User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2022/April

Am I missing something?
TFD, am I missing something here ? While DN and I have been disagreeing, I'm really having trouble seeing the CIVIL issue. Any thoughts? Springee (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I replied to that discussion thread. I don't know why the editor asked you not to ping them. i don't think though that they are likely to compromise or change their position on anything, so it's pointless having a conversation with them. TFD (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Update
This is just a friendly notice that I will not see any of your Pings moving forward (thanks atsme johnuniq et al). If you have any future concerns regarding my behavior, please feel free to let me know on my talk page or wherever you deem to be most appropriate. Please keep in mind if it is not on my talk page or on an article talk page section in which I am currently involved, you may need a moderator to ping me depending on the level of importance. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not recall ever pinging you. This seems to be some sort of revenge for saying your complaint about another editor was wasting everyone's time. TFD (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF I'm only trying maintain a certain level of sanity and clarity on my end, so it is absolutely not personal. I apologize if you are offended, and I can assure you it is not meant as a slight of any kind. You and I simply do not seem to agree on what is and isn't proper discourse and behavior, which makes our interactions very difficult for me. The easiest course of action I could take seemed to be to limit our interactions. If that still sounds like revenge, we may discuss it further, but I'll leave the recourse up to you. Sorry to bother you. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The only contact between you and me I could find was on the article about the U.S. Republican Party, unless you count the John Lott article where you replied to a comment I left but there was no further discussion.
 * I don't see any complaints by you or I about discourse or behavior in the Republican Party discussion, except that you accused me of expressing my personal opinion when I said that ending slavery, prohibition, giving women the right to vote and Watergate were as important as if not more important than the RNC censuring Liz Cheney and another member of Congress. If that was one of the most difficult interactions you have had on Wikipedia, count yourself lucky.
 * TFD (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * DN, I must agree with TFD here. Although he is better-informed than most of the Politics editors, he is given to fits of emotion and personalization with intermittent lapses of judgment. These are distributed more or less evenly across the ideological spectrum, so if all you've seen is pointed or overly assured debate, that's a lot better than most of the interactions on those articles and I would not take it personally. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to drag this out, but again it's not personal (read the whole thread and try to take me at my word). The lack of AGF and strange interpretations of policy and core tenets etc...it's consequential contagion seems to be perfectly good cause for me to simply try to limit interactions in a CIVIL and courteous manner to preserve my own sanity and maintain personal quality standards of editing and demeanor. If revenge is anyone's immediate thought after looking at my previous statement then I highly recommend some personal introspection in that regard, and I feel terribly for anyone that must see the world through that type of lens. I have experienced much worse in terms of bullying and attacks, due to online interactions, and probably so have you and others. We all have to figure out how to deal with it, and we should try to avoid judgement of each other when it is made clear that intentions are in the spirit of AGF. I am not building cases on anyone or planning some revenge plot to be carried out at ANI at some far away date or whatever. You can literally quote me on this, however I do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL and this is not a greenlight to start gaslighting me. I abhor those places, but they are necessary, as is trying to AGF. The thing that I am personally working on currently is to remember that the panic-stricken feeling of urgency is usually imagined, by myself and or others. I usually reach out when that happens, because the feeling is eerily similar to drowning, if anyone has had that displeasure.


