User talk:Roundeyesamurai

Welcome to Memory Alpha, ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:


 * Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the and  policies, the, our ,  and guidelines for proper.
 * How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha.
 * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create.
 * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles.
 * How to write a great article is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
 * See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs.
 * Look up past changes you have made in your contributions log.
 * Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own watchlist.
 * Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your talk page.

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!

Jaz talk |undefined 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Shelby
Thank you for reverting my edits to Shelby -- its given me a chance to re-examine the article and take some more time to rephrase the background note.

However, I'm a little disturbed by the personal, and excited nature of your comments on the talk page. Please do not characterize my judgment or add personal comments about me and my actions -- they have nothing to do with the case of the article, which it what that talk page is for.

Because of the many reversions, the page Shelby is now locked from editing. I was trying to add a note that other archivists could refine, not revert. If you wanted to correct some points of language, rather than a complete reversion, then that would have avoided the page being under dispute.

As it stands now, I think its important that we recognize canon -- the DS9 episode is the only canon facet of the discussion, and it is open ended. There has been no canon declaration of "who" the Captain Shelby really is. The writer of that episode has stated first that they were meant to be the same, and then, later, that they could be different.

So thats no help -- neither of his statements are "canon", and they are contradictory and indefinite.

recognize that "they may be thought of as the same person" does not mean "they should be thought of as the same person" (conversely, "they may not  be thought of as the same person" does not mean "they should not be thought of as the same person"

i think the article as it stands is sufficient to introduce the reader to both possibilities, and summarize all the canon info. i'll take suggestions for refining further on the talk page. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal? There's nothing "personal" about my comments to you. I have a distinct problem with people who, when presented with an argument which makes perfect logical sense, completely ignore it in favor of their own preferential argument. It's the argumentative equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

You further reinforce my point that you would rather present asinine "support" of your discredited pet theory, than consider the possibility that you're wrong. You've reinforced my point by locking the page from further editing, "flexing" your administrative privileges, and then carrying the discussion over to my personal talk page in order to "reasonably" change my mind on the matter.

This is not "personal" (though you undoubtedly take it that way), this is a demonstration of the fundamental flaws in your arguments.

I have no interest in further "discussion" on the topic- you obviously have your opinion, you obviously are unwilling to consider any deviation from that opinion, and you obviously have (or had) the intention of expressing your personal opinion in the article. When called out for doing that, you decided that you'd simply prevent any expression of "the opposite point of view" in the article, and demean and dismiss anyone who disagreed with your opinion.

Now that that has failed, you're invoking your administrative privileges to "win" the argument, and utilizing my talk page to "convince" me (your most vocal opposition) that you are correct. You are only interested in "discussion", now that the "discussion" can't result in official deviation from your opinion (because you've locked the page from further editing).

That's criticism, not personal criticism. Roundeyesamurai 20:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I, personally, am not seeing where you are drawing your conclusions about Mike's actions, Roundeye. An edit war was in progress on the Shelby page and, as policy dictated, he protected the page to prevent an excessive workload on the database as well as to settle this issue in a civilized manner on the talk page (as well as your own talk page), which you apparently don't wish to do. The edit war on Shelby's page had already gotten out of hand, and if he had not protected it, one of two things would have happened: 1.) the edit war would have continued until someone simply gave up, or 2.) someone else would have protected it. I would have done the same thing myself, and likely without even getting involved in the conversation. So an admin followed policy and protected a page – how, exactly, does that constitute him forcing his opinion? --From Andoria with Love 07:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not EVER want to see Ouroboros Kiddo post on my talk page again. I have removed his comments from my talk page. Cobra, STOP following me around making contradictory posts to mine. You have done this on probably a dozen pages now, and I want it to stop. I'll be goddamned if it's going to happen on MY TALK PAGE.

Shran- Quite simply, it is the appearance of impropriety. Mike has a disagreement with someone, and then exercises authority during the course of that disagreement. In order to avoid such an appearance, such actions should have been taken by someone other than him, to avoid the appearance. Otherwise, I draw the conclusion that I draw- that the impropriety is deliberate.

Mike was also CONTRBUTING to the "edit war", lest ye forget. That goes quite a long way toward convincing me that I am right about him. Roundeyesamurai 03:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed yet another comment from Cobra from my talk page. Roundeyesamurai 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, "banning" another user from a talk page is really not in keeping with the cooperative nature of a wiki. You should really read more what this site is before you continue posting here.


 * I protected the Shelby page because an IP user was trying to improve the article, and it was reverted by another user. I could tell it would be an unfortunate situation because there was already an anonymous contributor that deserved a little respect or at least discussion of his point of view, and he was being silenced, rather than welcomed. I'm a little unaccustomed to having people react how you did, rather than questioning topics of my edits, you decided to spend some time describing my judgment. I decided the situation needed to be halted, so that other admins and users could discuss it (and remove the personal element of you accusing me of specious judgment), so I could disinvolve myself from it. My last edit  is how i feel the article should be structured, and its now up for discussion -- you see, I'm willing to follow  by allowing the matter to be decided in a discussion.


 * I guess I'm just leaving this note to let you know that wiki writing works a lot better if you start a talk page with "Should we change this article?" or "Here's how I think this article should go, based on the edits or reversion of what I added" -- these statements are much less inflammatory than "Let me tell you the quality of this user's judgment...". -- Captain M.K.B. 04:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you posted a very disingenuous comment.

I did not simply resort to "questioning" your judgement. I first posted several comments regarding the disparity on the page, all of which you brushed off for exceptionally specious reasons (come on, your primary argument is the fact that a NOVEL contradicts the premise).

