Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:38, 9 May 2012

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

The charging bull image

Howdy. With regards to your edit comment here, I disagree with you on the "should have" part. In my opinion, the person who initially put the image in the article in the first place should have added a rationale on the image's page. That being said, I was following the "...the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale,..." part of the NFCC policy. I could indeed have added the rationale instead, but I chose not to.--Rockfang (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree with that choice, as it shifted the solution to a problem you had identified to someone else, per WP:SOFIXIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

TCM

My edits on Cat Ballou, concerning TCM, should be OK. The references only lead to TCM.com, not TCM.com. I fixed up TCM as it leads to the disambiguation page.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

For being a reasonable editor and not just because you acknowkledged what was right about anything I was saying. Also thank you for rescuing the "Charging bull" image by adding the needed rationale for "Fair Use". I had seen that the image lacked a rationale some time ago during a dispute on the Occupy Wall Street poster. I should have added it then. I found the whole subject on how the bull got there and the question of who did it is an interesting peice of art in public places history. So thanks again.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure. I hope things at BRD work out to your satisfaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am just happy that there is some discussion going now that looks very constructive.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Otto4711

that chap is the biggest (and stupidest (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#Report_date_October_23_2009.2C_14:50_.28UTC.29, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#09_December_2010)) troublemaker in WP history id think. But as for you question the 7... IP i havent run across. Though the 9... IP ive come across different variations thereof. They originated in Madison, WI. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/ArchiveLihaas (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Troutwhack

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Edit warring is one thing, stupidly lame edit warring is another, but stupidly lame edit warring where you're not even using the right revision to revert to? C'mon now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Trout accepted. Exit stage left with head bowed, suitably chastened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite the trout I was asked to open a discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior Toddst1 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

May I offer an observation, my friend...

I've noticed that you like to add white space to articles and this is causing a lot of distress to other editors. As I don't see a policy justification for it (and using WP:IAR for this reason is clearly misusing the spirit and letter of that policy) I would suggest you refrain from adding this type of content unless there is a consensus that it is required, or a better justification that falls within WP:MOS. Otherwise, unilaterally injecting these spaces where there is a clear consensus to not include them may be construed as being intentionally obtuse and disruptive, which is not a good thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I'm sorry that I cannot comply. MoS is a guideline and not a policy, and is not mandatory, and there is no policy forbidding what I'm doing, which is, let us not forget, adding a single blank line above the navigation boxes, which improves the visual balance of the article. The coterie of editors who object to it is small and vocal, but does not represent the broad cross-section of the Misplaced Pages community, and I feel no obligation to concede to their belief that MoS must be followed no matter what.

Many thanks for your well-mkaning concern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis:

Since my observation from reading AN/I is that you are a level-headed person with good instincts, and since you have not been one of the coterie of persons who have bedeviled me about this issue in the past -- one of whom followed me around to revert my edits until an admin told him to knock it off -- let me go through the counter arguments to the complaints a little more thoroughly then I did above.

The starting point is that a policy describes mandatory behavior, whereas a guideline is a suggestion as to best practices. Guidelines like the MoS should be followed whereever and whenever possible, since they represent the collective wisdom of the Misplaced Pages community over the years, but they cannot, and should not, prevent editors from improving the encyclopedia when the opportunity arises. To allow it to do so irradicates the difference between a policy and a guideline, and makes Misplaced Pages much more restrictive than it needs to be -- or, indeed, should be, since such an extremist interpretation prevents the MoS when evolving and improving, which actively harms the project. A strict-constructionist interpretation of the MoS is not helpful, it is harmful and reduces our ability to grow and improve.

One of the primary aspects of my editing has been to deal with the visual presentation of Misplaced Pages articles, an area which has been, to a large extent, overlooked. Even well-written and informative articles will frequently be a visual mess, crammed with duplicative or unnecessary pictures, or missing images at all, formatted in ways that are difficult to read and missing any kind of visual rhythm or balance. I have taken many articles and improved them visually by improving these aspects, and I think my doing so has been actively helpful to the encyclopedia.

The specific issue that has raised the current ruckus is not that I'm adding generic "whitespace" to articles. As a good Misplaced Pages editor, I routinely remove blocks of unnecessary or interruptive whitespace. Instead what my "spacing" edits are intended to do is to provide the navboxes with exactly the same visual "breathing space" that the system automtically provides for top-level section headers. If the system didn't provide a blank link above the section title, it would butt up against the text of the section above it and be difficult to read and unpleasant on the eyes. The same kind of "breathing space" is needed between the end of the "External links" sections and the first navbox, or the area because crowded and more difficult to read than it needs to be. Sometimes this breathing room is provided by a Commons box or other sister links, but without those boxes to push the navboxes down, the result is unpleasant.

So, let me repeat again, the focus of the complaints of a small number of misguided Wikipedians is the addition of a single blank line of space which does for the navigation box what the Misplaced Pages software automatically provides elsewhere when it renders the page.

Allow me to sum up:

• It's not forbidden
• It improves the article
• The whole thing is a mountain made out of a molehill.

Given this, perhaps you can see why I find the complaints of a handful of MoS hardliners to be less than a matter of extreme concern to me, especially when I look at the editing records of some (but not all) of them, and see much more egregious violations of policy. I would dearly love to be be able to just say to your request "OK, sure, why not?", but there's never been a valid argument presented in support of their complaints, other than that they think the MoS must be followed no matter what. That's just not the case, and will never be the case as long as it remains a guideline and not a policy.

Again, thanks for your concern, and for allowing me to bend your ear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I remember a line from the movie Antz that basically was the creed of the ants "Everything that isn't forbidden is compulsory", demonstrating a very narrow life view of the little boogers. Just because something isn't forbidden doesn't always mean it is the best option, or compulsory. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case? I have no idea, and I'm not going to jump in and make content decisions here. You may very well be right, but being right isn't enough. WP:MOS is more than a simple guideline, however, and I would be careful not to dismiss it so quickly. There are valid times when ignoring it makes sense, but it is almost as enforceable as any policy here. What I am saying is that when there is a strong backlash and/or consensus against something, you have to rethink your actions. WP:IAR is not for unilateral actions, it applies when there is a consensus of many that clearly see that the rules are getting in the way. It isn't a "get out of jail free" card, and should be used when the group agrees, not the individual. There are templates for blank lines (a better option) so obviously there are times when they are a good option. This time? I don't know, and again, not my role. What my role is, however, is to get editors talking and building consensus so admins aren't needed to referee. Sometimes, even when you are right, you are outvoted, and you move on to other issues or move it to dispute resolution and get outside opinions. In other words, you have to resolve the issue within the structure provided by Misplaced Pages, or you are being disruptive to the process. You can start an RfC, go to WP:DRN, but you need to do something besides continuing to add them at this stage. As you have noticed, many other admins are much quicker to block a user than I am in these situations, and I'm trying to save you the hassle here. Use the process, don't ignore it, or someone else will come in with a less generous attitude than my own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)