Misplaced Pages

Talk:Académie_française#Requested_move

Hi

As you can imagine, i'm pretty upset about the outcome on Talk:Académie_française#Requested_move where i seem to have been the only one defending WP policy and observance of accepted usage in other encyclopedias.

GTBacchus wrote these wise words: Part of the downside of how Misplaced Pages works is that a lot of decisions are based on the reasonableness of the three or four people who happen to be standing around when shit goes down, and that doesn't always work out in the direction of common sense. This seems like a serious flaw in WP that requires immediate attention, discussion, and correction. We should at least let proposals sit for longer than the current planned 5 days. It would seem that at least a month of time should be allowed to let people interested discover the discussion. Now the process seems to be geared towards full-time Wikipedians and to exclude people who have a real life too, i.e. all experts with the most valuable opinions.

More generally speaking, i'm beginning to feel WP is a Sisyphean task that will always stay at the blog level unless vote counting is abolished and replaced by points for reputable sources or some similar evaluation scheme. Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies already seems to provide some help for content issues, but deletion and move decisions are carried out with too much arbitrariness, which seems to a large part caused by too much haste. For example, I've seen huge amounts of work destroyed especially in CfDs where the "victims" didn't discover the proposed deletion at all or in time to react and especially too late to rally support from other like-minded people. --Espoo 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you're showing an excessive zeal. "I seem to have been the only one defending WP policy and observance of accepted usage in other encyclopedias" is in my opinion too strong a statement (to put it mildly). I try to read the arguments expressed in surveys, and several posters pointed out that "French Academy" is ambiguous and archaic. I agreed with the reasoning.

If I may give you a piece of advice: bitching at every comment which doesn't agree with your viewpoint seldom if ever contributes to the fulfillment of your goal—quite the contrary. At the end, people come to "pile on oppose" with "per above" arguments just out of spite. For example, if you're following the unfortunate "US city naming convention" debate, I think that the valid attempts to change it, at least partly, were mostly spoiled by excessive Serge's zeal in promoting "wikipedia policy" over people's opinions. Being right does not entitle you to be a dick (I apologize if you take this as incivility, but I can't express myself better succintly). On occassion though, it's worthy to be a dick for a worthwile goal (I've been a dick myself on few occasions), but not on every single instance of a dispute.

Policies and guidelines are flexible. Consensus on occasion sucks (e.g. Fixed-wing aircraft) Misplaced Pages is not consistent, and I probably won't ever be. See the example where I learned it hard way. But you should take it more lightly. Duja► 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry i came across as a dick to you and perhaps some others. I honestly tried to react to the arguments to produce a debate and intellectual exchange because WP should not be based on opinions and opinion polls. I wasn't offended by people reacting to my arguments, so i have a hard time understanding why others can be upset by my contributions to the discussion in reacting to their arguments. Isn't it a sign of taking others seriously that one reacts to what they say? And as for my zeal, don't you think that's understandable and even appropriate in cases that seem to violate basic WP policies? If we make an exception for a prominent sacred cow like the French Academy, articles with foreign names will start multiplying based on this precedent.

And as i showed, "French Academy" is not used ambiguously in carefully edited texts. Do you really feel that a discussion is less worthwhile than an opinion poll? Do you really believe that having a different article name than in all other encyclopedias is not proof of WP's amateurism? The "archaic" claim was unsupported and referred to specialist literature, not to texts for the general public. As shown in great detail many if not most professors use the English, not the French name today, right now. --Espoo 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you congratulated Akhilleus yourself for "first constructive and mature contribution" (as well as I do, for a thorough research). Some of later posters were influenced by his opinion; some were just expressed their own opinion. But why do you have so strong opinion that, in cases where multiple reliable sources refer to something in different ways, only your sources are reliable, carefully reviewed etc. E.g. why is, in YLE case, http://www.yle.fi/fbc/index.shtml more reliable than http://www.yle.fi/fbc/thisyle.shtml, from the same page, of the same author? Why do sources from Catholic Encyclopedia (which also uses e.g. "Servia") and Encarta necessarily trump the ones listed by Akhilleus from Texas.edu, NY Times or Times? Simply put: when there are equally good reasons for either action, the consensus wins. I'm not a priori of either opinion—but on which grounds do you think I should have moved the page according to only your preference, when valid reasons against were brought forward? I am a human too, and I did make mistakes in similar situations, but you failed to convince me as the closing admin (and the others) that your opinion on that is The Truth™. Duja► 12:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, i tried to explain in great detail why i thought certain sources were more reliable than others, but maybe you didn't have time to read the discussion in detail or maybe i didn't express myself well. I specifically explained that Akhilleus provided a good contribution because he at least provided sources and not just opinions, but i explained why these sources were less reliable or relevant and why they weren't enough to defend use of the French name. To make a long story short, much, much more detailed editorial thinking and much more copyedit expertise goes into the decision on an encyclopedia article name than into use of a word in a newspaper or magazine. In addition, even if newspapers use the French name in a text, that does not mean they wouldn't think long and hard before using it in a headline! So if all encyclopedias use "French Academy", WP is simply amateurishly edited if it doesn't follow suit. And use in specialist literature is irrelevant to an encyclopedia for the general public.

