User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/Oct2008

the perception of an insult

I find the perception of an insult to be mildly interesting. Could you detail other things which you consider to be an insult? -- carol (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an exercise for both of us. You rephrase my comment here to have the same message but not anger you and I will read it and see if I can determine what your problem is and the reason your fuse is so short and attached to a non-problem. (fuse being an analogy for people who are easily angered). -- carol (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it your goal to make not communicating the easier road to follow? I actually am here with my "heart" totally exposed by expressing my own ideas and asking very nicely that you reword what I said. Also, my experience has been that when I "follow those rules of decorum" or whatever it is that you would rather see, that it does not actually gain the respect nor does it keep the proceedings from becoming just a bunch of people with hot air emitting from their keyboard fingers (since verbalization does not actually occur here).

So very simply: 1)I requested a rewrite and now am wondering if I should simply paste what you wrote on my talk page when I want to express the same thoughts that were such a problem for you and 2)Is your goal that the easier path is not to communicate? -- carol (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I am giving your rewrite a try. Personally, I don't think that if that rewrite had been pasted as a message to me that inferred what my "insult" more directly said, but I am willing to see if it accomplishes the same thing.

Could you also consider assisting with a rewrite of "I think that it is a sad and lonely person who must need to get permission from their spouse to do things." Which is honest, it is about a relationship I personally would not be interested in being involved in and also sad more than insulting. Certainly, there might have been circumstances that caused a situation like that to exist and most certainly this world is filled with many different kinds of people and perhaps that is a happy relationship for some. It is however a part of the character who acts with such strong reviews in that reviewing arena and if I point this out the way I communicate which is often to the point and perceived as insulting -- lets just call it a pre-rewrite....

Also, what about that King James and his translation of the bible with that word written all through it? What the "heck" to do about the ways that this document might insult the fragile sensibility of talk pages here? There is much for a self-appointed censorer to do and I am curious that such a person wastes time with a single person when there is so much that can be censored around. Or, is it even worse than this and you are the wife who is protecting the fragile husband whom is so easily offended?

At any event, I will be happy to receive another rewrite and am anxious to report if the first rewrite was efficient in communicating the more concise message. Thank you once again! -- carol (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, being civil to you does not seem to get those things I ask for and second of all, can you read at my page how the discussion should be where it was started? If I wrote something rude like added a ", dumb asses" to the end of that request, would you see it? It is not my style to write like that very often though.

Third and most important, it is probably more civil to make polite talk function than it is to insist that it does function. In my opinion, you reduce Lycaon by looking out for his fragile feelings or whatever. I realize that my opinion was not asked for.

Fourth, and more than important, a must! Edit your rewrite do not delete it. It was pasted with the assumption of good faith and I suspect that its deletion from my talk page was not something that is at the end of a good faith tree. Unless you want to rewrite the rewrite that I politely requested (politeness functions, that is your message?) I am testing it on real people to see if you are actually fit to determine what kinds of communication function and do not function.

Any ideas about how to make my polite communication be noticed and function as effective communication? -- carol (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are simply showing that requests made politely do not function. Do you want me to thank you once again for the demonstration? Perhaps you could state more clearly and concisely what it is that you want? I am having a good day, I just made a template that sorts through the new families of the Asterales really nicely. Are you trying to say "good job" and not allowed the words via your civility to say that? -- carol (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

now I am feeling sorry about things

Honestly, in this real world I spent decades working with United States youth ages 15 to 25. Very few problems gaining their respect. No "voting" was involved and they were never asked to "kiss my ass", so to write. I dislike that immensely, personally. And also in situations like being in between a good looking (but often more crude in reality) wait staff and a tough talking and hard working kitchen group. I think that I also tend to hang out with men when given a choice because they "sense" a womans presence and keep it kind of clean where being a woman among other women, the other women can get way too gross for my tastes. Grossness does not need to use one of those seven words that was not allowed on the radio in the seventies, believe this or not.

While waitressing, there were some dining people who kind of enjoyed a waitress with an interesting tale who may or may not have used some slightly not-so acceptable language to tell and other dining people whom it was clear that they just wanted uptight and upright service. Eye contact is really important to determine what it is that people will want and how they are responding to what is being said.

