Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:53, 30 April 2009

Translation of the original newsgroup posting about Macedonia

(This message, in whole or in part, altered or not, was posted in various greek blogs and forums. Originally sent from me to the Usenet newsgroup grk.forthnet.users; then, someone took it from there and spread it around, while others repeated the procedure. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Minority's nationalism is sweeter

For several days now, the "Macedonia" entry in Misplaced Pages links directly to our neighbouring country, although previously there was an article page describing the various uses of the name in english.

The rationale behind this (at least what is presented), wasn't built up using strong arguments, neither it stands according to the regulations on neutrality and naming by using credible sources, such as academic ones.

This action is reversible and at this moment a relevant discussion is taking place.

Whoever wants to participate, may do so here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macedonia

Vote here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macedonia#Survey

The relevant section in which I set forth my opinions, based on Misplaced Pages's policy (nickname SQRT5P1D2):

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macedonia#Since_when_Wikipedia_promotes_counter-nationalism_to_fight_nationalism.3F

Request:

a) no sarissas, the referee will show you a red card (note: meaning "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field")

b) remember, this is an away game (note: meaning "use proper language, if you want your voice to be heard and your arguments to be taken seriously")

Recent additions to the ArbCom page

I really doubt, unfortunately, whether your recent additions to the ArbCom page on the Macedonia issue will do any good. ArbCom has expressly stated, both in general and regarding this particular case, that the only thing they will address is conduct, not content. Having read your addition to the evidence page, I see nothing in it relating to conduct. If you have anything to say which the ArbCom would find useful, please feel free to add it to your section, but also realize that any attempts to get them to possibly even do so little as address content will probably fall on deaf ears. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't conduct based on certain criteria? Is neutrality among them? Is verifiability among them? I believe that I've presented valid arguments against the move, based on conduct. A user cannot simply move according to his/her personal preferences; not to mention that conduct is always about content. This is how things in this universe work, unless I'm fundamentally wrong in understanding the political shifting in Misplaced Pages's mechanics. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To optimize the phrasing, it generally works best to have comments read something like this: "On (date), (editor) did (thing). This action is a violation of policy/guideline (X)." Such phrasing allows them to better address the matters of conduct with which they work. And I have added the request to have you added to the case. I don't know how long it might take for the arbitrators to decide, because it is their call, but I hope that you will be hearing a response relatively quickly. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So far I've edited many Misplaced Pages articles as an anonymous user, but I never really spent much time exploring the mechanics driving it. I understand the need for optimization and I will try to focus on learning that. Let's hope that the arbitrators will accept me in the list. SQRT5P1D2 (talk)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence

A couple things. Regarding your evidence section, at this point it appears to be a lot of arguments/conclusions but little in the way of actual evidence. I suggest taking a look at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide#Evidence for a better understanding of what is most effective in convincing the Arbitration Committee. Also, even though you are not a party at the moment, you are still allowed to present evidence to the Committee. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. John Carter suggested the same and it seems that something is wrong with me. I think that I present valid arguments about neutrality and verifiability, but they're somehow not meant to "work" for the case. Could you (or anyone else for that matter) please inform me what "little" of my writings constitutes acceptable evidence? It will help me to focus on that when building new arguments. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I read that evidence "should be in the form of diffs to contested behavior". ChrisO's behaviour violates Misplaced Pages's principles on neutrality and verifiability. How can one judge a case like that using textual differences? This is about a move of an entry. Arguments are needed to back this, but I also read that "argument is not evidence". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am relatively new myself. Of the various things I've read, I think that this was the most helpful. I have been moving my policy arguments to the workshop; perhaps that is a better place to have them. --Radjenef (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Radjenef. I'm more used to court-like presentations outside Misplaced Pages, that's why I misjudged a few things. I also plan to move most arguments to the workshop and rewrite the evidence part. Maybe tomorrow, or the day after, since I have other obligations in real life. In any case, your input is greatly appreciated. :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Help / Βοήθεια

Hi :) I'm sorry if I can't email you right now. Do you want to tell me here what you want me to assist you with? Or you rather wait for my email? I'll try to help on either case. Please bear in mind that I'm also comparatively a new editor and I don't have experience on Misplaced Pages arbitration too Shadowmorph (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I salute our newbiness. I see your edits and raise you a cookie; or two. Regarding the communication, I'd rather wait. For others reading this, it's about an off-wiki matter. You know, the usual stuff, Nazi voodoo ceremonies in Area 51, social gatherings of prehistoric lolcats and such. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Counter-POINT violation

Hello. Please do not violate the rules of counterpoint to illustrate a point, as you did at File:Newbiedrama.png. If you are found introducing octave parallels into Misplaced Pages theme songs again, you may be blocked or banned from participation in any further singing contests. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good, my dear, but you don't see the irony or the big picture. The irony is about the "nerve" to participate in ARBCOM and others prejudging the outcome; as in Mr. Gould's project. The big picture is that you fell into the trap, although I left you a big hint ("imperfect"). Now I know that you know and you'll be my singing partner to the end of love. But the soprano position is taken and you can click your heels to eternity; over my dead fugue. Now, "cast away all that you were told and the theory that you read" and let's make Mr. Gould proud. We'll start with "Never be clever for the sake of being clever, for the sake of showing off." SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For others asking about this, it's about a cheerful response to FP about his fugue. All in good spirit :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hang in there

