User talk:Frankie

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Time 1190: new section)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
:::*After a little thought on the 'naive'-comment I thought, whataheck, that even happened to {{w|Naive set theory|Cantors theory of sets}}, and I certainly hope that ''he'' wasn't offended.
 
:::*After a little thought on the 'naive'-comment I thought, whataheck, that even happened to {{w|Naive set theory|Cantors theory of sets}}, and I certainly hope that ''he'' wasn't offended.
 
:::I can also understand the frustration when you found that I blanked you in Countdown (on the prospect of a lengthy discussion on it). I would ''not'' have blanked it if I knew or even suspected that it was from you or someone else that knew that much math. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 
:::I can also understand the frustration when you found that I blanked you in Countdown (on the prospect of a lengthy discussion on it). I would ''not'' have blanked it if I knew or even suspected that it was from you or someone else that knew that much math. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Time 1190 ==
 +
 +
Thanks for your edits. I am not native English so any help is welcome. But please do not remove too much from that story. This comic will run for months ahead from now and we should explain the entire story.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:01, 21 May 2013

Making unfounded accusations

Accusing another editor of making harmful edits without producing evidence is a serious accusation, and you have made it in the most inappropriate of places. If you have a grievance to lodge against an editor please use explain xkcd:Community portal/Admin requests. I should warn you that most of your edits can be categorized as rude, brusque, and not in the spirit of WP:FAITH. Not only that, but you appear to have singled out St.nerol to receive your abuse. No action has been taken yet as St.nerol has not yet complained of your treatment. If this kind of inappropriate behavior continues action may be taken even without any request for admin intercession. lcarsos_a (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Abolutely not. I have every confidence that St.nerol is editing in good faith. The issues are:
  1. I think some of his math interpretations are incorrect; he thinks the converse.
  2. 2 out of 2 times he has disagreed with my additions to articles, he has blanked my statement rather than try to incorporate the alternate view.
Furthermore, your assertion that "most of my edits" are unfriendly is an unfounded accusation. My edit history is clearly constructive, aside from one annoyed talk post about being blanked for the second time. And that post was a request for information to resolve the dispute. - Frankie (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Up to this point you have had a grand total of 1 altercation with St.nerol. So to begin contributing to a conversation on Talk:1159: Countdown with the comment "when I saw my sentence about math had been removed, I knew it must be St.nerol" is highly irregular. For someone who claims to be adept at math you must be aware that a sample size of 1, and now 2, is an alarmingly small dataset to draw conclusions from. To speak nothing of the fact that you have admitted that both times were good faith, but mistaken, edits. To respond with such vitriol, is absolutely unnecessary. The fact that someone disagreed with you should not be a new experience for you, and you would have an easier time by tempering your reactions.
The way a wiki works is to replace incorrect information with correct information. So replacing a statement is a typical action.
Furthermore, to edit a page such that another editor's view is left on the page but called "naive" for any person simply viewing the page is rude, and bordering on contemptuous in texture.
On an aside, the pedant in me wants to inform you that "blanking" would be the act of removing information without any new addition. What St.nerol did was replace your content with a different interpretation, which both you and I have said was in good faith, though perhaps misguided.
Point 2 No. Your post on St.nerol's talk page starts with an accusation without request for further information. "Nerol, you are espousing a minority view." with a link to a google search. That is not constructively phrased. That is not a request for information. That is not an attempt to resolve a dispute.
Point 3 Up to the point that I wrote that warning you had a total of 23 edits (adding the 1 file upload makes it 24), and ~10 edits that are inflammatory and/or argumentative. So indeed by pure statistical analysis, you are correct. Most of your edits have been constructive. However, of the four explanations you've contributed to, two of them have created an argument, both with St.nerol. I would defy you to find any other editor here that has been as controversial.
Your edit history has not been clearly constructive. While you have improved explanations, you have been rude, and argumentative, and absolutist in the way you have gone about it.
--lcarsos_a (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Just to lighten things up:
  • All actual discussion about Proof was very civil.
  • I think that we all are content with how Proof and Countdown are currently explained.
  • The explanations are better than hadn't Frankie contributed at all.
  • After a little thought on the 'naive'-comment I thought, whataheck, that even happened to Cantors theory of sets, and I certainly hope that he wasn't offended.
I can also understand the frustration when you found that I blanked you in Countdown (on the prospect of a lengthy discussion on it). I would not have blanked it if I knew or even suspected that it was from you or someone else that knew that much math. –St.nerol (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Time 1190

Thanks for your edits. I am not native English so any help is welcome. But please do not remove too much from that story. This comic will run for months ahead from now and we should explain the entire story.--Dgbrt (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?