User talk:Nick Thorne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 02:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Classic Forum shipping[edit]

[1]

Wow. They shipped the entire Forum? The boat must have been enormous! :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! I'll fix it. - Nick Thorne talk 03:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What is and what is not acceptable conduct[edit]

So, just to confirm, not only do you think it is unreasonable to indef someone who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to scare a complete stranger with the idea that they might have cancer, you also think it completely unjust to indef the "excellent editor" and "asset to the project" who, having been reverted with a plea from the recipient to desist, then forcefully reinstates the comment to scare the stranger even more? I think you need to have a word with yourself about what is right and what is wrong. -- CassiantoTalk 18:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Get over yourself already. That "stranger" was almost immediately blocked itself, and is still indefinitely blocked. While that in af itself doesn't excuse Wolf's comments and actions, it is ironic almost beyond belief. Wolf has been contrite about his actions, and pledged not to behave that way again. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, yet that is what this block has turned into. If he does something outrageous on this level or worse again, then I'll be the first to say we should drop the banhammer. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, what a nice surprise to meet the other supporter of Wolfchild on this page. "Wolf", as you like to call them, was only sorry because they were blocked. It's part of the appeal jargon. You are aware of that, aren't you? Had they not have been blocked, I'd have bet my life on it that they would've carried on like nothing had happened, minus an apology. Stranger or not (as suggested by your inverted commas), to scare anyone into thinking that they might have cancer - twice - is a pretty sick move. Have you stopped to think of the possible collateral damage this comment may've caused to other persons viewing that comment who may have been licked by their cat? CassiantoTalk 19:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I like to call him "Child", but was told to stop. :) What I support is fair treatment of Wikipedia users, and he's not getting that here. I understand that Wolf has made enemies who want to see him gone - I used to be one of them. But I like to think I'm fair-minded enough to recognize when a user makes progress, and Wolf has. And too be honest,I was initially thirilled to see he had been blocked, but when I saw it how it happened, I was alarmed. I really don't care in this case if his apology was sincere or not, as I can't read minds over the internet. That can only be evidenced by his behavior, which is what we're concerned about here. We can't control what people think, and it's dangerous to even try. As to what he actually said, if you "genuinely" (note the use of "quote marks", as we call them in English) believe his comments will cause "collateral damage", then ask to to have the comments deleted from the history. As far as I know, that hasn't even been requested, much less done. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
So you'll agree then that the treatment by "child" to the recipient wasn't fair either? If so, you should then support the block, no? I find it curious that you were more alarmed at someone being blocked for making a sick comment than them actually saying the sick comment in the first place. And you're quite happy to have an insincere apology rather than someone accept the block, ride it out, and return when they've pulled themselves together? Where is the lesson in that? We can all say things in the heat of the moment - I'm perhaps more guilty than others for doing that around here - but to present to someone the idea that they might have a terminal illness, simply because they disagree with them, is way below the morals of standard decency. I'm stunned you think this is something that should just be glossed over. CassiantoTalk 20:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
How do you ride out an indefinite block? It's indefinite. Yeah, he's been advised to take the 6 month offer, but that's different than a six-month block which then expires. He has no guarantee of the block being lifted, which is what "ride out the block" implies. I have previously stated on Wolf's talk page that I do support a finite block with a definite end period, so in no way am I saying that this should be glossed over. But that isn't what this is, and that's what I don't support. (At this point, I should probably wait on Nick to respond, assuming he does, and that he doesn't chose to delete the whole discussion, for which I wouldn't blame him.) - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You request a return after a significant period of reflection, that's how. Unlike you, I'd respect that person more for doing that rather than coming out with a lame apology, purely to get their editing rights back again. I couldn't really care less if this exchange is deleted, I've got it off my chest and that's all that matters to me. If snowflake-like behaviour is exhibited here by the page owner deleting a civil debate on the morals of someone who can say such sickening things, then that is a matter for them. It won't be me being judged. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
What a load of self righteous nonsense. No one is suggesting that Wolf did not need to be sanctioned. However jumping straight to indef without prior escalating blocks is simply unconscionable and clearly breaks the not punative guidelines that are supposed to be followed by admins. Frankly it is an abuse of the tools and must not be allowed to stand. - Nick Thorne talk 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Clearly I'm running up a treacle hill with concrete shoes on in trying to make either of you see sense. It's utterly bizarre that you are more offended by an admin stepping outside administrative protocols than you are about an editor telling another editor to get checked out for terminal cancer, twice, in response to a whacky, yet somewhat innocent, tangent on their own talk page. You may think it's semi-okay to do this, but frankly I don't and they'll be many others who agree with me. CassiantoTalk 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is okay at all, either, but jumping straight to an indef is massive over-reach and there'll be many others who agree with me. - Nick Thorne talk 00:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, my point has been made. I won't be responding any further. CassiantoTalk 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, bye Felicia. - Nick Thorne talk 00:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Came here from TWC's talk page to point out that TWC was just topic banned from RfA/RfB for their behavior. diff I don't know why you say they haven't been warned, etc. Levivich 00:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, burn the witch! - Nick Thorne talk 00:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
My bad. I didn't realize this cat incident had occurred at RfA/RfB. Ban him forever! - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
(unrelated comment) BilCat, 'inverted commas' is another way of saying 'quotation mark'. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 10:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Not generally in English, to my knowledge, as I said. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I am wrong, as it's used in British English, especially for single quotation marks. We don't use the term "inverted commas" in American English, as we generally use double quotation marks. Since commas are generally used singularly, there's less of a resemblance. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
ACHOO! Mumbling.... -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"My God! There are DOZENS of them!!"[edit]

Re: [2], thanks for fixing my error. It wasn't intentional. Sorry about that.

I decided to stop interacting with him, and I suspect that within a week everybody else will come to the same decision, leaving him shouting into an empty room. If his future behavior is like his past behavior, he will "misunderstand" what 'all articles and edits on the topic of creationism, broadly construed' means, the same way he "misunderstood" what 'An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring' and 'If you are claiming an exemption [to our rules about edit warring], make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption' even after a dozen warnings and 4 blocks by 4 different admins for edit warring. And it will all be my fault.

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I thought that was the case, I meant to insert "accidentally" in my edit summary, but I hit the submit button instead, my bad. I think you're right about our friend, that was partly why I wanted to ensure that an admin closed the discussion with an accurate reflection of the consensus, I was far from convinced he had got the message, but this way it will be straight forward when he returns to his old ways, which I think is likely. - Nick Thorne talk 20:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)