After several such posts, followed by you locking the page (after it was edited so as to eliminate any mention of the viewpoint you oppose), I then commented that you had overstepped the bounds of propriety. This impropriety on your part is continued even into this page- "I locked the article after writing it the way I (you) thought it should be written".

To be perfectly frank, if you feel insulted because someone posts a lengthy, conclusive, and blunt criticism of your conduct, then you should examine your conduct. Since you are a representative of this website, it behooves you to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, such as the appearance of utilizing your privileges to win an argument ("I locked the article after writing it the way I (you) thought it should be written").

To put it another way, I did it exactly the way you "suggest" I should have done it- and you completely ignored it. Now I am repeating myself, because you've completely ignored every comment I have made, in favor of your own nonsensical statements. Roundeyesamurai 05:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, if you think my conduct is in error, find and discuss it with another admin. Otherwise, you are being very personal and I am warning you now: it must stop. Find a list of admins and confine your comments on me to their talk pages -- they will inform you of the policies of this site.


 * It is standard policy to protect a page for a few days if there is a controversy, and as that there were over four people making conflicting edits and an impasse in the discussion, where my edits were reverted, I halted the situation.


 * The page being locked for a few days is to give you time to state your opinion in front of other users. This is because of the data load involved with all the discussion and edits. We need to decide on the article's form and now is your time to make your discussion. I'm here to work on articles, not characterize or discuss the conduct of other users. I'm suggesting you suggest your changes on Talk:Shelby or some relevant subpage, and don't mention my name anymore unless it is on an admin's talk page who would be willing to moderate your problem with me, whatever that is. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, this is precisely what I mean about inappropriate use of administrative privileges- YOU "warning" me in order to end a disagreement between you and I.

"...and don't mention my name anymore unless it is on an admin's talk page..." What is this, a threat? This is an extremely heavy-handed statement to make.

"... who would be willing to moderate your problem with me, whatever that is.

Mike, I have said at least a dozen times now, and you have not bothered to read, that I have no "personal" problem with you. I have quite clearly and quite lucidly stated what my contentios are, and you have ignored those statements.

If you would bother to read the comments I have made to you, you would know precisely what those contentions are.

Please discontinue mischaracterizing my contentions as "personal attacks" and dismissing my statements by not bothering to read them. After all, I have read and assimilated every single statement you have posted. You could show the same courtesy in return.

Very well, I will take this up with other administrators. Roundeyesamurai 05:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to fan the flames here, but this was an argument, not a disagreement. Disagreements tend to be productive; arguments do not. As stated in policy, arguments are to be prevented or ended as soon as possible. It doesn't matter who ends it, so long as it does. The fact that the argument involved personal attacks makes it even more imperative that the argument comes to an end. --From Andoria with Love 05:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Shran, criticism is not the same as "personal attack". Especially when that criticism is of the conduct of a representative of the organization in question.

My criticism is very simple, and I will restate it plainly:

Mike participated in an argument, and when his position was found to be untenable, he utilized his administrative privileges to "win" the argument.

He then carried the misuse of privilege to this talk page, where he has now again misused his administrative privileges to threaten me ("warning" me, in order to end the disagreement between him and I).

This is quite clearly a gross impropriety on his part. The appropriate resolution would be for administrators to be prohibited from utilizing their administrative privileges to deal with personal matters. Roundeyesamurai 05:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, well, since Mike has now barred himself from getting further involved in this argument, allow me to retort... again. ;) I can assure you that Mike did not use his administrative privileges to "win" anything; he used them to prevent a chaotic edit war. Yes, he did participate in some of the reverts, but once he realized what was going on, he stopped it. He then edited with what he believed to be a more "even handed" view based on the talk page discussion, specifically stating that any further suggestions be relayed to the talk page. In short, he protected the page to prevent an edit war, made modifications based on a discussion in the talk page, and then asked that that discussion continue for a few days in order for any controversy surrounding the article to be resolved. In other words, he followed policy to the best of his abilities.
 * Now, while you may believe your comments about Mike's actions to be criticism, that criticism appeared even to me to be of a personal nature; you are basically accusing Mike of mis-using his administrative priviledges, which, without sound proof (as far as I can tell, there is none), can be construed as a personal attack and therefore constitutes a warning.
 * Basically, what we have here, to quote a line from a famous movie, is "a failure to communicate". Criticism to you is being communicated as a personal attack by others. All the more reason why this argument (or disagreement, if you so choose) needs to end. Now. --From Andoria with Love 05:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Shran, I can live with that.

As far as "sound proof" of impropriety- that's why the term "appearance of impropriety" exists. The appearance of official impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety itself (Public Administration 101).

If you assure me that there was no such impropriety, then I will take your word for it. I have not seen any cause to question the soundness of your judgement while I've been on this site. Roundeyesamurai 05:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Get to know me a little longer and you might change your mind. ;) Ok, all kidding aside, I reiterate that I do not believe impropriety or even an "appearance of impropriety" exists in this matter. However, if you ever strongly feel that it does exist again, please feel free to voice your concerns to myself or another admin. Thanks for your understanding! :) --From Andoria with Love 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)--From Andoria with Love 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wilco, and thanks. Roundeyesamurai 06:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I haven't heard from you in a while and I was wondering what's up. I've been spending a lot less time on Memory Alpha in the past year since we communicated here, just wondering if you have found yourself feeling welcome and at home here. Have a great day! -- Captain MKB 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)