship paint]]To make everyone happy I deleted that comment, but I didn't need to because I was not calling an editor a member of a cult. This is what I said " he word collusion has been inserted into the discussion by Trump and his cult as a distraction, a red herring." His cult is the pundits, politicians and apologists who show up in print and electronic media, claiming that Trump was exonerated of collusion, when in fact the Mueller report did not even investigate collusion as it is not a crime, so it is a red herring made up by Trump and perpetuated by his cult. If any editor is offended then I say "stuck pigs squeal" (which is not an accusation,but an analogy I am not calling anyone a pig.

As regards Mandruss advice below. If the purpose of a talk page is really improvement in the article, then talk pages would be sparse of verbage. As to what constitutes a WP:FORUM, it is in the eye of the beholder, which in many cases is who ever has the real power to censor (revert) or intimidate. Your advice to not follow bad examples is taken,however silence equals consent. One does not stand silent in the face of error, less error prevail. I have seen charges of WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX absued by "hall monitors" who patrol specific subject pages, as a means of censorship. And therein lies a problem. Also consensus might work in an academic environment, but not here, as certain subject matters attract the attention of persons who are emotionally and intellectually invested in certain subjects, as a consequence the "Oppose" "Support" positions are weighted by the persons innately drawn to the subject (pro or con) and although canvassing is taboo it still goes on, thus even consensus is tainted.Oldperson (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that personal attack/ad-hom. This is a contentious topic area already, so it helps a lot when people are on their best behavior...keeping comments focused on the content and not other editors. ~Awilley (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

NOTFORUM

Hello. I wanted to be sure you are aware of the policy WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are not places to discuss politics. Comments not directly related to improvement of the article should be withheld.

While you are not the only editor in violation at Talk:Donald Trump, the other main violators are long-time editors who are well aware of the policy and ignore it whenever it suits them. I hope you will not continue to follow their poor example.

Happy editing! ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Dammit, Tony, an old person is talking about bloody war, not flippin' politics! I know the analogies between the campaign trail and the campaign trail tend to blur the lines, but try to remember. In the political battlefield, killing, wounding, capturing, raping, robbing or drugging your opponent are grounds for disqualification. In the war battlefield, relying on disinformation, espionage, dehumanization, slander, demoralization and cash alone is suicide. But yeah, you're mostly right, as usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, maybe you'll visit those NOTFORUM editors' talk pages for a friendly reminder as well? I think that your close was a bit precipitous. The next step would have been for folks to propose sourced content, as often happens, and it's not as if there were an OR back-and-forth going on, which has happened many times recently without the poster getting bitten. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with User:SPECIFICO. The close was unwarranted. The question was: how is this new crisis going to be treated in the article about Donald Trump? I propose adding a section under Foreign policy named Turkey. (Because of Mandruss' closing I couldn't write on the talk page such an obvious response, darn!) I also propose keeping it brief to write most of the information on Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration where it is already treated to some extent, and add most information there. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If folks want to "propose sourced content", there is nothing stopping them from doing so in a new thread. In that thread, Oldperson was asked to do so and simply commented again without doing so. As there was nobody else prepared to do so, I opted to attempt to end the "anticipatory" discussion. If that explanation is not sufficient, I'm not God let alone an admin, so I'm eminently revertable as fucking always. Sheesh. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Violation of ArbCom remedy

This revert violates the arbitration remedy noted near the top of Talk:Donald Trump: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit)." First, simply starting a thread on the talk page (less than one hour before you re-revert) does not satisfy the requirement to discuss. And even if it did, you are way short of 24 hours from the original edit.

Being relatively new at the article, you can plead ignorance as to the remedy, but now that you're aware your only good option is to self-revert. Otherwise you will incur a very real risk of a sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss:@Awilley: Mandruss, I believe you are mistaken about this part simply starting a thread on the talk page (less than one hour before you re-revert) does not satisfy the requirement to discuss. Pinging Awilley for clarification on that. Rules and regs aside, I think you're being a bit harsh on Oldperson, who has made several good contributions over the past month or less. Did you check whether he has received the required DS Notice? That would be more constructive, IMO. I understand you may not realize how harsh your tone sounds to the rest of us. For my part, I'm used to it and tend to focus instead on your ideas, which are often sound and helpful. Ironically, of course, when Oldperson tried to open a talk page discussion -- before adding any article text -- you rather aggressively hatted it over the objections of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if you're correct, did you miss the part about 24 hours? Aren't you the one who is always touting 24-hr BRD?

Did you check whether he has received the required DS Notice? Yes, I did. Did you? That would be more constructive, IMO.

you may not realize how harsh your tone sounds to the rest of us You're doing it again, presuming to speak for "the rest of us". If you would like me to rewrite what I wrote in an actual harsh tone for comparison, you might find that elucidating. I prefer the word "direct". But thanks for your input.

As for my "aggressive hatting" (actually a close, not a hat, and completely within norms), I've addressed that in the previous section, as I'm sure you are perfectly aware. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: Note that Oldperson edited 15 minutes after being made aware of the remedy, but has not self-reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

But has now,[1], better late than never. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I have no idea what Mandruss is talking about. I do not hang over every edit made, or any page. I have a life. as spouse who demands help, bowels to move, food to eat, cats who want my attention. I may have made an edit 15 minutes after I was warned(made aware of a remedy), but the edit had nothing to do with Mandruss's warning (advice).In any event I have reverted my revert. In future I will pay closer attention to template instructions. There are other things going on in my life, and I try to keep up best as Ican. As regards my revert of Mandruss revert. He really needs to explain his reversion better. My comments were relevant to the current crisis created by Trump,and in response to his claims that essentially the Kurds deserve what they are getting. This is history unfolding, and admittedly WP is Encylopaedic and as a consequence reports on the past, but in a fast moving world, events 24 hours old,or less, are the past and worthy of encyclopedic attention.Oldperson (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. This is a high profile biography with many eyes on it, and the sanctions are meant to prevent any one person from ramming through their desired revision over the objections of others. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

