User talk:Bo99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tennis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Wham bam mam (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

to the "Wham bam mam" person: i'm open-minded if you have any support at all.

The issue is that you edited some user's edit in Tennis to limit "ball persons" to "ball boys". I edited to make it "ball boys or ball girls" and gave the valid reason that such broadening would be more "accurate", "welcoming", and thus more "wiki" i.e. more in conformity with Wiki guidelines.

You Undid that and claim that it was vandalism, but promptly a third user aligned against you has independently already Undone your work, at [1], and warned you at [2] to "refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Tennis." Do you have any Wiki link, or any idea, or any person, supporting your view? Thanks. Bo99 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

note: I highlighted the above on the "Wham bam mam" person's talk page, [3]. Bo99 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wam Bam User

Thank you for the heads up! As I made my way to the edit history another user had already reverted his edit. I'm not sure why he is so set in his ways. Thanks! tabor-^{drop me a line} 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About non-responses

Bo99,

I just wanted to suggest that you read meta:What is a troll?. You've several times said that if editors would just quit posting "erroneous arguments", such as my pointing out that you must have consensus before making changes to policy pages, then the discussion will stop.

However, I want you to know why it hasn't happened to date: Disconnecting from an unresolved argument is generally done only when editors have identified you as a troll. You originally seemed to have an interest in doing something other than soaking up editors' time and energy with endless and specious argumentation. I didn't originally want to leave you with the impression that I considered your arguments so weak and your stubbornness so invincible as to not even be worth a response.

I have changed my mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The above posting by the user "WhatamIdoing" is deeply wrong.

1. The user fails to give readers the link, which was this Discussion topic on the Verifiability policy, which showed in detail the lack of validity in the user's three postings. (update, 2009-Feb-12: The user manually moved such evidence from that link to the archive, at this new link, even before the routine archiving that a wiki robot would have done.)
2. The user fails to tell readers the subject, which i detailed as follows: "There has been no stated objectively-valid reason why Wikipedia should omit stating more clearly some principles regarding conflicts of interest held by sources (any principles, whether permissive or constraining to such COIs); if anyone thinks they can conceive of such a reason please post it for publicly-detailed analysis", which no one posted.
3. The user name-calls, calling me a troll (not a person improving Wikipedia). Labelling someone a troll violates Assume Good Faith. Name-calling violates Veracity ("the usual concerns of Wikipedians [include] ... veracity ... "). "Genuine dissent is not trolling" according to Trolling Defined.
4. The user claims "You've several times said that if editors would just quit posting "erroneous arguments", ... then the discussion will stop." The user again misrepresents my clear position, which i already spelled out for the user: "Such poster "WhatamIdoing" grossly misrepresents my approach (which is: presenting objective reasoning) as being the same as me "personally reject[ing] all the arguments and perspectives of every editor" (italics added). I am not presenting my subjective preferences but rather am presenting reasoning that seeks to be objective, that is supported by other reasoning, and that is not disputed by any posting that has survived objective publicly-detailed analysis." "Wikipedia ... base[s] its decisions ... on a system of good reasons." (quoted from the Consensus policy)
5. The user for some reason talks about his "pointing out that you must have consensus before making changes to policy pages". No one questioned the need for consensus, so the user is being irrelevant (at best).
6. In the user's second paragraph, he seems to be attempting to say that he has some valid objective argument but is not responding with such argument because he imagines that i am not a person seeking to improve Wikipedia. If he had a valid objective argument it would be in the interest of him and Wikipedia for him to post it. Non-responding or "[s]ilence implies [lack of any rebuttal]." (Quoted from the Consensus policy)
7. In the discussion at issue, the user made three postings, and i refuted each one in detail. See the archive where the user manually placed the evidence before the archiving robot could.
8. If the user, or anyone, can articulate any support at all for the user's completely vague discontent, then i would consider them in detail.

(For brevity the above text speaks of "he", not longer formulations like "he or she".)

Bo99 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)