Misplaced Pages

Guidelines for my talk page: Be civil at all times; Fix any mistakes I make; Give me at least 24 hours to a few days to respond. I edit Misplaced Pages sporadically. Unless you have an openly stated policy on conversation, or request for me to reply here, I will reply on your page. Please do not put substituted warnings on my talk page - I have edited Misplaced Pages for years, mostly as an unregistered user. Such warnings are condescending and will be removed. Any messages should be in English, and as clear and as legible as possible. As long as I know what you're saying to me, it's okay. If you have a request for me, please be aware that, unless dictated by policy or behavioural guideline, a member of the Arbitration Committee or Wikimedia Foundation (either paid employee or advisory board), or Jimbo Wales, I am not bound by your request, but will take it into consideration. I reserve the right to remove any threads or revert any edits that I percieve to be in bad faith. Violations of these guidelines may result in your post being removed or ignored.

Discussion

Please attempt to discuss changes to WP:IAR on the talk page before unilaterally making changes. While making bold changes once in a while is fine, when you find your changes getting reverted please do not keep trying those changes in subtle variations, and instead seek agreement.

This goes for any page, but a policy page doubly so. Policy reflects a wide acceptance amongst the community and you should confirm that acceptance to any changes you make. At a certain point bold editing becomes disruptive. _{(1 == 2)} 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bolding, italicizing, and\or piping one word isn't "bold." It doesn't even change the meaning of the text. It was simply intended to emphasize the value of the individual editor. And even if it was bold, no particular policy requires that users discuss their edits, since, according to a rough consensus I've come across, WP:BRD is just an essay. If you'd like to make it a policy, a behavior guideline, or how-to page, you could attempt to seek consensus to do that. Even assuming your claims do reflect consensus (which is a claim that has at least some merit), per WP:IAR: No. In any case, you are free to revert my minor edits and I am not likely to contest it, because of the threat of what could be called "digital violence." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Left a message for you at User talk:Until(1 == 2) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On WP:FRINGE

As an arbitrator I only interpret policy and I don't have any role in making it. As an editor I agree with WP:FRINGE. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate Thai

Please, stop violating the decision made my the community (to merge) and the sources confirmed as valid in the RfC. As an experienced editor you must realize this constitutes an act of vandalism. Just don't do it. If you want to fight the battle to obliterate the information on Chocolate Thai, you're welcome, but do so according to the rules - consensus can be changed only by further discussion and debate. Pundit|utter 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When you warned me about this the first time, I thought you were right. Then, I was in the process of posting this on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and after looking over the LAST AfD discussion, it occurred to me that there was no consensus that the sources you used were legitimate.

You seem to be skewing the word "merge," to mean, "merge and include every unreliable source Pundit used," which clearly did not have consensus.

From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination)...

Those who wanted to keep everything:

• You
• Blanchardb

Those who wanted to outright delete the article:

• TheBilly
• Coccyx Bloccyx
• anetode
• Guest9999
• Me (until I changed my vote)

Those who wanted a merge, but with minimal information kept: (i.e., the non-notable obscure jazz musician, your claim that it actually existed, and was popular in the 90's)

• Me
• LonelyBeacon:

From what I am seeing, there is not a lot of independent sourcework, but there may be enough to include a mention in another

Cat:

We have a list of slang article and this can be added there. Provided there are reliable sources

• Guy:

what can be surced form reliable sources (very little) and redirect

If I am wrong, I suggest you contact the folks on the last part of that list to clarify their statements. According to WP:V, the burden of proof rests on those who are including information.

To quote Jimmy Wales' from that page: Template:Jimboquote

Further attempts at intimidation through subtle threats will be ignored. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC decided about credibility of resources, while the AfD decided about a merger. The information is already merged. To delete anything you have to start a discussion on credibility again - so far in the RfC 2 people were confirming my stance, that it is sensible to use it, while 0 supported your view. Spare me the "intimidation" and "threats" talk - I'm just unsuccessfully trying to persuade you to respect the Wiki rules. Pundit|utter 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I put forth the AfD because of the unreliable sources. WP:CONSENSUS is global, not localized. You can't say, "X users in Y location said Z, therefore Z is correct." In fact, consensus is temporally global as well, so you can't even say, "Most users said X at point in time Y, therefore X is correct," because consensus can change and if it's irrational, per WP:IAR, it holds no weight.

