User talk:SnowyMalone

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

After far less time than I anticipated I have decided to withdraw from Wikipedia. This follows the unconstructive behaviour of two editor:

The first was unnecessarily aggressive following his misinterpretation of a few messages I posted to an open discussion. Despite explanation of my messages, which I still cannot understand how he misconstrued them, he continued with the abuse. Supportive comments to me from others only resulted in him rejecting that he had behaved inappropriately, and projecting the blame elsewhere.
The second had undertaken a prolonged trolling of an article to which I was contributing, including the discussion. Over a number of days he repeatedly challenged, along with deleting content without consensus, by quoting irrelevant Wikipedia polices, posting rambling prose and obfuscation. This was about a number of issues which he created, to the most petty level and counter to the efforts & views of all other contributors. It became clear his motivation was simply to ‘be heard’ and be difficult & unpleasant.

That such poisonous behaviour was encountered on the same day, and following days, of registering to the site was partially mitigated by a number of other editors who contacted me to offer their support and guidance.

I do not need Wikipedia (and it will, of course, continue without me) I have plenty of activities in the real world. I choose not to engage with toxic individuals, and will not play their silly games. Finnaly, to the supportive individuals I note my thanks and bid you adieu.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, SnowyMalone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing the toss[edit]

When someone is actually agreeing with you arguing with them does not make you look like you have a good case.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the above comemnt. Could you elaborate ?--SnowyMalone (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over at RSN I have said I agree that something first appearing in unreliable sources does not preclude inclusion once RS have repeated it, you seem to have (at least twice now) taken issue with this in some way, strawmaning points I have never made.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help that this seems to be you only contribution to Wikipedia, to argue about inclusion of this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I have reviewed all my contributions I see none in which I have argued with you, taken issue with what you have written or in any other way are negative. All my comments have merely to add further to the discussions, which is not with you alone. I am at a loss to understand the reason you make these claims.

About 'this seems to be you only contribution to Wikipedia'. I have very recently registered following some earlier contributions. That so soon after registering I am subject to a number of false accusations supports what I have heard from others of the toxic nature of Wikipedia, and makes me question whether continuing of interest.--SnowyMalone (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]])And I quote "There is but one contributor making an issue of whom said it first (not me.)", I have no idea what this refers to in anything I have said (and yes it is a reply to me per the indentation). But as you do not see any issue with this fair enough. I just wanted to warn you that seeing to argue for the sake of it will not win friends or influence people. Its up to you if you ignore that advice, this is my last word on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one user is 'DeFacto' not you. It was he/her posted the first message and is the one who has made an issue regarding the Mail on Sunday. This would be apparent from the discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and the original discussion (which is referenced in the discussion at the noticeboard) at Talk:Death of Harry Dunn.

I do not understand why you consider my comments were directed to you, and even if you were genuinely confused why you did not politely seek clarification rather than resorting to accusations.

I have nor argued with you, or indeed anyone. The only confrontation has been by you in first posting a message to me here, then continuing with false accusations and with you now 'warning me'.

--SnowyMalone (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic topic[edit]

Welcome, and your edit record suggests that you started out by jumping into one of the many toxic topics in Wikipedia. These are topics about which many people are angry in the real world, and they bring their anger into Wikipedia so as to present the Real Truth as they see it. In editing tens of thousands of articles in well over a decade, I have found that swimming in the toxic pools is neither pleasant nor a good application for my meager talents. With millions of articles, I can pretty easily find ones that fail to excite the various fighters for justice or whatever it is that's making them so angry. There are some editors with as much experience as me and more understanding, who are brave enough and smart enough to immerse themselves in poison and not be poisoned. I salute them, but think anyone with much less experience should look for the plentiful friendlier parts of our ocean, or else do a great deal of study of how the various poisons work before swimming in them. Or a bit of both. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim - thank you for your comments: considered and mature. I confess to being shocked with the vehemency of the contributor's communication, and this not just once but repeatedly, and not directly about a particular toxic subject but in response to my comments to them expressing puzzlement regarding their previous messages. Added to this is clearly I am a new user, and so 'attacking the new boy' exacerbates the situation. This incident has caused to consider my involvement with Wikipedia: robust discussions would be welcome, but extended irrational confrontation (and latterly with 'warnings') are something which will cause me to walk away.--SnowyMalone (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020: Appalling treatment[edit]

You have been treated appallingly by that editor. One first behavioral principal of Wikipedia editing is Don't bite the newbies. As a person who has already bitten my fair share of newbies who attempt to promote friends, clients, companies or themselves via Wikipedia articles, I should have no basis for complaint, but that editor really put his foot in it.

I have only seen his name around here once or twice, so I went to his Talk page and found him to be (my opinion only) an Angry Brit Guy (ABG). He may be ex-British military. ABGs are entirely unsentimental, possess strong opinions, are not prone to excessive politeness, nor to long and nuanced discussions. I would guess that most are (acrimoniously) divorced, too. Part of the attraction of Wikipedia for such a person appears to be the opportunity to have a raw and heated "discussion".

What to do[edit]

From what I can tell without taking the time to do detailed research, he thinks you posted something he didn't like. I'd just forget it ever happened. You may and can easily edit out that entire discussion from this Talk page (it will remain in your Talk page history). Such a toxic encounter should not happen again soon, as most Brits on Wikipedia are the opposite of an ABG. Outside of contentious topics, few Americans are AAGs, either. People of other nationalities on the English Wikipedia are a pretty mellow bunch, other than the ethnic activists, who seem bent on impressing their fellow activists with their (unwarranted) WikiBoldness. They regularly have their accounts blocked.

