User talk:Tbrittreid/Archive/2008/October

Section length, Book titles, et al.
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to comment on Asgardian on a personal level, so memories are not needed. The issues are spelled out quite simply in the section in question, including what the FCB is. If you read my last couple of posts, it explains it. Even your statement about personal knowledge of a subject can be an addition to the conversation. Nightscream (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ted, if the events in question occurred as you described them, and those other people were exhibiting the same behavior Asgardian has been, then you were obviously in the right, and those on the Incident Board were wrong. Thus, I don't see where there is hypocrisy, unless you're arguing that any of the people who took one position with those people in that situation, are the same people who took a different one here with Asgardian. Since I was not involved in that other case, there is no inconsistency or double standard on my part. Are you arguing that this is the case with Daniel Case? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you. Nightscream (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As an institution, yes. As individuals, however, one admin cannot account for another admin's behavior. A given admin acting in good faith can only strive to ensure that their own actions are consistent. He/she can only state their position that something is right or wrong, and if wrong, that it is wrong whether they do it or some other admin does it. Since I agree with you that that behavior you describe on the part of the other admins is wrong, how am I a hypocrite? How is Daniel Case? Hypocrisy is not an accusation leveled at a decentralized group; it's something generally leveled at a particular person when they themselves exhibit double standards. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no fallacy. Hypocrisy is generally observed when a single individual claims principles or standards that they do not actually uphold consistently. You can't argue hypocrisy by arguing that one person exhibits one behavior, and a completely different person exhibits a different one. How does me showing different standards from someone else make me a hypocrite? This isn't a fallacy. It's an irrational accusation made without the the benefit of coherent logic. But if you want to insist that I'm hypocrite for what someone else did to you, hey, cool beans. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion has been terminated, so I have posted no refutation of this here or, as with my replies to the other notes above, on Nightscream's talk page. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera
Regarding this, I've asked for something to be done about this guy, but "They" tell me there's nothing to do, just revert and move on. "They" can't even block him, cause it's not even really vandalism... Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)