User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2010/September

Climate change case
Hi, I'm curious if you are having as much trouble understanding some of the things going on at the PD talk page? I am finding that I have problems with some of the editors who are making all these FoF against what looks like trying to get rid of the enemy type of thing. I guess I'm looking for other opinions on what they are feeling/seeing with all of this. I mean for example there has been a lot of FoF's against what looks like one side making it against the other, yet the side getting all these requested FoF's aren't writing them too. It all seems one sided here in the attempts to get editor sanctions esp. lately and since the arbs have started their voting and adding of FoF's against editors. Is it just me feeling this way? Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have reached much the same conclusion. There are definitely a number of editors who make prolific and repetitious use of enforcement mechanisms. It's quite wearisome. I don't see how people can put with that over a period of years. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I just wanted to make sure I was seeing things correctly or if I was being blinded by what I was thought I was seeing.  It's getting even harder now because the third complaint is being compiled on the sanction board now and the PD talk page is active again.  I know I wouldn't be an editor still if I had to edit in environments like I am seeing.  I'd find a new hobby to enjoy.  Thanks again, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, what you're seeing is a sampling of a longtime trend. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's tedious and I find it hard to summon the energy to compile diffs when my preference would be to give everyone a trout and tell them to behave better in future. Unfortunately some people disagree with me about what behaving better looks like :-/ . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I watch the sanction board and have since almost from when it started though I didn't always pay close attentions to the arguments or even the whole sections at times. It would get boring to do so as an outsider in all of this which is why I am having such a hard time with this case which it seems the arbitrators are too. I'm getting tired of it all and I haven't been commenting that long so I don't know how others can stay in this environment for so long without losing their cool and often.  I know you are supposed to walk away or politely respond, which I always try to do, but when having to protect your name it's got to be hard to control emotional outburst, esp. when using your real name and not some ID.  Well thanks for your inputs, it gives me something to think about when or if I decide to make another comment.


 * @ Dave souza, I think everything is past trout stage unfortuately.  That being said, I hope the arbitrators are watching that page real closely to see what the outsiders are seeing and saying about things. At this point the active editors should be taken with a large grain of salt, that's my opinion anyways.


 * Be well, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic coverage of finance"??
Is that what you meant to say here? Cardamon (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. Thanks for noticing. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw rats, too late. I was going to say "Just look at Naked short selling, it is a disgrace". So I'll say it anyway :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Funny how only Cardamon noticed! Maybe not funny. Maybe nobody pays attention to what I say. I feel like Willie Loman. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I looked at that article but couldn't make sense of it, except that it makes prominent use of a trite cliche ("Main Street and Wall Street." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)