Consensus is about what everybody thinks overall, throughout all places and times on Misplaced Pages. Taking into account the RFC, you have two more people that agree with you. Add that to the list of people above: You still don't have a rough consensus. I posted it on the WP:RS noticeboard. Please be patient and wait a few days to see what the people there say and we can decide where to go from there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote, you're more than welcome to start a discussion on credibility of the sources, but so far the closed RfC's result was unanimously to recognize them. Be so kind and respect this until another decision is made (don't delete information unless you build a consensus for it). Your reasons for AfD are irrelevant, especially when we discuss your current editions of editions of Cannabis. Pundit|utter 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC is not arbitration. Per the policy on preserving information, I am not removing information, persay. I am removing unencyclopedic nonsense that's poorly sourced, with no consensus for it to stay up. Please, as I said, be patient and wait for the folks at the WP:RS noticeboard to respond. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are removing referenced information 3 editors perceive as relevant. If you want to do so, ask others and build consensus. Your zeal in deleting and calling it "unencyclopedic nonsense" is amazing. Pundit|utter 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3 editors != consensus. Far more than 3 editors disagree with you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure many editors disagree with me, but so far none agreed with you. Don't you think that building consensus and being constructive could be a nice practice, for a change? Pundit|utter 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case. Why don't you ask them? Their names are all listed above. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I've done it plenty of times before on here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not how it works. If you want to delete some information that has been agreed upon as relevant, you should build consensus and, first of all, ask people for their opinion. Hasty actions are never good. Even when you're right, it is always better to ask for comment - it doesn't hurt, really. An experienced editor like you should know it well. Also, even when you're 100% sure you're right, you should not violate 3RR rule. Pundit|utter 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - to ask for opinion address all editors, not only the ones who voted. After all we want a wide consensus and I am going to respect it, whatever the result is. Pundit|utter 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither of us are psychic, so we can only tell what people think based on what they write. Also, this is a side-issue, but you have a number of impressive credentials on your user page. Would you mind if I could verify them informally? I'm not accusing you here, because if I verified them (and I'm a user engaged in a dispute with you here), then people would be more likely to listen to your expert advice. I admit that after the Essjay controversy, I'm a tad bit paranoid about editors making contentious edits while having such substantial credentials in their user page. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to go ahead and verify my credentials informally. It seems only fair. By the way, I hope you won't feel upset or threatened in any way by the fact that I reported a rule violation by you. Please, understand that it is not a move against you in any way, but an attempt to enforce the editing policies, for the benefit of all of us. I do hope that we will be able to achieve constructive results whenever our edits are crossed, and that we will resolve the issue of resources for Chocolate Thai in a way enhancing Misplaced Pages. take care Pundit|utter 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zenwhat, what was this edit about and why have you incorrectly described it as a typo? Also, it eludes me where exactly have I personally attacked you nor mentioned your lack of experience. On the contrary, I believe you are experienced (and should not be treated lighter as a newcomer). Pundit|utter 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I misread what you wrote, so I removed the comment, as the summary says. You didn't attack me personally. You called me experienced, not inexperienced.

Oh, wait. That! I thought you meant on the ANI posting. That's a typo, because it is. Take a closer look.

This quote is listed twice:

We have a list of slang article and this can be added there. Provided there are reliable sources

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the explanation, I missed the fact it was twice there :) Pundit|utter 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought up your quick judgment only because being hasty in accusing other editors of personal attacks when they report your rules' violations is a bad practice, potentially of interest to the administrator deciding about the block. I hope the warning you received will successfully persuade you not to make more than 3 reverts in the same article within 24 hours. Per Chocolate Thai, I suggest you submit an RfC request again, or continue the previous one - this way we soon should find other editors' opinion. best Pundit|utter 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

credentials

sent to the address you provided. cheers Pundit|utter 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive verification. Pundit|utter 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on the Cannabis article

I have closed the 3RR request with a decision that no block should be imposed this time, as the edit war seems to have ended. However if either you or the other editor continue to engage in edit warring, you will be blocked (please bear in mind that you can revert three times or less and still be blocked for edit warring). I hope that you can both reach an agreement. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't you all just take a smoke break and come back when you're in a more peaceful mood? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Boston Tea Party. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Credential policy

It's only being bold when no one's told you different. In this case, you were told, repeatedly, that it was not linked to any policy page and had no consensus. You attempted to dodge that by slapping it into there and claiming a sudden consensus. You're only trying to get your way, and it doesn't work like that. Plus, it was completely unnecessary expansion on a minor concept. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No one did tell me different. Somebody said, "This isn't a supplemental essay because it's not on WP:V or WP:User page", so I added it. They said it wasn't there, not that it shouldn't be. It's not an unnecessary expansion. It's a common sense clarification because, myself, I came across two users with credentials -- one of them was a sockpuppet who was probably lying, while the second person checked out. It's not explicitly stated on how people should treat credentials, but it's a big issue. The essjay controversy should be enough to establish that. I'm not trying to "get my way" on anything, because nothing I'm doing is my opinion on anything. All I'm doing is summarizing existing policy for sake of clarity.