I know how disheartening these discussions can be. But the evidence collection should be done soon. I imagine that there will be a few questions directed by the arbitrators to various parties, probably including you and probably including me as well. That is probably expected in cases like this one. But I do think that the high drama is probably more or less drawing to a close, even if it seems to be rising right now. It shouldn't be much longer till the accusations are over and the real discussion and decision come down. Anyway, I don't know much about the music content, but if you think I could ever be useful in that regard let me know. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your kind remarks are greatly appreciated (again). No worries, I'm not a quitter. But it always amazes me how people forget that they're communicating with actual human beings and not robots. Anyway, regarding the evidence collection, I believe that I'll be done during the next 48 hours; I do have some inhibitions about repeating some diffs, since others did that, managing to finish their sections before me. Also, I'm not a party (yet) and no lights on the horizon about the injuction. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disconnect between reliable sources policy & Google hits policy, suggestion

Hello Square - I like the way it took a relative newbie to point out a disconnect between WP's reliable sources policy and its Google hits policy. I hope you will consider this tack. The Library of Congress maintains an authority control file that includes subject headings. The subject headings are also used by the British Library , the Library and Archives Canada , and the National Library of Australia . To me, LOC represents a resource that is based on scholarly research and is also aimed at the Common Reader. The LOC authority file can be searched but unfortunately not permalinked. But a keyword search of their catalog offers individual entries that give you the subject heading and can be permalinked. So, in the authority file under Macedonia: "Here are entered works on the ancient country and kingdom of Macedonia...". The authority file entry for Macedonia (Republic) states "The provisional heading "Macedonia (Republic)" remains valid pending BGN approval of a form that is not provisional." As examples of individual entries following this policy: where you find "Subjects: Macedonia--History--To 168 B.C. ", and here where you find "Agriculture--Macedonia (Republic)--Ovče Plain."

Yes, Arbcom doesn't technically address policy. Have policies have in fact changed after several rounds of righteous indignation were expressed there? - ask around. Try Misplaced Pages Review. Novickas (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for what it's worth, I would avoid the Misplaced Pages Review. While there are some good people there, there are also a lot of people there who have been blocked or banned for misconduct here who believe that we were the ones in the wrong and are desperately trying to "stick it to us". Such malcontents probably shouldn't be encouraged too much, as it tends to give them cause to make comments which are ever more "interesting", if also ever more dissociated from anything like objective truth. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Novickas, thank you for your comment. I'm open minded and will take anything under consideration, if it's "relevant to my interests" :) I'm not really sure about what happened in the past between Misplaced Pages and former users, leading to the creation of Misplaced Pages watchdog sites. My experience in dealing with these matters is zero (0) and I'm trying to focus on what goes on here, now, according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If one way or another, people in charge eventually find out that they should deal not only with matters of conduct (X did that, X said that) but with content, especially on heated issues, then so be it (WP:IAR). John is more experienced and I plan to take his advice; of course, that doesn't mean that I'm dismissing what you're saying. There were repeated attemps to ridicule and discourage me from participating in this case (apparently from parties collaborating externally about the move), but I'm not doing them a favour. I'm not vindictive either. At the moment, I want status quo ante for Macedonia and nobody banned or stripped from his privileges; then, we'll take it from there. If certain parties realise their mistakes, excellent. If they don't, people above me will decide about their future. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My cat and dog state for the record that this issue is irrelevant to their interests. But here I am anyway. So - I would argue that in some cases, conduct issues have morphed into policy issues. The WP online admin chat channel, for instance. There were persistent concerns, some voiced at Arbcoms, that led to distance - don't know how formally this distance was created. (This is something that bothers me in general about WP policy pages - they don't usually give you any historic background on their own evolution - you have to dig thru dozens of scattered pages, umpteen KB, to come up with an understanding.) Re Misplaced Pages review. Yes, there's a lot of noise and malcontent - that's a watchdog group for you: some wheat, lots of chaff, hard to reference the point at which a concern is taken seriously and/or internalized by the community.

I'm basically with you on restoring the status quo - a disambig page, am I right? There seems to be an unspoken argument that needing 1 (one) extra click is a Bad Thing. Novickas (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I also state for the record that no cats (or dogs) were harmed during this edit :) To tell the truth, I understand that there are many issues regarding Misplaced Pages. But that's why WP:IAR exists, in order to improve things; this is also part of the policy. You're right, I believe that in Macedonia we need a disambiguation page, though some seem to have a different agenda. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki stuff

Maybe let the whole discussion about off-wiki stuff go. It doesn't lead anywhere for anyone. We are all living in meatspace too :) Shadowmorph (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sqrt, stop it, now. Your latest round of canvassing other people's talk pages crosses the line into harassment behaviour, and I will do everything I can to get you blocked and/or excluded from the proceedings if you continue. This is your only warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, be civil. "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion" (WP:CANVASS). I asked John Carter about the potential of a motion request and sent two (2) notices to other editors; that's three (3) neutral public postings on the subject, at most. While a few days ago you've told me to "shut up", I actually believe that you personally are not to blame for what happened and my intention is to improve the discussion by bringing potential evidence to the table. I also believe (but cannot prove) that other editors accuse you for things that you didn't. John also asked you about your correspondence. Others might be interested in that too. You refused, as you have the right to do so. In any case, threating someone certainly doesn't help and from now on, you're kindly requested not to harass me. P.S.: the funny thing is that I was going to ask ChrisO about his thoughts on this matter, before seeing this "only warning". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)