 * Wikipedia is not set in stone and will change over time, but not at the expense of ignoring the rules and tenets or letting ourselves and others fall into the muck of paranoia, incivility and gatekeeping. Many of us (including myself) are constantly in danger of going nose-blind to our own levels of toxicity and other's. This is preventable and requires proactive work and individual responsibility, especially on political articles with editors we've worked side by side with for a very long time. Editors also tend to act in tandem with others that fall into these traps, it's just the way things seem to work around here sometimes. I'm trying to go with the flow in a positive way and will always try to remember to work towards consensus, but sometimes I need to step away, and sometimes I get triggered by editors that want to rush through the process for whatever reason. I may have been perceiveably guilty of the same thing(s) in the past and I must do better, but two wrongs never make a right, even if that makes me a hypocrite. I still respect everyone here, and I just ask that everyone stay patient and recognize these actions as indicative of that respect. AFAIK and from what I've been told by others, including moderators, is that my options are fairly limited since I loath arbitration. This may be the best means of maintaining that respect and civility on terms that aren't as distracting as other less creative options could be. I hope this clarifies things. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK I will take a close look. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * These "strange interpretations of policy" were, by your admission at the Tea House, accepted by at least half the editors in the discussion. At issue is whether by reliable sources, DUE is referring to all the literature about a topic, particularly what is found in text books and peer-reviewed articles, or whether it refers to what has recently dominated the news cycle. It's not strange to assume the former.
 * Throughout the discussion you pinged me three times, referred to me without pinging several more times and accused me of failure to understand policies and of having a bias. Meanwhile I did not mention you at all. All these actions perpetuate discussions.
 * I don't agree with your interpretation of CRYSTALBALL. The onus is on editors who believe something has lasting significance to prove it, not to other editors to disprove it. Obviously I cannot prove that censuring Cheney and the other member of Congress will not have the same historical significance as ending slavery, but I am not just going to take your word for it.
 * Political parties throughout the world routinely discipline members of their party who disobey the parties' decisions. What is significant is not that these members were censured, but that the Republican caucus refused to participate in the enquiry into 1/6.
 * Also, you should keep in mind that the reason I disagreed with you was not personal animosity, but because I see the issue differently. I did not enter the discussion replying to anything you said. In fact you were first to engage with me, writing, "I'll wager that's a clear-cut POV CLAIM, therefore kind of a non-starter. Let's just try to avoid any possible POV from all angles." [02:26, 12 February 2022] So you begin by accusing me of acting in bad faith, then accuse me of accusing you of acting in bad faith.
 * TFD (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being able to explain it in a way that meets your criteria for approval. I think we can all agree there is still an AGF issue afoot here, the question is where is it coming from, where is it going and why, something that I don't believe is in the proper purview of anyone involved in this discussion, including myself. If I am not allowed to turn off notifications from certain editors, let alone notify them of such changes as a courtesy without appearing to be vengeful and without faith than I am in need of guidance, and as such you may refer me to an administrator or ping one as needed. Sorry to bother you, and I'll make this my last comment for now. DN (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that you turned off notifications from me despite the fact I have never notified you, pinged you or posted to your talk page, and then publicly informed me "as a courtesy." It's similar to applying for a retraining order against someone who has never contacted you, then publicly posting your action as a courtesy to that person.

What now? Are you going to make a list of every editor you found yourself in disagreement with, turn off notifications from them, then provide a "courtesy" notice on their talk pages?

My suggestion is that when you participate in talk page discussions and disagree with an argument presented that you concentrate on the argument, not the other editor, especially when their position has a lot of support. Don't ping them, quote them and mention their names multiple times. And don't tell them they don't understand policy or are biased.

Also, when you post links to WP:WIKIPEDIAPOLICIESETC, which you frequently do, you should explain how they relate to your point. Saying "I disagree with you per WP:WHATEVER" is just telling someone they are wrong, without explaining why. Just citing WP:DUE for example does not explain to me why Liz Cheney's censure deserves more coverage than the abolition of slavery. In my view, it proves the opposite.

I notice that you have asked editors for sympathy and some have provided it. You have to bear in mind that the reason some editors disagree with you is not because they have a personal dislike, but because they held different views before coming into contact with you. Editors who concluded Cheney's censure was no big deal thought that way before the issue came up on the discussion page. They didn't think "DN thinks it's a big deal, so I will argue against them."

TFD (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not "making a list and turning off notifications etc..."...If you had read any of my previous response you would see why. You tend to cherry pick the things I say, not that I'm not guilty of the same at times but that is what I'm trying to avoid, and when we engage the worst of us seems to take control. You don't seem to want to bare any responsibility for what your words and actions may or may not mean at times. I realize no one is perfect, but I'm just trying to be as transparent and honest as possible instead of just keeping everything to myself as if they were secrets. I try to be an open an honest person and I cannot expect to change anyone in terms of behavior or habits. Maybe I should have kept it too myself, maybe that would have been the proper thing to do, but what would happen if you pinged me and just assumed I didn't care at all to answer? I'm seemingly damned if I do and damned if I don't in your view. Thanks for the advice, sorry I can only take so much of this. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What would happen if Jeff Bezos decided to call me and I would not like to speak to him? Better block his phone number before that happens and post on social media where everyone who knows him can see that I have done this (without disclosing that he had never called me before), because I wouldn't want to hurt his feelings in case he called me and I didn't pick up. You are aware I assume that you can email other editors through Wikipedia so that you avoid the drama. TFD (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally do not email or communicate with anyone on wiki outside of talk pages. Feel free to ask around, I won't be offended one bit. That is a practice I find goes against transparency, and I'm surprised Wiki even allows that, not that they could do much about it, but I honestly thought that was frowned upon. Anything to improve your faith in me that doesn't involve us needlessly arguing, I'm all for it as long as it doesn't inconvenience others...DN (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)