AwilleyAt your service, always willing to oblige. I do feel, however,that certain editors (maybe even admins) who have long experience and built up interpersonal relationships, do use their position to dominate, control and ram through their version of any subject. It does take time and experience to master the language and technique. I;ll get there, maybeOldperson (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There are regulars there and relationships and grudges, just like with any other web community. You are actually getting some slack right now because you are new to the page. If you were a regular and were still trying to go about things the way you are right now there's a good chance you'd get a WP:Topic ban from editing articles about current American politics. I don't know if you're open to unsolicited advice, but here's mine: you need to remember that our #1 priority here is to write quality encyclopedia articles, and doing that requires editors to set aside their own personal biases and write from the more dispassionate "neutral point of view" of reliable sources. Also, the primary purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. It's not to discuss the subject of the article or get into tit-for-tat disputes with other editors. When you find yourself disagreeing with another editor, instead of trying to figure out how to win the argument, you should try to understand the point they are making, to understand their concern, and then look for a compromise that you can live with that at least partially resolves their concern. Anyway that's my advice. I'm not trying to lecture even if it feels that way. ~Awilley (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in Oldperson's record that's close to a first-time AE TBAN. But Oldtimer, Awilley is correct that it's good to check your POV at the door. And it makes editing much easier -- just read the sources and try to reflect what they say. In that regard, you seem to be abreast of the reporting, so you are on firm ground without adding any personal reactions to news or events. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have elaborated in the article talk discussion, attempting to summarize several years of background into one post. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Thanks, I do understand all of this, but it is frustrating when an old timer with an obvious POV, reverts my edit under specious or false pretenses in their edit summary. For instance my contribution to Trump's abandonment of our Kurdish allies, where he said "they weren't on the beaches of Normandy" is highly relevant, especially because this article is of such high profile, it is or would be if it was medicine,an act of malpractice to omit his statement, simultaneously the irony of him aligning with a country who was an ally of Germany when our troops were dying on the beaches of Omaha, while abandoning people who shed their blood with us, in WWII and the fight against ISIS (in fact against ISIS they lost tens of thousands while we lost six, should not go unmentioned. It is possible to mention these from a NPOV, in fact I think that I did just that,however an editor more senior than I with an apparent conflicting POV, felt free to revert it with a facetious and false edit summary. Sheesh.Oldperson (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the context, may I assume I'm the old timer with an obvious POV? If so, I'm interested to know what you think my POV is, and how you arrived at that conclusion. Please speak frankly. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Please break down the word assume into it's constituent parts. That or WP:DUCK. On the other hand if I thought you were serious, and were actually seeking an honest constructive conversation. I would gladly engage. My bias is self evident, and I realize that I don't do a good job of concealing them with a NPOV, even though I try.But you are certainly not the only senior editor with an unconcealed bias (POV),who thinks that they have mastered the art of concealment or editing with a NPOV. Or maybe I just read too much into things people say anonymously on the interwebs. Very likely since I started out on the WELL with a 2,400 byte modem where one had to upload and download messages via FTP, and what a joy when Eudora was released. So I know that I too make assumptions,but at least I will apologize and admit error (and often do).Oldperson (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Somebody is badmouthing me on the interwebs (where there is no accountability)? I honestly had no idea I had achieved that status. Can you point me to some of that, just to satisfy my curiosity?

Just for the record, I am serious and am actually seeking an honest conversation. Obviously that won't mean anything to you if you have already pegged me as dishonest (sort of like Trump and fake news). But please take this to heart: If you make a habit of accusing fellow editors of bad faith without solid evidence, you won't be long for this project. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. As Awilley said, you are currently being given quite a bit of extra leeway because you're new, and because people can see your potential as an editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss I have no idea of what you mean that some is badmouthing you on the internet. If that comment was supposedly coming from me, then double check I have made no such claim or accusation. If someone else on the internet is bad mouthing you then that is something else.I don't even have a twitter account, much less post anything on the internet. Geez, I don't even have a cell phone,nor do I know how to even turn one on.As regards accusing editors ofbad faith. Where did I accuse you or any other editor of bad faith? I haven't mentioned you at all,except in response,. Butplease show me where I have accused YOU of bad faith. Your warning that "I am not long for this project", validates my opinion that you were not serious about trying to engage me honestly, but what you were fishing for was evidence. I would like to trust you but I find that difficult when you accuse me of badmouthing you on the internet. I don't even know who you are. I don't even know your gender, ethnicity, whatever, so how could I accuse you on the internet? And I certainly didn't accuse YOU on WP. As regards accusing fellow editors of bad faith. Show me where I accused any editor of bad faith. I really don't appreciate being threatened, oh that's right you aren't threatening me, just giving me friendly advice.15:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Mandruss One other thing. From time to time I return to WP:REVTone take away is that the first thing a person should do before reverting is try to correct the edit, but what I constantly see,not just with you,but with others who perhaps have been at "it" too long, is short hand or facetious edit summaries. Kind of the same crapola when a newby submits RfC and gets the This Article does not meet the standards of WP or some such, with no explanation as to how to correct the problem. I see it from time to time. Your reversion was in fact facetious and erroneous. I know it takes time to write a comprehensive summary, but that is the standard of WP, which apparently is routinely ignored. However many reversions are either done out of spite, or because the editor has a conflicting POV or opinion. New editors seldom revert, but they do revert the reverts.Oldperson (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll bite, and I'll ask your participation in an exercise that might be educational for one or both of us. Please read my long comment about this at Talk:Donald Trump#Relevant current not world history, and then suggest an edit summary that adequately summarizes that argument in a better way.

If the exercise results in a softening of my edit summaries, that will be one down and only a few thousand editors to go whose tone is that bad or worse. You might be interested in the essay WP:DISRESPECT, which I wrote. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Bringing in a trust third party. Reference the above conversation. Do you know of any instance where I bad mouthed Mandruss on the internet, or accused any editor of bad faith. I may have expressed my opinions about things I have observed, but I haven't accused ANY editor of bad faith. If I have then I am ready to apologize. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't mind Mandruss. He means you no harm. His "essay" is kind of nonsense, but if anything it says there's no such thing as a badmouth. Anyway, my advices is just to concentrate on sources and article text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I hesitate to say anything because it really is better if you just move on, but you say "I haven't accused ANY editor of bad faith" when just yesterday you were saying things like "it is frustrating when an old timer with an obvious POV, reverts my edit under specious or false pretenses in their edit summary" and "however an editor more senior than I with an apparent conflicting POV, felt free to revert it with a facetious and false edit summary" and "if I thought you were serious, and were actually seeking an honest constructive conversation. I would gladly engage.".

As for the assertion that Mandruss is a POV pusher, from my perspective (an admin who has been watching the topic area for a long time) Mandruss is one of the least partisan editors in the topic area and one of the most likely to cross ideological "party lines" based on what they think is best for the encyclopedia. ~Awilley (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

AwilleyWho did I accuse in that statement? I accused no one, not Mandruss not you. I expressed my opinion about behaviors I have seen on WP, not just this situation,but many situations, including from the Tea House. I accept your depiction of Mandruss and will moderate my behavior, or try to, but be advised I did not accuse Mandruss, you or anyone else of bias, but expressed my opinion of behaviors by some long term editors and admins. Maybe it is time that editors take the time to slow down, take a breath, drop and roll and do what Mandruss said he will do, make more thoughtful edit summaries. I understand that after years of editing,one develops unseemly habits, short cuts and gets exasperated but that has a deleterious effect on new editors.