Toxicity[edit]

There is a strain of testosteronian one-upmanship, here, particularly in the relatively younger and newer editors, especially in the spring, which permeates Wikipedia. I find it a minor annoyance most of the time, though it can seem rude, and is. Wikipedia's incidents of utter toxicity are something you will probably observe, like I do, in horrified fascination. It is sometimes entertaining. On the whole, though, I can assure you that trolls do not run this place.

I understand you, Quisqualis, and total irrelevancy here, but... Initially, testosterone had to be laboriously extracted from bull testicles by students. The valuable hormone was then injected into a handy low-body-weight experimental animal, the mouse. The mice injected spent more time fighting and having sex. Testosterone was first used in humans to produce some of the effects of male puberty in people for whom it hadn't occurred naturally. So, pop media oversimplification from the 1930s: testosterone makes you male, and maleness consists of sex and violence. Ignore common sense, ignore the effects of people believing this stereotype, science says so.

Of course, the actual research is a bit more complicated, and covers, inadequately, things like testosterone in newborns and females (there are sex differences in response, too). So far, it suggests that apart from effects in puberty, testosterone is more of a social hormone, which is relevant to negotiating reputation, relationships, and interactions in groups. Warning: this is also an oversimplification, and it's so vague it might also sort of cover things like oxytocin (called "love hormone" in the media, though "genocide hormone" would probably be similarly inaccurate). Hormones are complicated. Humans also have more complex behaviours than lab mice (including a certain susceptibility to the placebo effect). For instance, higher testosterone levels have been linked with giving more expensive gifts, and with doing job interviews; in both cases, you are trying to give a specific impression. I suppose one could describe this post as testosteronian, in that I wrote it with attention to its likely social effects, but I hope it's not aggressive and obnoxious. HLHJ (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay[edit]

Do stick around, learning by doing. What are your areas of interest? You can join a Wikipedia WP:PROJECT or two and find there (if the project is very active) a community of like-minded editors. (Not that I really know, as my interests are so eclectic that I have yet to join any projects. From porn to Indian cinema to biology and medicine to biography to weaponry to fashion, I've edited it. Such is my attention span.)

Frequently, newer editors will really make an annoying mistake (particularly the very young ones interested in IT; don't ask...), but in your case, you made a normal, inoffensive edit and all hell broke loose with one editor. Had you made an actual Wikipedia faux pas, you would have heard back from multiple editors. You are in the clear, and I hope the ABG editor apologizes to you (don't wait up for it). This community is amazing, and you will learn so much by editing articles on topics in which you have no interest whatsoever. I have definitely "broadened" myself and become more open from my Wikipedia editing experiences. Read article Talk pages as a lurker, and watch the congeniality and the drama. I read the Teahouse and the Help desk daily, originally for entertainment, but now to learn and help (and nail inappropriate articles, a ubiquitous inquiry on those pages).

You're welcome to ask my opinion and advice on matters Wikipedian, on my Talk page and even via email. Keep to your polite and well-considered ways, and always use the "Show preview" button. And, always bookmark useful "Wikipedia:" policy and how-to articles, as they can be hard to find using search (I often get better results with Google). This place is odd and sometimes ridiculous, but never ceases to fascinate. For a long while, I regarded with horror the prospect of a Wikipedia get-together, yet after 14 or so years of editing (as an IP and with this account) I finally see the light: it's important, and I am part of it.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quisqualis - many, many thanks for your comments. The not-considerable time these must have taken is recognised and appreciated.

I hope the ABG editor apologizes to you (don't wait up for it). Yes, am still waiting! He did respond to you, and someone else, on my Talk page (see [2]) but this to continue his false claims of me being confrontational, didn't acknowledge his toxic behaviour (he just noted 'If you feel I was biting' Both weasily and projected the problem onto you) and didn't even communicate to me. Anway, I've no interest in further communication with him and have deleted his most recent comments. Of course, it's unknown if the aggressive contributor is an 'ABG'. However, from his Talk page it is evident he hails from Essex .. this UK county has a reputation for a disproportionate number of both chavs (a tabloid press term) and older males characterised by boorish behaviour and overt, toxic masculinity (the latter would not be inconsistent with your description of 'testosteronian one-upmanship'). For a US comparison, it may be useful to understand that the UK version of Jersey Shore is The Only Way Is Essex.

Of stricking note is the reaction of a number of persons subsequent to Mr ABG's toxicity. All were supportive, and noted various useful comments & guidance. Both in number and effect these far outweighed his unwarranted ranting.

'You're welcome to ask my opinion and advice on matters Wikipedian'. Thank you, and you never know about the future ............

Thank you again.

--SnowyMalone (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I burst out laughing when you mentioned TOWIE. I read the DM, and am familiar with TOWIE's popularity and a few of its plot twists, though I really need to get on Youtube and watch an episode or at least a preview.

In point of fact, the offending editor did reply on your Talk page, and thus satisfies, barely, the dictum that we all be polite. He then walked it back. There are some people we choose not to interact with. My Brit person #1 is very anti-American, as it we were a species of...dogs or monkeys, and shall remain nameless. Not worth stalking. Welcome to ~~"Toxipedia"~~ (I'd never say that).--Quisqualis (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020: Adieu, SnowyMalone[edit]

Well, you tried. And I encouraged you. Sorry a veritable nest of hornets lay underfoot.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Harry Dunn[edit]

Hello. I thought you may be interested to comment at Talk:Death_of_Harry_Dunn#Interpol_Red_Notice.Ali Beatriz (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]