Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey
I on the other hand am wondering whether we shouldn't consider putting Mr Awbrey on moderation, in an effort to increase the signal to noise ratio on this list. I appreciate your good faith effort to get something out of this "exit interview", but if you look at the thread as a whole, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
General: Away, away! Police: Yes, yes, we go! General: These pirates slay! Police: Tarantara! General: Then do not stay! Police: Tarantara! General: Then why this delay! Police: All right, we go! Yes forward, Yes, forward on the foe, on the foe, Yes, forward on the foe! General: Yes, but you _don't_ go! Girls: They go, they go! Police: We go, we go! Yes forward, Yes, forward on the foe, on the foe, Yes, forward on the foe! General: Damme, you _don't_ go! Girls: At last they go, Police: We go, we go, Girls: At last they go, at last they go! Police: We go, we go, Girls: At last they really, really go! Police: We go, we go, we go, we go!
--W. S. Gilbert, "The Pirates of Penzance"
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
daniel,
please provide guidance, is what you added the very modern model of signal, or noise?
ja
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey
I on the other hand am wondering whether we shouldn't consider putting Mr Awbrey on moderation, in an effort to increase the signal to noise ratio on this list. I appreciate your good faith effort to get something out of this "exit interview", but if you look at the thread as a whole, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
General: Away, away! Police: Yes, yes, we go! General: These pirates slay! Police: Tarantara! General: Then do not stay! Police: Tarantara! General: Then why this delay! Police: All right, we go! Yes forward, Yes, forward on the foe, on the foe, Yes, forward on the foe! General: Yes, but you _don't_ go! Girls: They go, they go! Police: We go, we go! Yes forward, Yes, forward on the foe, on the foe, Yes, forward on the foe! General: Damme, you _don't_ go! Girls: At last they go, Police: We go, we go, Girls: At last they go, at last they go! Police: We go, we go, Girls: At last they really, really go! Police: We go, we go, we go, we go!
--W. S. Gilbert, "The Pirates of Penzance"
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jon Awbrey wrote:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
daniel,
please provide guidance, is what you added the very modern model of signal, or noise?
The SNR of your posts is about -10dB. Please stop.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Puppy do what puppies do, to wit, [expletive deleted], but while we're collecting testymoanials on my doorstep, flaming or otherwise, here is what one of my co-editors said about me with respect to the issue of originality when I repeated my standung offer that folks just paste one of those handy {{fact}} tags next to any statement that they had doubts about, and that would remind me to go dig up the source thereof, or else I would remove it:
"No one doubts your capacity to cite sources" (Banno, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truth&oldid=59012292 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
This was of course stated as if it were the most immaterial thing you could say about a WP editor ... and maybe it is.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
On 7/2/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
Puppy do what puppies do, to wit, [expletive deleted], but while we're collecting testymoanials on my doorstep, flaming or otherwise, here is what one of my co-editors said about me with respect to the issue of originality
<snip>
Ok, enough's enough. This conversation is going nowhere, and since you're not banned from Wikipedia, would you mind carrying out this character defence there rather than here?
Any point to this thread seems to have disappeared a long time ago. With the possible and limited exception of banned users, we are not here to discuss the merits of individual editors, who in any case have apparently decided they no longer want anything to do with us.
Would it be ok with everyone if I declared this exit interview over?
Steve
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:18:57 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be ok with everyone if I declared this exit interview over?
One vote for "go right ahead". Polling is evil...
Guy (JzG)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/2/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
Puppy do what puppies do, to wit, [expletive deleted], but while we're collecting testymoanials on my doorstep, flaming or otherwise, here is what one of my co-editors said about me with respect to the issue of originality
<snip>s & <snail>s
Ok, enough's enough. This conversation is going nowhere, and since you're not banned from Wikipedia, would you mind carrying out this character defence there rather than here?
Any point to this thread seems to have disappeared a long time ago. With the possible and limited exception of banned users, we are not here to discuss the merits of individual editors, who in any case have apparently decided they no longer want anything to do with us.
Would it be ok with everyone if I declared this exit interview over?
Steve
Steve,
I said right up front that I have no need and no intention of defending my individual character as an editor or a scholar in this effort to provide the WP community with my observations over the past six months. But a modicum of incidental chit-chat aside from any greater purpose does not seem to be out of bounds with what I observe on a day-to-day basis on this List.
It is clear that some folks are desperately seeking any sort of excuse they can cook up not to listen to the kinds of responsible feedback that I am hardly alone in providing. This is understandable in human terms -- bad news, even if accurate, especially when accurate, is never welcome -- but it will not serve either the WP effort, nor any future effort of its kind, to ignore the lessons of actual experience.
The bear-baiting and messenger-killing tactics -- that some people will resort to in order to keep from having to consider any kind of critical analyis -- are quite familiar as a rule: A defender of the faith spews a flaming mass of pure invective into the forum, and the mildest response on the part of the invectee is then condemned as being off-topic. Very typical, but hardly to the greater purpose.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
But a modicum of incidental chit-chat
aside from any greater purpose does not seem to be out of bounds with what I observe on a day-to-day basis on this List.
It does to me, can you take this to the wiki please rather than this mailing list. Cheers
Theresa
On 7/3/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
over the past six months. But a modicum of incidental chit-chat aside from any greater purpose does not seem to be out of bounds with what I observe on a day-to-day basis on this List.
Parting shots at the community you're disenchanted with is not "incidental chit chat".
It is clear that some folks are desperately seeking any sort of excuse they can cook up not to listen to the kinds of responsible feedback that I am hardly alone in providing. This is understandable in human terms --
You haven't provided any useful "responsible feedback". Instead, criticisms, accusations of rot in the system that appear to be unfounded, etc etc.
bad news, even if accurate, especially when accurate, is never welcome -- but it will not serve either the WP effort, nor any future effort of its kind, to ignore the lessons of actual experience.
This discussion is definitely not serving the WP effort.
The bear-baiting and messenger-killing tactics -- that some people will resort to in order to keep from having to consider any kind of critical analyis --
No, we like critical analysis, and we do a lot of it on this list. We're seasoned navel-gazers, and proud of it. You've had your chance to join in, but it's just not working out.
are quite familiar as a rule: A defender of the faith spews a flaming mass of pure invective into the forum, and the mildest response on the part of the invectee is then condemned as being off-topic. Very typical, but hardly to the greater purpose.
Ok, can we move on now? Thanks.
Steve