And there is (quite obviously) what might be called a clique. Long term editors and admins who have built a relationship over time,and there is a natural tendency to circle the wagons, feeling that an "attack" on one is an attack on all. Again I am not accusing anyone, just making an observation of behaviors.Oldperson (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding maybe I just read too much into things people say anonymously on the interwebs, which I took to mean you acquired a negative opinion of me from one of the off-wiki forums where folks gather to put down Wikipedia and specific editors, free from accountability and safe from consequences. My response about badmouthing was in reference to them, not you.

I stand by the rest of my comments here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

what Mandruss said he will do, make more thoughtful edit summaries Sorry, I missed this the first time, and it needs correction. I did not say that. What I said, and it's still there for your review, was to ask you to suggest the edit summary you would have preferred. That would have at least given us something tangible to discuss, something to sink our teeth into, and I indicated it might result in a change to my edit summaries. But you declined to do that, so there was no such discussion, so I don't intend to change the tone I've been using for over six years.

If you're still editing by this time next year, drop by my user talk page and tell me if your perspective on tone like mine has changed at all. By then you should have encountered some of the editors who make me look like Mister Rogers by comparison. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

ManddrussBelieve me I've already run into or seen some real ogres, and indeed they make you look like Mister Rogers.If I am still sucking oxygen next year I will take you up on your offer. BTW I know that I am a contentious old fart. Old farts tend to get that way. I know that there are many editors in their 60's around here, probably a few in their 70's and at least one in their 80's. Those younger think we old farts are cantankerous,with some justification,but that is because most of us have been around the maypole too many times and have seen to much b.s.. We get expert at sniffing it out (not accusing you of b.s. trust me, just a general statement). I guess my problem is that I am not adequately socialized,or rather too old to give a rats you know what. I could fall asleep permanently tonite, so that alters one's perspective. Never the less I am very aware of other folks feelings, but I've noticed too many senior editors and admins (the ones who have been active for five years or more) seem to have lost their "humanity" and patience. Understandable, given the amount of work they do, the edit wars they have been through and the trolls and vandals they have had to deal with. My daughters ex is a cop, and all he sees is criminals, this has led him to think that everyone is a criminal with something to hide (there is also a lot of projection, just like the Projectionist in Chief). Let me leave you with some oldperson advice. When old fools like me make a generalized statement..don't personalize it. I have, in the past( a decade ago) spent a lot of time on various phorae. I started out on the WELL, with a 2400 bit modem, where you had to download and upload via FTP your messages, then came the godsend Eudroa and Nescape Navigator, anyway I noticed that anytime some made a generalized statement, a number of folk would come out of the woodwork howling. Itis because the personalized the impersonal, in other words the shoe fit or more grossly "stuck pigs squeal". I am not calling you a pig.

I will moderate my behavior, or try to. Wife says I get testy when I need a Keytruda fix, I even bark at her and she does not take my crap either. So lets start anew. I've learned. No hard feelings I hope.Oldperson (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been cantankerous since I was 12 – and it's been downhill from there. I had a cat for therapy but she died in July. No, no hard feelings. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Yegads we are bonding. I am a cat person. I have two Ocicats. In fact if you check out Ocicat and look at the two video's I uploaded you will see both of them. They have been leash trained since they were two months old. They constantly bug me to go for a walk. I don't let them outside alone. For one thing I love them and would suffer if something happened, but we have eagles where I live and where we came from a bobcat and coyotes. Totally spoiled they are.Oldperson (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice looking animals. I had a male Bengal kitten. Had to give him up because he kept jumping on Katze in this weird simulated-mating ritual, even after being fixed. Too much wild. The breeder took him and didn't even offer a partial refund, how rude. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Call me a bigot but I won't have a male cat anymore. They have a tendency to mark their territory by lifting their leg. I had one years ago, loved him, but he marked eveything he could. At 9 years old he dropped dead right in front of me, an aneurysm. These two are half sisters also aunt and niece. Great cats, leash trained and right now they are demanding to be walked. Morning ritual. I would love to have a Bengal or Savannah, but they require a lot of room and space, best to have an outdoor pen with a tree (real or artificial).Oldperson (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Believe me when I tell you that I do not read, browse, post, etc to any off wiki forums. I would not even know where to start, much less have any interest in reading and participating in this juvenile and time wasting activities. The only internet activity in which I engage is WP, and even that is limited to a few subjects. I admit to having had run ins with an editor or two,but I don't hold grudges, I am not hide bound by ego, I willingly and readily admit error, and apologize for my behavior. Activities which are seldom seen around these parts. There seems to be a lot of ego going, as evidenced in constant revert warring. I try to avoid revert warring as it is a waste of time and only inflames tempers. My internet activity is limited to WP, and providing assistance in genetic genealogy, but that is via email not on a board or any phorae.Oldperson (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I willingly and readily admit error, and apologize for my behavior. - Well that remains to be seen, as your multiple errors have been pointed out by the only admin present here (a widely respected admin by the way) and no admission has been forthcoming. To be clear, I neither seek nor need an apology, but your claim to virtue does stand in stark contrast to the evidence, at least in this isolated case.

I'm glad you try to avoid edit warring. Good for you, and we have that in common. I'm not sure what that has to do with any of this, however.

I think that's about all I'll have to say here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Hypotheticals at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

DIYeditorI am quite familiar with WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX so I strive not to make that mistake, however what constitutes P:FORM andWP:SOAPBOX is, like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Never the less there are problems that arise in constructing and editing an article, problems that feed off into the viewing public and should be addressed. That is the purpose of the talk pages, are they not. It's a fine line between using WP:FORUM for censorship and for keeping WP truly NPOV. Is it not so? Please be aware that one can tread close to censorship when using the rules, guidelines and MOS of WP.For my part I will continue to try and watch my edits, however talk pages are places where difficulties are worked out, and to be frank wading through the talk pages,not just TERF but many, many more evidences of forum and soapbox abound even, sometimes especially from older experienced editors who have tagging privileges. What is and is not is a matter of who has the most power and control or even whose (ideological) oxe is being gored.Oldperson (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Second violation of ArbCom remedy

Re: This revert

Sorry, but you've violated the same remedy noted previously, this time a little differently. The 24-hour wait had elapsed, but you didn't discuss on the talk page. You need to self-revert again. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss I thought all you had to do is wait 24 hours.So I take it to the talk pages then what?Endless talk and it dies?Oldperson (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As I read the remedy, you talk it to the talk page and "discuss". Then, 24 hours after the original edit, you can apparently reinstate your edit, with the additional caveat: "Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts."