Basically, my opponents were not honest in simply ignoring the fact that WP policy clearly says to use the English name unless this is not well known. They kept trying to prove that some institutions or people use the French name, but according to WP policy, the English name should be used if it is also commonly used, especially in this case where it's used at least as much or even more. My opponents also simply ignored the fact that WP policy specifically says to use the form in other encyclopedias. You may consider my habit of discussing annoying, but i find the habits of my opponents of ignoring strong arguments and direct quotes of WP policy at least as annoying and very dishonest, childish, and self-opinionated. I'm willing to be proved wrong but my answers to illogical and weak arguments were simply ignored.

And as for the YLE discussion, i also explained why the sources i provided were much more reliable than YLE's own chaotic usage, which you also noticed and point out. All well-edited English texts first use the official English name and only later use the handy abbreviation YLE. Interestingly, even the page you linked to with only YLE has the link YOUR OWN YLE - facts and figures on YLE in pdf format to a more carefully edited text (shown by the PDF format) which does have the official English name almost at the beginning. Essentially YLE is the logo and Finnish Broadcasting Company is the official name. But at least YLE is better than the provincial and unpronounceable Yleisradio as the article name.

The main reason i have such strong opinions on naming and copyedit decisions is because i'm a professional copyeditor (BTW, i capitalise "I" in my professional work) and i find it shocking and sad that copyediting is done in such an amateurish way on WP, which makes it look much less reliable than it is and even hurts its content. I spend a lot of time researching before i come to a decision, and i also already know much more about these issues than most editors even before i start researching. I'm sure you can imagine what it would feel like if amateur decisions on content were implemented in areas where you're a professional. To most people, spelling, naming, and other copyedit issues seem like superficial extras, and they don't understand the profound effect these decisions have on WP usability for normal users and on the respect and amount of contributions it receives from experts in the topics covered. --Espoo 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Yleisradio

Hi

You forgot to sign this:

The result of the debate was Move to YLE. Yes, I know it wasn't requested but that actually seems to be the prevalent and unambiguous usage, and used by the company itself as well as throughout the article.

WP is supposed to follow usage in reputable sources, not an abbreviation incorrectly used by an editor writing in a foreign language and therefore forgetting to first use the full name. Your link http://www.yle.fi/fbc/thisyle.shtml is greatly outweighed by the more carefully produced text by YLE cited in the discussion which uses the official English name and by the usage in all carefully edited English texts. Do you really believe your arguments and sources are stronger than these?:

"Finnish Broadcasting Company" is the official English name used by Yleisradio itself (see bottom of ) and in all high-quality printed material published in English in Finland (e.g. Finnish Music Quarterly: , , , , Finnish Music Information Centre ), in the relevant legislation, and by the regulatory authority

In addition, i don't understand how you can use the WP article to back up your decision because it would have been unfair if i'd edited that before the move proposal was decided on. --Espoo 11:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I expected it). See above. Duja► 11:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Osli73

Greetings Duja, I am a Swedish Wikipedian with an interest in the former Yugoslavia. After being involved on a number of former Yugo article I can relate to your "impossible mission to make articles about former Yugoslavia free of POV, chauvinism and cruft." Keep up the good work. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you. Cheers Osli73 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NS

Super si proširio text o NSu, znaš li samo kako da napišem Novi Sad prema International Phonetic Alphabet? --Göran Smith 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright angel

Let's see, did you put the arkan picture for deletion because you are a copyright angel or did you do it because..ooh want to hide it? I'm riddled! The picture was put up by the creator, perhaps it was Hanevi..how could you know Ancient Land of Bosoni

Even if it (hypothetically, of course) were Haviv himself, he couldn't have released the picture under different licenses for BBC and Misplaced Pages (GFDL). At least, an explicit permission would have to be given. And I'm tired of (and upset by) accusations that I want to hide The Truth™. Duja► 13:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen Duja, seriously, you have my permission to delete the list. I've realized that it is no use to protest, you are in a great majority and that fact calls for other tactics. So what I am trying to say is, feel free to delete the List, I won't object. Since I wrote the article, I guess my word's enough? Ancient Land of Bosoni

