User:Mmyers1976/sandbox

Examples of pointy-ness: " I have objected to the phrase in the lead section for other reasons — I felt that it was a needless restriction that may invite debate about what examples belong or don’t belong in the article. " Examples of sarcasm: "And if anyone objects on the basis of notability, we might try Mmeyers’ ploy and tell them they’re lousy perfectionist." "That question was posted by an editor with a very similar name as yours, his name is: Mmeyers1976." "If you want to discuss this any further please take it up with Mmeyres1976. Just please go easy on him, because he means well." "That’s a strong point, which, I think, puts this article, in a serious way, “outside the law”" "Oh no! I wrote all that off-site, and then entered it without noticing that MMeyers has left a scold on my own talk page, suggesting that I am not “cool” in his words." "The source speaks conditionally when he says unseen characters “can be” etc, the article pretends that the source was offering a general definition. That’s is a little fraud. " "So Mmeyers coins a phrase, adds a merely decorative footnote that appears to put the vile phrase in the source’s mouth, and there we’ve got a nice “Wikipedia”-sounding definition. Fraud, I say!"

From DP: "While I appreciate that discussions that seem intractable may be frustrating, I don't think that's helpful,Handthrown." "Handthrown, I would suggest that Mmyers1976 is becoming frustrated because you are struggling to understand. I tried to explain it as clearly as I could, but it's obvious from your inital response to what I wrote that you didn't follow it. " "However, helping you to follow does seem to be requiring an awful lot of effort on this page. I am not attempting to attack you, merely to suggest that perhaps you should take a step back? As interesting as it might be to explore these things in such minute and painstaking detail, it isn't really the best use of our time or energy. This is, I think, what Mmyers1976 is trying to communicate to you with regard to disruptive editing." "I have often experienced considerable frustration when a lot of time and energy seems to be wasted in what in retrospect is really about trying to educate another editor, rather than simply saying get yourself to a library and figure it out for yourself, as it were. The criteria for Wikipedia in each case have been chewed over in considerable detail and as far as I can see have been satisfied well above and beyond their most rigorous application. I don't think you could ask for more." "Handthrown, on the basis of what you've written, both in your last reply, in the initial objection, and the subsequent responses, it's clear to me that you havent understood the source. You don't seem to understand the way the source is using the word "appear" (which, in its context, is entirely synonomous with 'plot'--the action we see--which is explicitly mentioned in the source), nor the clear and unambigous difference between the two types of characters that it offers--in no sense is the writer making an argument that "the “seen” and the “unseen” are not in all contexts so distinct". It's not my ideas I'm hoping to hear from you, but rather the absense of such obvious misunderstandings as "the ones who advance the plot are not [...] but those [...]"; "that's the opposite", or the manifest confusion of "So, if I get what you’re saying, then an “unseen character” is not an “unseen character”, he or she is in fact a “seen character”. And, in fact, the source may be making that point when he suggests that an “unseen character” has an “appearance” and a “presence”. And, according to that particular source, the unseen characters are not off-stage, but they are “still there” onstage.", which demonstrated that you hadn't followed at all. There's no pretending or fraud in the article's use of it either. I can't see to what you are referring when you argue the source uses the conditional. Your suggestion about the criteria of inclusion doesn't help, I'm afraid." "Handthrown, you haven't understood the source and your attempts to analyse it do not appear to be bringing you any nearer to an understanding. You've had plenty of energy expended trying to help you to see it, but you don't. "