It remains unclear whether merely opening a discussion constitutes discussion, but last I heard discussion requires at least two parties. I talk to myself, but I rarely answer me.

I don't fully grasp the full nuance of the remedy, but I think I understand that much. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

MandrussThanks, you understand a lot more than I do. I have,hopefully, affected the appropriate remedy. We will see what happens next, Maybe taking it to the talk page is the best way to put the debate to rest. CNN and the Independent are only two RS that mention Trump and soft core porn. Sheesh. I don't get people acting like any politician, much less human is an unreproachable, flawless god. It is just as bad on the Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon articles. There are at least one, maybe more, editors who seem to have a single minded interest in these men. Especially one whose total (or almost total) interest is in Reagan, Iran Contra, the "snowstorm" flood of cocaine that fell on America because of RR and his Iran Contra business. As an aside. Reagan was non compus mentus during his presidency, a grade B actor who sat sallow faced behind his desk until given a script. A tool.Oldperson (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You started a thread and you have three replies, mine, MrX's, and starship's. More than 24 hours have passed since the original edit. You've satisfied the requirement of the remedy, even if belatedly so. So, according to the language of the remedy, it would appear that you can now reinstate your edit, even if there are now two editors questioning inclusion. It's a binary include/omit decision, so there is no compromise position, and the caveat can't apply.

I don't see what the remedy has accomplished, then, and therein lies my lack of grasp. That remedy has been in place for months and I've yet to see it actually work better than its predecessor, consensus required. Nevertheless, it should be followed, and one of two things will happen as a result: We will come to understand it better, or it will be shown not to work. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Since I have already reverted then self reverted I will wait 24 hours before jumping into the bull ring.Thanks.This is so confusing.Oldperson (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called How does one access archived comments and pages at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

16 years and counting

MandrussVillage pump is on my watch list and I just saw your name.Checked it out. Am impressed. You have been here from the start (16) years. Where did WP get all of those volunteer editors (e.g. enormous workforce)to get WP off the ground? A non profit foundation?Oldperson (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I've been around 6 years, 4 months, and 18 days. When I said "we", I meant Wikipedia.

The point is that at the beginning WMF understood that (1) many people were averse to registration, and (2) we needed all the people we could get, so it was unwise to require registration. We needed to leave the door as wide open as we could. Now the encyclopedia is a lot farther down the path, approaching six million articles, the need for that many people is far less important, and many editors feel that's outweighed by the good reasons to require registration. Make any sense? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

MandrussMakes lots of sense. While vandalism is a problem, registration has the potential of scaring off many potential editors who bring them skills and knowledge that WP needs. That it takes time to get up to speed as regards MOS, Rules, Guidelines, mechanics is something that has to be acknowledged and accepted (as it appears to be), for the payoff that input from these editors have the potential of contributing. Existence on this planet is fraught with danger and inter species (and intra species)conflict is the norm, were it not there would be no wars, police, etc.There is none on the savannahs of Africa.I have compared this planet to a house of horrors where all life depends on the death and consumption of other life (even vegetation)

If you (third person you) seeks a well ordered society,then the tendency is towards conformity and that requires authoritarianism. Do we want to go there? There are other wiki's that have such a regime.Wikitree for instance.Don't disturb the snowflakes. Do so and get banned, if one does not submit, and thus lose valuable and productive contributors. I see a tendency toward the same here. The banning of Fram,Fae and jytdog, not trolls or vandals. I am unaware of the situation of each, but see this banning of what would otherwise be contributing editors as contrary to the purposes of WP. FYI, as a new editor of only a few weeks I had my share of jytdog's (tongue) and ego posturing, and I understand he was banned for reaching out off WP to another editor to explain something. Regardless I feel that banning is too harsh, and from what I understand his contributions were very valuable.

Never the less there is a way to deal with vandals and trolls, even those who IP post. So why do we need registration, to enforce conformity, authoritarianism? And registration leads to abuse, doesn't it. I don't think WP has the resources to protect against hacking and data theft. Someplace on the servers that hold the 1's and 0's of WP is the email addy that I used to obtain a user name, that is enough, and I know that WP admin's have the ability to trace IP's and block those users. So what more is needed?Oldperson (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot to absorb. You sure write a lot, and I can't respond to all of it.

Most of the reason I'm such a nice guy is that I wish to protect the (relatively) positive reputation associated with the username Mandruss. A good reputation is a valuable asset in this business, just as anywhere else. You wouldn't like me much if I knew my editing history would be wiped clean every month, or every day, or every three hours. Registration encourages self-moderation.

And that's just for starters. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

MandrussAdmittedly I am verbose,or is that loquacious, but only when typing. The removal of my brain tumor affected my verbal skills, interestingly different parts of the brain are apparently used to communicate orally versus digitally.Oldperson (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, the Fram situation is unique, but at the present time, Fram is neither banned nor blocked, and is actively editing. Fæ is also neither banned nor blocked, although Fæ is subject to a topic ban on human sexuality, broadly construed. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the administrator who reimposed the topic ban. Fæ is now actively editing in other topic areas. As for Jytdog, that editor admitted making a grievous error, resigned under a cloud, and stated that they had scrambled their password and deleted their email account. They are indefinitely blocked by ArbCom. So, yes, Jytdog is gone and probably forever, but it was their own doing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328Thanks for that information. I can't image why Fae is topic banned.Not a question as I wouldn't expect you to answer, and wouldn't respect you if you did. Too bad about Jytdog though. He over reacted and that does not put him in a favorable light. From what I could see he was a good editor,if somewhat cantakerous (we have that in common).Oldperson (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I will not attempt to spell out the reasons for Fæ's topic ban here, but I can assure you that I did not consider any secret evidence. It was all discussed openly at various noticeboards over a period of years, and it all culminated in August. I implemented what I believed to be clearcut community consensus, and thusfar no one has criticized my assessment of that consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328I have seen enough of your work to realize that your integrity is beyond reproach. But such affairs leave me to question "consensus", as you might have noticed, but then again I also understand that one has to use the tools that are made available. Just trying to wrap my head around WP.It is not easy.Oldperson (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "No one pretends that consensus is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that consensus is the worst form of running a free encylopedia, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328I am beginning to see the point and logic. You of course paraphrased "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. In that regard I don't want to try any of the other forms, though sadly it looks like we are headed in that direction. My real problem with consensus is that is often weighted by the side that has the most interested participants. I played a game once, with a "trainer". We were about 10 people. The ship was sinking, we could only take three things into the lifeboat. I chose those things that would enable us to catch food (fish or birds, signal for help (a mirror) and shelter from the sun. The female, whose loud and overbearing insistence demanded that we take water, because her father told her that we could only go without water for three days. 10 people with three gallons of water? No one wanted to make waves, so she was winning by consensus, until I threw her overboard(figuratively, to save all of us. The bully, her, overcame the cowards and consensus would have condemned us all. So much for consensus. Imagine how a consensus would go, if the subject was racial equality,and the majority were racists. So many examples.I can see it even now on some contentious article talk pages, not just the ones where I am involved but ones that I visitOldperson (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You and I aren't that far apart – I think we use different words to say essentially the same thing. A core principle is that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", that decisions are not made by simple voting but by relative strength of argument (ideally policy-based argument). The principle doesn't tell us how to judge relative strength of argument, and simply citing a policy to support your argument doesn't necessarily mean it's a valid or correct application of the policy. And I've yet to see a discussion where both of two opposing sides didn't think their side had the stronger arguments. I also rarely see minds changed in the course of discussion.