To Duja

Опрости ама каква врска имам јас со Celtmist, Jordovan и Ragusan? Многу сум разочарен дека можеш да мислиш дека не сум вистински, или дека ми треба невистински пријатели. не е точно. Како што разбирам, тие сите беа вклучени на Бикипедија пред да дојдам јас на почетокот, дури и тогаш за првите месеци не уредував оти компјутерот не ми работеше. Јас не се сеќавам ако сум разговарал многу со ним, Тие (или тој) нека прават што сакаат, јас си имам своја посебна истоветност а ако ми го сакаш мејлот или други докази, само прашај, овде не кријам ништо. Слабо ги продавам моите политички погледи, и тоа никогаш кога темата е бившата Југославија, освен кога ги бранам домашните народи и заними против странците (Кфорците и Сфорците итд), сепак можам сам да се претставувам со сите користници без да се вклучам на друг прекар. Уште еднаш, немам врска со други користници никаде. Извини ако не чинам пријатен моментално само се плашам дека погрешно некој од управата тука ќе ме блокира, и тоа не заслужавам јас повеќе него Ragusan. Инаку, сега ќе ти пуштам еден пример од Celtmist: кога си дознал дека јас сум изјавел вакви глупости?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Vojvodina&diff=32538952&oldid=32520809

ко да не знаев јас што е званичен јазик и кој и се на Војводина!!

Те молам, ако имаш сумњи, зборувај право со мене и ќе немам да се налутам, подобро така од колку да му провоцираме погрешни мислења на наѕорниците! Evlekis 11:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Pedra Branca, South China Sea

Should this section be archived too, as what you've done with the other section on the page? :-D — Instantnood 08:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there (two simultaneous RMs???), but it hardly matters... Duja► 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

More or less. The earlier one should be archived anyways. — Instantnood 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

abuse or mistake?

I believe another admin has made a mistake, at this point I am assuming good faith, but I would like to know what is the right thing to do right now as I do not this user to quit Misplaced Pages as he has made nothing but great contribs to articles that really need editors and I feel he could be an even more valuable Wikipedian with time. Please let me know how you suggest I proceed.

Zoe (talk · contribs · logs) has first warned Mihailo.stojanovic@amis.net (talk · contribs · logs) by having email address as username, and upon me questioning him and no response from the user in question, he has blocked the user indefinitely. I have since requested that he unblocks the user , but I want to make sure user is unblocked ASAP so he does not quit editing from this bad experience.

Thanks. // Laughing Man 16:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism-like page move

Hi Some normal user "reverted" i.e. circumvented your admin page move http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Finlandswedes&diff=84847660&oldid=84803373 --Espoo 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He did it again. --Espoo 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And again --Espoo 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak... If it happens again, I'll moveprotect the page. The current move war is not so intense to justify the immediate action. Duja► 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Relief

Thanks Duja; I really did not mean to sound abrupt, just a little shocked! I thought I'd be sentenced without trial! :) Then again I noticed that you yourself are an administrator and have the power to block anyone at any time. Either way, if you spot similarities then it is quite all right to "speculate". On the issue I would be very sorry to see Ragusan eliminated, as for the Arvatov gang, I am pleased to see the back of them but after the first two times I read his/her edits, I never took him/her seriously. One more thing just for your own interest: my county of Wiltshire is not actually in or near London, my home town is exactly 160 km west of London and I personally now try to avoid London the same way that many rural Serbs hate the occasional inevitable trip to Belgrade! Thanks for clearing the issue and you don't need to "keep the observation to yourself", you are free to discuss it with me any time. Evlekis 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic

I suppose that you're right, both alphabets are not always required. I just can't see why Cyrillic permanently has to give way whenever there is an example. Don't get me wrong, it is not just on Serbian language, but on hundreds of other articles where there is mention of Serbian, many of which, you and I have never stumbled accross. I know that in Serbian-Macedonian-Montenegrin, Latinic has a privileged status in that it is highly used by its speakers (or writers), but to none of those languages can it ever be what Greek is to the Greeks, Arabic to the Arabs or Cyrillic again to the Russians/Bulgarians, yet every one of these scripts has a romanised form. What we need to ask ourselves in "why" are we giving examples of Serbian? It is because we are presenting an article on the language on the English wikipedia to those who probably don't know Serbian and are taking an interest. You and I don't need to explain to each other how Ana voli Filipa can be arranged anyhow and will mean the same thing :) we're the ones telling the outsiders that. So how do you go about giving an example from your language? There are two sensible ways: one is to give Cyrillic only, and I will explain why this is more acceptable (and effective) than it initially sounds. The editors of other non-Latinic script languages will give examples of words or pieces of text purely in their own script followed by a translation with the Romanised form being totally disregarded. So far this has never caused problems or raised queries, and whilst on Misplaced Pages, if the reader wishes to learn how "X" is read in Greek, he can quickly investigate. If you listen to Greek "X"'s sound, its exact approximate in English (I believe) is only in the word Loch (meaning lake in Scots). Most English don't know this and they still tend not to initially pronounce ONE Greek transliteration (Ch) as in loch, and the only two other ways of romanising Greek X is H (like in South Slavic), or KH like in Russian and Arabic, either way, all evoke different pronunciations from the ameteur English speaker!! So I doubt Чишћење is any more frightening that Čišćenje! And any how, it is the written language we are using. But if on the other hand, our purpose is to give a rough guideline as to how to say something, then perhaps we can devize a once-off transcription. "Ana Voli Filipa" is simple, but it might make the English man say "Anna voulaj Filajp(schwa)" :-) It is true, people do struggle here, Milosevic has more pronunciations between English, Australian and American than people he let down! "vollee" (voley = as in ball) is an instance of Anglo-South Slavic approximation. Or Cheesh - tyen - yea (for cleaning). Do you agree with most of this? Evlekis 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Cyrillic: while I might be rightfully accused to being "unpatriotic", I still think it's bad style to provide both Cyrillic and Latin transliterations in every single instance, especially since the transliteration is trivial. It clutters the text and doesn't give particular help to the reader. We're writing this encyclopedia for English readers, and we shouldn't expose them to our alphabetic and national frustrations. I'm not saying it was your intention, but that's how it comes through (in my opinion). I wouldn't even particularly object if all examples were given only in Cyrillic (although I think it's better to stick to Latin for simplicity)—just, giving the other equivalent doesn't serve a useful purpose. As for Macedonian: Latin is not a Macedonian alphabet, so Macedonian examples shouldn't be given in Latin.

Regarding phonetic transcriptions: as I get it, our aim is not to make Misplaced Pages a learning tool or a dictionary, but to give a language overview for the purpose of comparison and basic scientific study, i.e. our "target" English reader is not an Average Joe, but someone with at least basic linguistic background. IPA is WP- and world-widely accepted standard for transcription, and "poor man's" transcriptions such as "Cheesh-tyen-yea" are so unprofessional that they should be avoided by all means. Duja► 08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Open City

My mistake. I assumed no one would redirect pages to "Open City". --Ineffable3000 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Duja,

haven't talked to you in a long time, I laughed when I noticed that you reverted the "motto" of Serbia for the "146th time" :) Yes, I too noticed that a lot of people were adding "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava" when that clearly can't be the state motto... Good to see someone like you is on the lookout, reverting these silly things :)) Hows life? :)

--GOD OF JUSTICE 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Novi Sad

E, jel možeš srediti onu tabelu o povelji Marije Terezije u istorijskom poglavlju članka Novi Sad? Ako članak gledaš na Internet Exploreru, onda tekst koji treba da stoji ispod tabele dođe pored nje. Jel može tekst da lepo stoji dole? PANONIAN (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Morao sam malo da reorganizujem; bilo bi bolje da slika stoji iznad citata kao pre, ali se "svađaju". Hard-kodovanje širine treba izbegavati, posebno u okviru teksta koji treba da bude uravnat s obe strane. Hint: koristi <br clear="all/left/right"> HTML tag kad ti treba da se tekst ručno prelomi tako da se nastavlja ispod "plutajućih" okvira s bilo koje/leve/desne strane. Duja► 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ivo Sanader article

Reverting it to a very old (but nonvandalized) version is probably the best thing to do. I probably should have done that myself, instead of correcting mistakes by hand and reverting to newer versions. Don't worry about collateral, I'll be going through the history adding back in anything relevant. I have also requested semi-protection for the page. -- xompanthy 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm surprised no Croatian newspaper picked up this story, they usually report when an article on a member of the Croatian Parliament or government gets vandalized. And usually after that happens, a whole flood of vandals come to "join the party". It's why I requested semi-protection, 'cause something like that is bound to happen... -- xompanthy 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a few important articles on Croatia on my watchlist, but the problem is, I'm not on wikipedia all that often. And when I am, I don't always remember to check the list :). I'm gonna be more watchful from now on. And an extra pair of eyes is always welcome. -- xompanthy 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)