Online, I spent time with people who actually write software and then met them in real life. That group has the tendency to say things eloquently and not necessarily proper; I can honestly say that about almost everyone I know who is honestly able to do things and be leaders in their area of expertise.

To me, I asked you politely to assist with a rewrite which would not offend you and it was funny to paste what you had obviously not written for that purpose in spite of my polite request. That, actually, was quite funny and if you are not used to being in a funny situation, you were actually a really good "straightman" in an entertaining morning for whoever is going to read that exchange.

So please, settle down, relax, buckle your seat belt and enjoy the ride :) -- carol (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

the commons, the User instances, my more than a year of observing them

I have been calmly thinking about censorship these last few hours that are more than a day. Stories about censorship in the larger world and interesting censorship situations in my own life. There was an episode of the popular cartoon Family Guy which the television network did not broadcast because they thought it would offend people. The episode was called "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein" and it was people from Jewish descent who were being protected from such horrifying offenses, if I understand this censorship story correctly. I have been watching episodes from the first season of Get Smart; I originally watched them when they first aired and probably I was sitting on my dads lap (that was 1965 and I would have been two or three years old). The show was written/produced/managed by the Mel Brooks gang of comedians. Mel Brooks, a person of Jewish descent -- Episode 19 "Back to the Old Drawing Board" was about a robot and Mel named him "Hymie" which was/is a derogatory word for people of Jewish descent. Two examples which are 40 years apart from each other of offensive language and doings?

In my life, that "being offended" crap has been taken advantage of. I prefer to write about that when I am at the location that it happened -- some research needs to be done there for it. The people who took advantage of that option which they had and I didn't have did not get to learn of something that was potentially an honestly offensive thing that still persists at that location. This is little consolation to me though as I am here and knowing and they are probably still there and using that easily offended option whenever it seems to suit them, perhaps so no research into the situation is happening.

Hans has chosen a User name which is a species/genus name for wolves. I suspect that a person with a thin skin would not choose such a user nick or shouldn't. Hans also reviews the photography of others with a greater standard than he holds his own. Sometimes I think he puts his flawed photographs there to see what weaklings are there and reviewing. The review process there is naturally revealing for people who do not mind or already know that real life things are known. Things about Hans I know simply by reading that review area often 1)Fisherman and hobby biologist; 2)Married; 3)Gets permission from his wife for large purchases 4)Not afraid to make harsh reviews and still put photographs there which would fail his own review standards. I actually think that my suggestion was a compliment to the "wolf". Also, I did not bother to ask about it now because he has "spammed the QI page" which means he is probably out fishing. (Yawn!)

Other contributors to that either reviews or photographs or both -- I would not have made such a suggestion. Some of them are very sweet natured and others are just getting their footing there. One I think is a sock for one of the other constant contributors, but this idea is too new and unproven yet. I would never have made that same suggestion about you -- you do not have that same online persona. However, that being said, I think it would be wrong to not trust my instincts and begin to cowtow to your instincts which might not (and seem to not be) as reliable as mine.

Censorship is not fun and often is decades too late. Self-censorship should be the only option needed. Easily offended people most often do not choose nicks that are of strong, lone, wild and untamed dogs and probably shouldn't. Strong people tend to use their real name; people like you and me here.

In short, Hans has and can protect himself from me. And for full disclosure, I flirted once by mis-typing his name "Sans Sillyart" that was really funny and too effective.

A warning: I am thinking that I should attempt to offend some of the other photographers there also -- they are equally charismatic as the wolfboy from Belgium. I do not like to pick on just one of them but Hans is such an easy target since he really is a harsher review of the photographs of others than he is of his own.

And, by all means, let me know if I offend you. So far, I have absolutely no reason to do so with the exception that you think you can be a censor for an environment that does not really need one and will be lacking with one. -- carol (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this for when you need to distance yourself. -- carol (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A discussion related to that above occurred at COM:AN in early September.[2][3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, did you enjoy the recommended reading? -- carol (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Slmcom

Per your request i contacted my trusted friend in arwiki.and my result shows this result.this user is quiet new in arwiki as they say around one month and he has made some copyvios even there.but he is more prolific there than here.so i request them to give him last warning about uploading copyrighted materials.so if you went on feel free to block.thank for your consideration. i am around whenever you need just leave message --Mardetanha ^talk 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

more detailed message given to him in arwiki --Mardetanha ^talk 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)