That's the reality of the situation, which stands in stark contrast to the ivory tower philosophy of the site, and the reality is not going to change until we repeal human nature. The theoretical solution is a highly qualified uninvolved closer for every discussion of any significance. Since that's impossible, the practical solution is...there isn't one.

I'm resigned to living with this situation, as that's preferable to canceling the project, making the site read-only, and going home. I do find it frustrating that most editors keep insisting that Wikipedia is not a democracy and dodging rather than responding to the evidence to the contrary. It's a form of collective insanity in my view. C'est la vie. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

MandrussWhat is consensus if not a democratic vote. "You lose 6 against, 3 for". The statement "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is contracted by the use of consensus voting. As regards WEIGHT or the argument. Well like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder.

Let's try this. WP has thousands of editors, but it is a hive of a sort, the hive mind is the admin's, actually above them is the bureaucrats and above them is (I don't know they name they use to refer to themselves) but the inner circle founded by Jimbo.

It kind of reminds me of the SDS, or even, Orwell's 1984. The Inner circle which guides the overall direction of the hive, by carefully choosing the next circle (bureaucrats), who then select like minded persons, or persons they can depend on to maintain their philosophical outlook (ideology), who do the same as they select admins. Eventually you have admins with essentially the same frame of mind who select, from the pool of editors, member to join their own ranks,and all along there is maintained the illusion of democracy (which WP claims it is not), by having the pool of editors, but in reality admins, vote on who can join their ranks.

Whether you, or anyone else, can see it, WP is a hive mind, where editors are battened into conformity by use of rewards and admonishments/punishments. It is obvious when one notices an inexplicable reversal. A "for" suddenly becomes an "against", when the hapless editor realizes that they overstepped, not because of logic, strength of argument, but realizing that more senior editors hold an opposing POV. WP is no different than any other institution in that regard. I spent 26 years in a special perations unit, enlisted to officer, and watched, took part, in the conditioning of the hive mind. Granted the process was more hands on, and the negative motivational tools more extreme and immediately felt, but the process is essentially the same, the result is a hive mind, down to such things as beliefs and not just behaviors. And all of the members of the hive think and act alike. Cognitive dissonance does the job. Actually this is pretty much true of any social organization, formal or informal, from political activism to religion to sewing circles.Oldperson (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a bit of related reading here. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Oldperson, Mandruss. I hope you don't mind if i stick my nose into your discussion. I have been around Wikipedia, off and on, for a number of years, although not since the beginning.

Oldperson, i think you over-estimate the degree to which Wikipedia is a "hive mind". It is worth noting that while Jimbo personally appointed admins and 'crats at the very start, that hasn't been true for many years. One must volunteer to be an admin, and then be approved by the community, or more exactly, by whoever chooses to show up at your RfA, where any editor can express an opinion, and have his or her vote counted. While this does filter candidates to some extent, the admins i have interacted with have had a rather wide diversity of views on various subjects, including wiki-policy, and i have seen many quite sharp disagreements among admins. While the b'crats are in a sense "higher" than ordinary admins, they have essentially no oversight or control over ordinary day-to-day admin or editing functions. If there is any supreme body these days, it is ArbCom, whose members must be approved by a site-wide vote. There ae some core issues on which people must conform, or at least not actively rebel, or get out. Copyright policy, for example -- a few advocate for change, but anyone who actually violates current policy will be expelled. That will enforce some conformity, but not nearly the level you seem to suggest above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

on Registration, there are practical reasons for favoring it, primarily the ability to have sustained communication and reputation for a registered user. But i haven't found any significant uniformity enforced on editors who register. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel I do understand what you are saying and have no substantial disagreement with you. Whether you realize it or not, you have inadvertently substantied my concerns.

I know that admins must volunteer and be approved by the community, and that is exactly where the hive mind enters in..the approval. Those who have been acclimated to the hive, will most likely volunteer, but it is the approval process that is consequential.

By analogy. I spent three years in Panama, much of it with a Panamanian family in Chiriqui province (rural). The woman who was head of the house kept chickens, sans coop,in her back yard, there was a dead tree on which they roosted. The very top of the tree was the roost of the head hen. When it came time to eat a chicken,she would snag one on the lower branch and with a flick of her wrist, twist it's neck.Next day she would go to the market and buy a young hen,she would tie the hen to the base of the tree (the other chickens were free and could have flown away any time). It was then that I saw the pecking order in actual progress. The chief hen would peck on the next one down repeat until the new hen got pecked. After three days the new hen was pecked into submission, she knew her place,and the woman would release the string, and the hen would assume it's place without trying to run or fly away. We humans are really no different. But thanks for making my case.Oldperson (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see you stop using the term "senior editors", as it only reinforces your mind-set that there is some sort of rank or power structure here. The only power is in numbers and knowledge. The numbers part is seen when four inexperienced editors prevail in the local discussion against two experienced editors. The knowledge part comes into play if the experienced editors elect to use the recourses laid out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try to get a different outcome, and there are policies against abuses of those recourses. There is power in knowing how to play the game and use the system, here as anywhere else; file that under Facts of Life.

Editors have varying levels of experience – obviously. To whatever extent more-experienced editors unite against less-experienced editors, it's because the former are more experienced. They tend to have learned the same things, most of them correct. It's actually a Good Thing that experience tends to create a convergence of minds, and there would be something very wrong if it didn't.

