User talk:Maxim: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::::Playing nice only applies on the site itself. Also, I don't think Kuki would actually deny that he has a fetish for pregnant women. It's quite apparent from his art that it is the case. But more to the point, aren't '''you''' the one always saying we should 'be ourselves' and not really have any inhibitions about what we say? Then, in your view, someone follows your advice and you're the voice of moral outrage? I didn't say it was acceptable. I said that I think it's within our rights to discourage such hotlinking. If there was discipline, I wouldn't do it in public. But more to the point, why do you really care? If your whole goal is to expose a double standard, well, I don't think that's quite applicable. Of course if a regular user vandalized an image of ours we'd have issues. But for us to change an image or move it because of hotlinking is a whole different issue. Don't try to simplify things--and conflate them--to make your point easy to prove. It isn't nearly so simple. -- '''[[User:evkl|<span style="color:#000099">evkl</span>]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:evkl|<span style="color:#006699">(need to talk?)</span>]]</sub> 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | ::::Playing nice only applies on the site itself. Also, I don't think Kuki would actually deny that he has a fetish for pregnant women. It's quite apparent from his art that it is the case. But more to the point, aren't '''you''' the one always saying we should 'be ourselves' and not really have any inhibitions about what we say? Then, in your view, someone follows your advice and you're the voice of moral outrage? I didn't say it was acceptable. I said that I think it's within our rights to discourage such hotlinking. If there was discipline, I wouldn't do it in public. But more to the point, why do you really care? If your whole goal is to expose a double standard, well, I don't think that's quite applicable. Of course if a regular user vandalized an image of ours we'd have issues. But for us to change an image or move it because of hotlinking is a whole different issue. Don't try to simplify things--and conflate them--to make your point easy to prove. It isn't nearly so simple. -- '''[[User:evkl|<span style="color:#000099">evkl</span>]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:evkl|<span style="color:#006699">(need to talk?)</span>]]</sub> 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::I disagree. Ket speaks her mind but is fully fit to be an admin. If anything, Ket is one of the admins who least toes the 'party line,' and is a refreshing dissenting voice in many of our conversations. We have a 'play nice' policy, but we also don't really have a policy towards profanity or otherwise "offensive" images/words/things of that nature. Somebody can say "don't fuck around with the image" and I really couldn't care less, because I like treating people like they're mature adults. If you think it was inappropriate, talk to Ket about it and let her know you'd rather she be more polite in the future. But for an issue which is fundamentally a difference of opinion over what's appropriate and what isn't--not an issue of was she mean or not, because I think truth is a defense to libel (and by extension defamation). I'm not trying to be a dick about this or put up a blue wall-style shield around our administrators, but I've had issues with admins stepping out of line and this comes nowhere near an actionable level of conduct. -- '''[[User:evkl|<span style="color:#000099">evkl</span>]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:evkl|<span style="color:#006699">(need to talk?)</span>]]</sub> 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | :::::I disagree. Ket speaks her mind but is fully fit to be an admin. If anything, Ket is one of the admins who least toes the 'party line,' and is a refreshing dissenting voice in many of our conversations. We have a 'play nice' policy, but we also don't really have a policy towards profanity or otherwise "offensive" images/words/things of that nature. Somebody can say "don't fuck around with the image" and I really couldn't care less, because I like treating people like they're mature adults. If you think it was inappropriate, talk to Ket about it and let her know you'd rather she be more polite in the future. But for an issue which is fundamentally a difference of opinion over what's appropriate and what isn't--not an issue of was she mean or not, because I think truth is a defense to libel (and by extension defamation). I'm not trying to be a dick about this or put up a blue wall-style shield around our administrators, but I've had issues with admins stepping out of line and this comes nowhere near an actionable level of conduct. -- '''[[User:evkl|<span style="color:#000099">evkl</span>]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:evkl|<span style="color:#006699">(need to talk?)</span>]]</sub> 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::First of all, this is the internet. Nobody commits crimes here. Second, the CoC is only a Bulbapedia policy. Third, I have full faith in Ket to do her job. I don't know how else I can put it to you, but whatever grudges you hold, I'm not going to take action on them. End of discussion. -- '''[[User:evkl|<span style="color:#000099">evkl</span>]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:evkl|<span style="color:#006699">(need to talk?)</span>]]</sub> 13:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:36, 27 August 2009
Maxim's Talk Page Archives: 1, 2
i think your right
Maxim it looks like that is the case, once an admin is in power, they can do whatever they want, there is no removing them no matter how much the misbehave. I mean maybe I did some bad stuff, like got into an argument, but no way do I deserve a permanent ban. Max King 11:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/User_talk:Max_King"
Why?