If I'm NOT doing that, then tell me: What opinion am I putting forth in my "essay"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, everything on Misplaced Pages is recorded. You were told by Newbyguesses specifically why it is not a supplement. You ignored him, added the little mention, then reintroduced the tag anyway under a faulty rationale. You are either choosing to be ignorant or just being belligerent about the tag, neither of which will get you a favorable outcome. Common sense doesn't make a supplement, consensus does. The proposal has already been rejected in both positive and negative form. This is not consensus. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

His claims baffled me and amount to nothing more than what you're saying, "There's no consensus, revert," which is an appeal to tradition.

Please, if it's an essay, vote in the poll provided and tell me what opinions I'm putting forth instead of just saying "No consensus, revert, No consensus, revert," etc.. Per WP:BRD, we're not going to go anywhere if you keep doing that. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The B in BRD is on your side. Therefore, the D is likewise on your side. In conclusion, we will not get anywhere if you keep doing that. It's only bold once. You're just trying to keep it in place while quoting things like "appeal to tradition" in an attempt to avoid building consensus. You'll find this behavior will fail. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is something we do together, so that it is collaboration, not clobberation.

I bold, you revert, I discuss. You discuss too. Then either you or I bold based on our combined discussion, and the whole thing starts over again, with me or you possibly reverting again. Without your discussion and my discussion together, the whole thing can't work. WP:BRD is a combined effort and you're required to do more than just revert and say, "No consensus" in the revert summary. You're required to actually back up your revert with rational argument. You're an experienced editor. You know this! For now, I'll leave it alone and we can discuss this later when you're a bit more calm. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a two-sided thing, but when discussion is already taking place that you're ignoring I have much less need to go into it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is currently plagued by a vast amount of users who have an improper understanding of what "reliable sources" and "fringe views" are.

If that's the only thing they had an improper understanding of...

... it's not their fault though. And we can hardly expect them to learn through osmosis. We should do lectures! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Learning through osmosis? That reminds me of an old memory.

I was in 10th grade biology class. There's a poster on the wall of Garfield with his head on his book, on his desk. A caption reads, "I'm not sleeping. I'm learning through osmosis."

And yes, it is Garfield's fault and it is their fault. In Zen, they teach through osmosis. When you get something wrong, the teacher hits you with a stick. I guess that's basically why Zen masters are considered wise and Feynman was ridiculed. He didn't carry a stick. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOSTON TEA PARTY

Hi. I put the essay in Project space (rather than my user space) because I wanted people to contribute and improve it. However such contributions are only expected from people who want to clarify its message, rather than oppose it.

In the slew of jokes you've added about various different topics, you've first disguised the real point of the essay and secondly actually made it say the opposite of what it's trying to say.

Its very simple message is that when loads of people have an argument, loads of people need to calm down.

That's it.

By adding the anti-Canadian gags (which will mean little to the vast numbers of Wikipedians who aren't American, unlike the Boston Tea Party reference which is taught in schools all over the world) you've actually made the article argue for not calmly resolving problems.

If that's your opinion, that's fine (though it goes against many Misplaced Pages policies), but please do start your own essay that argues with mine. I'm afraid I'll have to revert the changes.

But thanks for making me laugh; some of what you wrote was really funny!

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zenwhat, your Canadian history I suppose is lacking somewhat. They did fight, and lost. For example, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, where the French had their asses handed to them by the British. According to a tour guide there (I was there), the battle lasted, {ahem}, 20 minutes. Tparameter (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Zombies

My personal recommendation to you would be to either userfy this or tone it down a lot. Your introductory material is very harsh, and I think the "Misplaced Pages is failing" kind of pushes the envelope. Coming on that strongly sort of dwarfs the intended humor of the zombie part, which winds up reading like an afterthought. If you really want to have an essay on how Misplaced Pages is failing, it should go in your userspace. If you want a page about zombies -- and who doesn't? -- I think this should be toned down a lot.

Just my two cents, but please consider it. - Revolving Bugbear 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Let me pull out all of the serious crap out of the lead. ☯  Zenwhat (talk)

I found it amusing, a little flattering (if I may!) and occasionally utterly bemusing. Promising! --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for zombies! I think the point comes across just fine without the serious bit. Plus, that means the Zombie:NotZombie ratio is much higher, which is always a good thing.

As a very wise person once said, "The hardest part of the zombie apocalypse will be pretending that I'm not excited." - Revolving Bugbear 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal

Hi, you may be interested in the discussion taking place. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please

Zen, please don't post any off-wiki content here. It's a bad idea anyway you look at it. I realize that there is an issue, but please remember that any such post can be altered, so it's not reliable. In addition, it will open up a huge can of worms because it's not actionable and can only cause strife for all involved. the_undertow 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)