I believe that less experienced editors should have the wisdom to defer to a large degree to more experienced editors. I did, and I still do, recognizing that I still have plenty left to learn. Far too many editors think they know enough after half a year and a thousand edits to take aggressive stances against editors with 10 or 20 times that experience – remarkably, often against several editors with 10 or 20 times that experience. This stuff is way too complex and nuanced to learn that quickly, and it's Just Plain Dumb to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

MandrussThe reason I use the term senior editors (versus Senior Editors)because there are such a things. Editors who put warnings on talk pages (template or not) and issue not so veiled threats (err warnings). All editors are not equal as you mention above to wit: "Far too many editors think they know enough after half a year and a thousand edits to take aggressive stances against editors with 10 or 20 times that experience – remarkably, often against several editors with 10 or 20 times that experience." You are in fact a senior editor. If I typed Senior Editor or Senior editor I would be denoting a heirarchy and ranking, but as you yourself have noted we are not all equal and some of us are "just plain dumb".Oldperson (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no police force, so we are all policemen. That requires the warning system. Obviously it should be used correctly and with common respect. You are as authorized to issue warnings as anybody else. Advising someone that continued violation may result in a sanction is not a threat, veiled or otherwise.

Do people misuse warnings a lot? Absolutely. But that's a problem with the individuals, not the system. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledged Mandruss, However how many new editors have you seen putting templates on articles, user pages or talk pages. I have seen none. But take it from a relatively new editor. Slapping these templates on a noob is intimidating, especially when it has the warning"don't remove unless...". Do "senior editors" slap these templates on other "senior editors"? I don't think so.Oldperson (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

However how many new editors have you seen putting templates on articles, user pages or talk pages. I have seen none. Good! Those new editors are recognizing that they don't know enough, yet, to use that facility.

I understand about newcomers feeling intimidated; I felt the same when I started 7th grade, moving from top of the grade-school heap to the bottom of the junior-high-school heap. I have also felt that every time I started a new job. And it's true that experienced editors tend to show more deference to each other out of recognition for their experience. There's nothing we can do about either. We are working on a flawed project in a flawed world, and editors who can't come to accept that generally aren't around very long – either by their own choice or otherwise, depending on how much disruption they create while they are here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss I am glad that you admit that WP is flawed, but that is no excuse to maintain or defend the status quo.Can you imagine standing in front of a magistrate with the defense"Apologies your honor, but I am flawed, and see no reason to change".

I noticed, by the way, that it didn't take you much to default to "how much disruption they created while here". Another stuck pig squealing, not that I intentionally cause disruption, I don't, that is not my purpose and you know it. but an individual who hasn't been successfully or fully henpecked into accepting their place in the social order, will of necessity be a source of "disruption", as maybe they should be, or is it true that you can't teach old dogs (editors) new tricks (behaviors).Oldperson (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You've done it again. I am and have for some time been talking about Wikipedia in very general terms, and not about you. Stop taking things personally when there is no such intent. Your behavior to date (at Donald Trump) has not been overly disruptive in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

MandrussI love it when my own words come back at me. It means that I am getting across. I know you weren't referring to me, but as I said above and below "stuck pigs squeal". If the shoe fits and other appropriate analogies. Thanks for telling me that my behavior at DJT has not been overly disruptive, yet it was disruptive, just not overly, is that not so?Oldperson (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You are now asking me to make it personal. I hesitate to go there when you are within community norms, but I will state my opinion with the caveat that many editors would disagree; I don't claim that this is a widely-held view at Wikipedia, or even a majority view. It isn't a topic that comes up very much, so it's difficult to know how others really feel about it.

I think you are too assertive on the talk page for an editor at your experience level. I think you should do more listening and less talking, with more questions and less statements. I think you need to lose the attitude and better internalize that there is a lot you can learn from editors with many years of experience, and that they will not feel inclined to help you if you come across as thinking you already know what you need to know.

You are of course free to disagree, as is anybody else, and I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree on that. I said it only because you asked me to. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss I was NOT asking you to make it personal. I said simply, in relationship to myself,that "stuck pigs squeal" which means I identified with that statement. I am not asking you to do anything. So you think that I am too assertive for an editor of my experience level.

do you realize what you just did? You asserted seniority telling me to mind my place,thus validating my concerns about heirarchy and senior editor. Well let's take this into the real world. I happen to be 80 years of age, very experienced, in dealing with juveniles (meaing those in their 60's and younger) I also have a graduate degree,and substantial life experience. I may be a noob on WP, but am not a NOOB in the world. I may not be an expert at editing on WP (but am learning) but I am an expert at recognizing and dealing with humans and their behavioral quirks. So that expertise bleeds off into my social interactions on and off WP. I TRY (emphasis TRY) to be cordial and respectful, but I do not bend a knee,not anymore, in fact I didn't even during my military career, back talked Gen Dean the commander of the 82nd airborne in March of 1969.

I have never been a boot licker or ass kisser and don't regret it either. As regards what it takes to get by on WP.I am learning, but I have to be me. I am not some snot nosed kid that can be intimidated, talked down to or bossed around. Sincerely.Oldperson (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this thread has run its course, so I'll bow out now. Apologies for any offense. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, there is a big difference between saying a behavior is "just plain dumb" and saying the individual is. I said the former, you heard the latter. And I wasn't referring specifically to you anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Iknow you weren't referring to me, but "stuck pigs squeal" :).Oldperson (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if I'll still be editing Wikipedia at 80. Probably not, I'm already sick of it after a year! WanderingWanda (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edits at the Teahouse

In this edit and this one you used double baces {"{") rater than square brackets to make a link to a pair of guideline or policy pages. This has the effect of transcluding the entire pages into the Teahouse thread, making it very hard to read. Yes this is an easy error to make, but please try to be careful about it in future. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC) DESiegelKicking myself in the butt. Thank you and I will (try harder).Oldperson (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Re

[2] - this is not only book by Hans Rudel. Lots of facts and memoirs are pointing in the same direction; they have been collected by Suvorov and some others and published in several books, probably millions of copies, and especially in Russia where no one loves Hitler, but many love Stalin. But we still have discussions like the one on this article talk page. Why? Speaking about WP setting, I think there are simply many people around here who want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook of History, Physics, etc. I think that goes against WP:NPOV, but there is little we can do about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So, I am not going to appear on this page in the near future. I feel like the Duke and the King when they skipped the town just before the third night of "The Royal Nonesuch" began. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Nick-D This warning is b.s. and an abuse. I have not violated 3rr (I am familiar with the rule and it says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I have not done that and the "View history" proves that, on the other hand it is obvious,from your own edits on that page, that you are an agenda pusher. The fact isthat the word "falsely" is editorializing and that is not WP's voice.. Despite your longevity on WP you are a bad example, and an agenda pushing editor misusing the tools. What you are proving is that you have no effective counter argument, so you are using WP tools by trying to scare me with edit warring templates. Why don't you discuss the editorializing. WP doen't permit puffery, or adjectives like strongly, descriptions like very important, but you insist that you can use falsely. The issue is not Hitler's claim, but the use of editorializing adjectives.Oldperson (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CrossroadsI try, I try real hard constantly to AGF, but the problem is that these conversations (edits)on Talk pages are not as opaque as many would like to believe. The editors POV comes through loud and clear, at least with editors like Gwen you know where they stand, and even though they are up front she still maintains her professionalism and has even chastised me who was supporting her.Not so with other editors whose POV is not as veiled as they would like to think. You objected to my observation that some editors are opposed to human sexuality. That is an honest observation. I did not accuse you or anyone else and I consider your "warning" to be smug and arrogant. Fact is, from all appearances there is a war going on with pretenses to NPOV and WP guidelines. It is a game, more experienced editors are more accomplished at it.Even WP guidelines admit that editors have their own POV's and of course expect us to control them, but despite our best efforts our real views bleed through, if nothing more than in the edits they revert or take exception to.I'm not the kind that sits inthe Pew while the parish priest is molesting the choir boys, or the congregations minister is diddling the pianist. But I know "my place" in the pecking order and will do my best to mind my pints and quarts. Meanwhile I am deleting your insulting comment and template above.Oldperson (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing others' comments

