User talk:ACanadianToker/Archives/2014/November

Who are you? And I do mean your past Wikipedia account.
Looking through your edit history only briefly, I see that you are not new to editing Wikipedia, despite your new ACanadianToker account. I see that you have been involved in POV-pushing editing. As soon as I saw your latest edits at the Misogyny and Sexism articles, it was clear to me that you are an editor who does not follow the Wikipedia rules the way that you should; you throw around policies and guidelines without using them appropriately. So just what Wikipedia account have you edited under before your ACanadianToker account? Or is this a case where I'm going to have to figure it out on my own, as I've done with various WP:Sockpuppets in the past? Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have only ever had this account. Your accusations that I am a sock pocket is nothing but an attempt to discredit views you disagree with. I only registered on wikipedia this year, thanks for being welcoming to noobs . I have stared a talk page article where you are welcome to share your views on the use of a weasel word in the lead of the misogyny article. Talk:Misogyny


 * Cheers, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not new. Your edit history very clearly shows that. And as many at this site know, I am very good at spotting editors who are not new, whether they are a WP:Sockpuppet or not. Notice that I did not directly call you a WP:Sockpuppet. Your poor understanding of Wikipedia ways does not fool me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I'm not interested in debating your account with you. And I am not interested in interacting with you. I will only interact with you when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * okay - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You probably should not...
Hi. You want to be pretty conservative in redacting other people's talk page comments. I noticed that here you removed "You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to use of the word many; ... [this tagging] of yours is silly" and some other stuff.

So the question is it reasonable to assert that you don't, as a point of fact, know what you are talking about when it comes to the user of the word "many"? It's reasonable in my opinion. You don't appear to know what you are talking about. Was your edit silly? Yes, it was pretty silly.

It appears to you that the word "many" and the phrase "too many" are essentially synonyms, such that that the phrase "There are many people getting off the train today" is inherently a complaint, and so forth. This is highly idiosyncratic, of course, and that's fine as far as it goes for your own personal use. You can use any words however you like in the privacy of your home or your personal correspondence. However, this is a public document and we're highly inclined to go with the generally accepted definitions of words. Is this something that you are able to understand? I hope so as that would give us a basis for moving forward.

The other stuff -- "You need to read such-and-such rule more carefully" and so on -- are also not personal attacks so much as advice, advice you're free to ignore I suppose (although ultimately I don't think it will help your career here), but not advice that you can pretend was never given.

My suggestion is not to take too much umbrage at having an edit called "silly", especially when it is silly, or at least arguably so by the reasonable man standard. Instead, it might be an opportunity to examine your own actions and motivations, an opportunity to learn and grown. Or you can just take umbrage if you prefer, although that's a much more sterile and unpromising stance IMO. But even if you do choose to just take umbrage, that doesn't give you the right put people's objections in the memory hole, provided its not an actual egregious personal attack and largely without merit.

So anyway... you should stop doing that, and please do, thanks! Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'd invite you to reexamine the "some other stuff" you are referring to including what was written above on my talk page. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The "other stuff" mostly consisted of advice to read such-and-such policy page more carefully. Advice like that may or may not be unnecessary, insulting, or wrongheaded, but doesn't really constituted a personal attack. The stuff about being a alternate account is different, don't know about that, but it's probably based on behavior cues: if a account arrives here full-formed -- by which I mean being familiar with Wikipedia rules, formats, protocols, politics, and so on -- and has, or may be seen to be having, some kind of agenda, all this makes our spidey-sense tingle here. I suppose it's a personal attack if it's not justified. Best response is to refute or ignore rather than redact, though. Redactions just confuse the history of what has and has not been said, besides which "not only am I not a sockpuppet but I refuse to allow the issue to be raised" just makes you look more suspicious. Herostratus (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)