Why are you the enemy of Atheists, I'm an Atheist, I don't want to be your enemy, I want to be your friend... Prof. Pine 20:44 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, move this to the forums. I may not agree with Maxim on this either, Pine, but this has nothing to do with Bulbapedia and it'll drag an argument that doesn't belong here. --electAbuzzzz 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm soz Maxim if I was harsh on you, also next time I'll remember use the forum's ;) Prof. Pine 18:08 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Playing Nice
If you don't agree with somebody, that isn't a license to bash them. Play nice. You could get a good head start on playing nice if you apologized. And make it heartfelt--not just because I asked you to. -- evkl (need to talk?) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's a big difference between permitting something in that you believe is wrong and being nice. And it does work--because if it didn't, well, I'd support the way you acted towards him. But you were hostile, for no good reason. Your "years of research" on the name of a light house are fantastic, but you could've been a lot nicer and more accomodating of the issue than you were. That may be my opinion but it's also an opinion I'm sticking to. -- evkl (need to talk?) 11:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused
After looking through that page history, I'm not sure to what you're referring. I can't see any of the deletion comments on that image that mention other users. -- evkl (need to talk?) 14:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Kuki was hotlinking us from other sites, so we changed the image to discourage him. It seemed to work. -- evkl (need to talk?) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why do we have to mess with Bulbapedia just to discourage Kuki? There have to be better ways to make him stop then to make Bulbapedia suffer. --ケンジのガール 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Because hotlinking images steals our bandwidth, and I'm very willing to send a message that we aren't okay with our bandwidth being stolen. A long-term fix will be implemented shortly, but that's the first issue we had, and from a user who's been nothing but trouble, I don't think a bit of showmanship was uncalled for. We didn't impact any images on the site. -- evkl (need to talk?) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Playing nice only applies on the site itself. Also, I don't think Kuki would actually deny that he has a fetish for pregnant women. It's quite apparent from his art that it is the case. But more to the point, aren't you the one always saying we should 'be ourselves' and not really have any inhibitions about what we say? Then, in your view, someone follows your advice and you're the voice of moral outrage? I didn't say it was acceptable. I said that I think it's within our rights to discourage such hotlinking. If there was discipline, I wouldn't do it in public. But more to the point, why do you really care? If your whole goal is to expose a double standard, well, I don't think that's quite applicable. Of course if a regular user vandalized an image of ours we'd have issues. But for us to change an image or move it because of hotlinking is a whole different issue. Don't try to simplify things--and conflate them--to make your point easy to prove. It isn't nearly so simple. -- evkl (need to talk?) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. Ket speaks her mind but is fully fit to be an admin. If anything, Ket is one of the admins who least toes the 'party line,' and is a refreshing dissenting voice in many of our conversations. We have a 'play nice' policy, but we also don't really have a policy towards profanity or otherwise "offensive" images/words/things of that nature. Somebody can say "don't fuck around with the image" and I really couldn't care less, because I like treating people like they're mature adults. If you think it was inappropriate, talk to Ket about it and let her know you'd rather she be more polite in the future. But for an issue which is fundamentally a difference of opinion over what's appropriate and what isn't--not an issue of was she mean or not, because I think truth is a defense to libel (and by extension defamation). I'm not trying to be a dick about this or put up a blue wall-style shield around our administrators, but I've had issues with admins stepping out of line and this comes nowhere near an actionable level of conduct. -- evkl (need to talk?) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, this is the internet. Nobody commits crimes here. Second, the CoC is only a Bulbapedia policy. Third, I have full faith in Ket to do her job. I don't know how else I can put it to you, but whatever grudges you hold, I'm not going to take action on them. End of discussion. -- evkl (need to talk?) 13:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. Ket speaks her mind but is fully fit to be an admin. If anything, Ket is one of the admins who least toes the 'party line,' and is a refreshing dissenting voice in many of our conversations. We have a 'play nice' policy, but we also don't really have a policy towards profanity or otherwise "offensive" images/words/things of that nature. Somebody can say "don't fuck around with the image" and I really couldn't care less, because I like treating people like they're mature adults. If you think it was inappropriate, talk to Ket about it and let her know you'd rather she be more polite in the future. But for an issue which is fundamentally a difference of opinion over what's appropriate and what isn't--not an issue of was she mean or not, because I think truth is a defense to libel (and by extension defamation). I'm not trying to be a dick about this or put up a blue wall-style shield around our administrators, but I've had issues with admins stepping out of line and this comes nowhere near an actionable level of conduct. -- evkl (need to talk?) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Playing nice only applies on the site itself. Also, I don't think Kuki would actually deny that he has a fetish for pregnant women. It's quite apparent from his art that it is the case. But more to the point, aren't you the one always saying we should 'be ourselves' and not really have any inhibitions about what we say? Then, in your view, someone follows your advice and you're the voice of moral outrage? I didn't say it was acceptable. I said that I think it's within our rights to discourage such hotlinking. If there was discipline, I wouldn't do it in public. But more to the point, why do you really care? If your whole goal is to expose a double standard, well, I don't think that's quite applicable. Of course if a regular user vandalized an image of ours we'd have issues. But for us to change an image or move it because of hotlinking is a whole different issue. Don't try to simplify things--and conflate them--to make your point easy to prove. It isn't nearly so simple. -- evkl (need to talk?) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Because hotlinking images steals our bandwidth, and I'm very willing to send a message that we aren't okay with our bandwidth being stolen. A long-term fix will be implemented shortly, but that's the first issue we had, and from a user who's been nothing but trouble, I don't think a bit of showmanship was uncalled for. We didn't impact any images on the site. -- evkl (need to talk?) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why do we have to mess with Bulbapedia just to discourage Kuki? There have to be better ways to make him stop then to make Bulbapedia suffer. --ケンジのガール 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