Why did you remove 6 comments by 4 other people from Talk:TERF? [3] Are you aware this is not allowed per WP:TPO, as well due to basic courtesy? -Crossroads- (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove anything. Why are you accusing me?Oldperson (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Check the history. I have removed nothing. On the other hand I am going to ANI for false accusation.Oldperson (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

CrossroadsYou caught me between chores. I didn't have time to check your link. I can't explain that. I did not purposefully delete anyones edits. I know better and I know that it is a gross violation. If there was a deletion then it was not on purpose. In any event it can be reverted and restored.Oldperson (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads Commenets restored. Go ahead and check.Oldperson (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the matter. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

CrossroadsThis incident greatly disturbs me. Fully aware that removing another editors comments from a talk page is a gross violation of the rules. I would never do such a thing. So I went to the trouble of checking my contributions, which you can also the time date stamp of the offending edit is 22:48 21October 2019, here (from my contribs) is the edit of 22:48, 21 October 2019 gp ahead check them out and compare. Big difference either we are dealing with a glitchin the system or a serious hack.Oldperson (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be an Help:Edit conflict ~Awilley (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley and Crossroads:Thanks. I knew it had to be a glitch. I might be a cantakerous old fart, but I am not stupid, nor am I vicious and would never do anything so stupid as deleting someones comments.Besides these issues are not life and death issues for me, my cancer is, but not edits on WP (side note: Everytime I see WP my mind sees WordPerfect, the original word processor). These edit conflicts drive me wild. If I have more than a one liner, I think I will prepare them off line and copy paste, because I don't know how to handle and edit conflict. Thanks for telling me what happened.Oldperson (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You deleted my comments last week, called them irrelevant gobbledygook. Not bitter, just clarifying. Nothing stupid about forgetting mundane history. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, October 23, 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulkI revert an edit which was unintelligble gobbleydygook, which you immediately rectified, perhaps you should stop trying to be so "cute" as your edits are in fact unintelligible and irrelevant except when you get serious. Meanwhile I don't appreciate your WP:STALK so stay off my user page. Hint: You aren't cute, you aren't clever, and normally I disregard your posts as they appear to be that of a teenage troll. That one time I just couldn't ignore your posts, and I will never back down from reverting trolls and vandals. The situation above was not one of those instances, it was glitch in the system. If you don't like being treated as a troll or vandal stop acting like one and grow upOldperson (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not hounding you, just visited your talk page because I liked some of your rants at Trump's Talk, figured there'd be something good to read here. And for the most part, it didn't disapppoint. Even when you directly attacked my views, I found you relatable (I namedropped The Gobbledygooker earlier this month). But trying to pretend it's not deletion if it's reversion, or someone doesn't count if they remind you of some vandal, goth or barbarian you went to school with in the fifties, or whatever you're doing here is simply objectionable. So I spoke up, politely and maturely, like the man I am (I turned 20 in your fifties).

If you insist, I'll gladly fuck right on back out of your brief Wikipedian life, but if you wouldn't mind doing one last deed for me and my irrelevant generation, could you leave a wise one-liner on what exactly flabbergasted you into action that time, but not others? Compulsions may be weird, but they aren't random. I don't want to "trigger" anyone else, as the kids say, so help me act half as old as you think a person your age should be, that's all. Totally optional. Just leave the next line blank to decline anything and everything further between us.

Hell, I'll even explicitly consent to you deleting this reply if you consider it trolling instead of reasonably provocative and sometimes out of strict chronological order. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, October 23, 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulkI honestly do not know how to respond to your soliquy. I am at a loss for words (despite this reply).It has to be a generational thing. I was born the year after RCA exhibited their television receivers at theWorld Fair. Me no speak the linqua franca of your generation, nor do I share your values and belief system, though I probably did when Iwas younger (much younger). Some become more conservative as they age, others, like myself, become more liberal. Ifyou offer an olive branch I will take it, but let's not dwell on perceived old slights, that's the path to ruin. Hint: My last vote cast in an election was for Barry Goldwater until this past election, when I registered to vote after a 52 year hiatus AGAINST Trump. 00:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

My earliest electronic memories are of RCA TVs, so we have that in common. But alongside the usual CBS, ABC and NBC bulletins, mine picked up strange signals from CBC, TVO, TVA, ITV, SRC, CHCH, CTV and a channel that played soft music over two golden deer and various notices pertaining to the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly. So many choices up here past the Detroit River, and in later years I "stole" from Starchoice, ExpressVu and DirectTV satellites alike. That was like 700 channels! You think I had time for partisan politics? If I seem to prefer Trump to Clinton, it's because he's entertaining and she's not. That, and she would've instigated World War III.

The two times I've voted for someone somewhat representing my values at an actual level of government, it was a Liberal who wanted to legalize pot and a town councilor who helped me spay feral cats. I do farm work and enjoy rockabillly, but I don't own a gun or fishing rod. I think everyone on Earth worships the pure energy of fire, down in their cockles, but would rather join a team with a longer, richer story and more members than see and feel the undying truth at the centre of the Tootsie Pop alone in the boreal forest at night. You ever go camping without a campfire, my friend? Or camping alone? After a week, the things a grown-ass man can see are more awesome and influential than Saturday morning cartoon commercials are to a lost bored child.

Anyway, take care! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, October 24, 2019 (UTC)

{{u|InedibleHulk{{I wish there was some kind of generational translator, because I sure "no comprende". I can speak Spanish, even a little Viet Namese (been 51 years), can pray and cuss in Duetsche, even a little Arabic, but damn if I can understand you except for one thing that you said. Ted Nugent.

That is where Ishut down, that cowardly, sicko asswipe. A fanboy of his hero Donald J Dump, he took a dump in his shorts to avoid the draft,well he was a little more committed than President Bone Spurs, who needs to be committed.Booth are cowards who would (have)sold out their country, the consitution fortheir ownbenefit

I will never forgt the words of(retired) Gen Mattis, when he said he earned his spurs in combat, while the Dump got his from a doctors letter.

If those two are men you admire, then we walk two differnt paths that will never intersect, maybe in the future whenyou gain some wisdom and experience, then again you just might further intrench into the fascist world of libertarianism.

My wif'es first husband was a libertarian, she told me that libertarians are right wing Republicans who like to smoke dope and have free sex. by the way we have one thijng in common. I order (a lot) through smile.amazon.com, which contributes a portion of eacho to my local spay Feral Cats program. I am a crazy cat person. I have two ocicats. I have posted video's of them onOcicatOldperson (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I only like Ted Nugent's music. Sport hunting is serial killing in my books, and while I like learning about serial killers, I wouldn't knowingly let one into my town or give him the time of day. Might even hurt him. Killing strangers in war is a grey area for me. Haven't done it myself, but have friends who did in Afghanistan and had a grandfather who did over Germany. Seems like one of those unfortunate situations that an outsider can't ever call fairly down the middle. You could call me a libertarian, but not a fascist. I don't believe in marriage, but would rather jack it than have stranger sex for pleasure alone. "Epicurean", you might say. Straight, white and lower-class, but don't feel others should be. I like ocicats, have zero. Have nearly 30 "normal" cats, as my maternal line has as far back as I can trace (just three generations). Love them, but it's not the freest life. I've been smoking weed since I was twelve, so "pothead" is apt. That's about that, in a nutshell.

Seriously, give "Fred Bear" at least one listen, but ignore the lyrics if you must. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, October 25, 2019 (UTC)

And yeah, I like Trump in the same way I like Nugent. From a distance. No money, no moral support, just artistic appreciation. Chris Benoit, Dynamite Kid and Harley Race are still great workers, in my eyes. Offstage, whole other ballgame. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, October 25, 2019 (UTC)

Inedible HulkI don't understand the mentality of people who are obsessed with serial killers. In my opinion there is some kind of self identification and empathy. Ted Bundy's first kill was a young girl, 8 years I think. He disappeared from his bedroom about the time she disappeared from hers. There was a report of a young lad about his age, at the same time, standing over a construction ditch, pushing on something. They never found her. The whole idea horrifies me. I had my fill of it all in Viet Nam. To my knowledge I never killed anyone, but my job contributed. I saw enough death and mangled bodies, Americans and Viet Namese to last a life time. It is one thing to fantasize, another to see it. I was at Dak To, when a company of the 13rd Airborne Brigade was ambushed. The NVA had enough time to mix up dog tags and ID cards. This was discovered when the mortuary tent notice that the ID card for one guy was black, but the man was white. The bodies lay in back of the tent for 72 hours, wating for all of the rest of the battalion to come back in so they could personally ID the bodies. The odor does not leave the nostrils. It was after this incident that the 173rd Airborne Brgd, started to collect ears..I don't blame them.

As regards your boy Dump, he is a liar, a grifter, a coward, a malignant narcissist who lacks empathy for anyone except himself. He and the Republican party have destroyed the constitutional democratic republic, and in fact have torn up the Constitution. We are on the cusp of a fascist state. By the way I don't do alcohol, drugs, legal or illegal, but my wife does smoke the bud which is legal where I live. I don't render judgement, just not my thing. I do render judgement for that that support the lying, cheating, thieving, pervert that is destroying our country.Oldperson (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with serial killers, just interested. Might stem from my obsession with death and pro wrestling. Grew up in a funeral home. I was relatively sheltered from most of the gorier stuff, and most of that were people who died "peacefully" and were mutilated after the blood ran out and the pain was gone. On the bright side, I caught stark raving Hulkamania through one of those RCA boxes. The funeral thing ended when my grandpa died and my dad left the closet, and my Hulkamania died when Ted Turner bought it from Marvel, but stuff lingers, as stuff does. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, October 25, 2019 (UTC)

InediboleHulkThere is no such thing as professional wrestilng. The owner had to change the name to World Wide Entertainment. It is all theater carefully scripted acts, always has been, just another way to separate the sucker from their money. I am not doing a funeral. I've already made my arrangements with Medcure, donating my body. Save my wife the expense of it all. My mother was cremated. My Dad buried in a Veterans Cemetery,,in a pine coffin which rotted, fell in and they subsequnetly filled in, probably nothing left of him or his casket, which nobody will visit ever. I visited it once and a cousin once. The evidence of their existence exists on Findagrave.com, wikitree, and a website, but they are dead so they don't know or care.Oldperson (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, non-fans have been telling fans that since your dad was in his crib. And we've been telling "you people" that's the beauty of it. Endless cycle. You ever think of where pine caskets come from? Inside every plant is a bit of animal. But I didn't unleash your country's beast. Democrats sent a confessed Terminator to do a woman's job, and Trump had free airtime. It was going to happen. I'm magically swaying it for Kamala Harris this time, though, hope you like her brand of justice. My second choice is The Rock (inexperienced at governance, but knows people who aren't). But yeah, funerals are a bit carny, I'm going into the bush unless my survivors decide that's stupid. And you're mixing up World Wrestling Entertainment with the World Wide Wrestling Federation. It was a matter of trademarks and search results in 2002. Vince Jr. admitted it was fugazi in 1989, to get out of draconian New Jersey SAC financial oversight bullshit. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, October 25, 2019 (UTC)

. If by the Terminator, you mean Hillary, then I agree. In my opinion the political parties are corrupt, corrupted by big money from wealthy contributors and corporations. They rigged the Democratic Primary to get Hillary, and Hillary spent her whole life striving to become President. Obama made her Secretary of State because of the power of the Democratic National Committee, so she could build foreign policy creds. I have no idea who the Rock is, unless it is a wrestler or Dwayne Johnson. Regardless of who the Dem's put up, I would vote for a mule, to get rid of the party of the wealthy and that mental case. I am not mixed up about WWF and WWE, WWF had to change its name to WWE regardless of what it is called it is all an act, staged rehearsed, outcome determined ahead of time, nothing to be taken seriously, except by idiots. In fact I find it incomprehensible and a sad reflection of humans, that they take professional sports seriously. Football for instance, is a for profit enterprise, with teams, except for the Green Bay Packers, owned by billionaires, and the players well paid slaves, with one difference when they reach free agency they can sell themselves to another team, as so many do. Baseball the same.Alex Rodriguez was lionized by the Seattle Mariners, a big hero, then he sold himself to the New York Yankees and there is the spectacle of watching folks who once worshipped A Rod, booing him. There was a time when sports teams were local and players actually were part of the local population, then it became just another money making proposition.Oldperson (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)