| Revision as of 03:07, 3 September 2007 editJackanapes (talk | contribs)1,762 edits →Question← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:14, 16 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (251 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| | | | | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * | |||
| * ] | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| == Thanks ... == | |||
| == A talk page for Mr Kehler == | |||
| for talking the time to comment at the Wikiquette page and elsewhere. It is always a bit scary when complaints get made, but I find it fascinating that total strangers, spread throughout the world, take the time to look into things carefully and then opine. Thanks again. --] (]) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have made a subpage, where Mr W. Kehler is welcome to talk with me, until he is able to get his own user page. Click on the link below. Mr Kehler put a response here on my user page, and I have moved it into the subpage provided. Others are also welcome to join in if they wish. | |||
| :You're welcome. And it is fascinating. Frankly, I think we are a little bit voyeuristic. The whole wikipedia project is fascinating; and the way so many people work together on it; including some rather odd folks. Something like wikiquette alerts helps manage it a bit, I guess. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| {{talkback|N5iln|Right of reply|ts=01:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Hello Duae, I thought you would want to know that your sub-page appeared in a question/report at ]. I'm not sure how it got there, but I think someone noticed the page and wondered what it was. I posted a short notice there to explain, but I think it would be good if you visit and offer your comments. They may be able to help you with the confusing situation of the changing IP address for this editor. Here it the link to . Best Wishes --] ] 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 01:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == What is it? == | |||
| :: Thanks very much. The whole conversation page idea got out of hand. I've given an account and some relevant links at the noticeboard, and will be interested to see if anyone has any useful suggestions. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| May I ask you to explai what is , or , or ? It seems to me that Alaska is also in Asia (and belonged to Russia no so far away). May be, we must move it? What are we doing: trying to find a consensus or playing provocative games? Thanx! --Dimitree 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Having made an attempt to establish some level of communication, I am going to continue with it a bit longer. I have now made a more organized second page at ]. Good idea? Bad idea? Time will tell. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : We are trying to find a consensus, of course. You MUST stop taking all dispute over this as personal. These unwarranted insinuations of attack or game playing or provocation at disruptive of the project. Please stop worrying about motives of other editors and stick to the content, on the assumption that we are all working in good faith. Take all actual substantive discussion to ]. Thanks. | |||
| :Whew, that's quite a page. I don't think you'll be seeing my name there unless you forcibly copy this text over, but I do want to make one comment, not specific to that page. Links to arXiv are best done to the abstracts, e.g. (the "v4" at the end of the URL is optional, leave it off and you get the most current version, which is the same in this case). It's more friendly that way, as the interested parties can decide to open pdf or postscript, for instance, or maybe just read the abstract, or choose the CiteBase link if they want. ] 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
: Also, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 23:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * I asked a question. Would u please answer? It seems to me there is only one truth: smone can do whatever he wants inspite it is evidently silly. Smone must shut up and follow mainstream. Ok. The question remains: '''if it is correct to put Russian Federation in Asia unless there is no any consensus?''' May I hope to hear from you soon. Thanx! P.S.: I put 4 tildas from the very begining, but it does not work. Don't know why... --Dimitree 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Misplaced Pages and Quality Control == | |||
| ::: I answered the question, on what we are are trying to... we are trying to find a consensus. I also pointed you to the proper place for further discussion of the specifics of geographical location. | |||
| Hi Duae... I saw your new essay on your user page. I like your solution. It allows the current process to continue without interference, but also allows for more confidence in checked or approved articles. The problem with it though is that it can't pass the muster of ultra-egalitarianism, with prejudice against intellectual advancement. I believe that started out well-intended, based in equality of rights and purity of the consensus form, but as ideals those are by definition, not fully practical. And the result seems to be almost a backlash against acceptance of expertise - not among all editors, but among enough of them to stop qualifications from entering the system, other than when a qualified editor gains the local respect of other editors in their field and rallies them by consensus; an inefficient process. | |||
| :::: Ok. | |||
| As far as getting real information from WP when I need to know something, I do use the articles, but if I have even a shred of a question about what I see, then I either follow the actual references, or I read the talk pages and history to see if there are problems. Especially for current or changing information, WP is valuable, and I do use it. But as you say, don't trust the information without verifying... use it as a starting point. One of the most important points about that is that an article can change literally from second to second, and most readers don't realize that. They visit, usually from Google I imagine, read what they came for, and leave. Five seconds later, the mathematical formula or historical date that they retrieved could be different on that very same page, and they have no idea that could happen. | |||
| ::: Your rephrased question is a bit unclear, but you appear to be asking what to do if there is no consensus. If there is no consensus, then the correct thing to do in wikipedia is work towards consensus. The most important considerations for that, by far, are to assume good faith of other editors and keep your cool. The worst thing to do is make your own personal decision on what is "correct", and then edit war all over the place to maintain your choice, whatever it might be. You should leave the content of the article alone, and focus on obtaining the consensus. To do that, you have to listen to others, and be willing to change your mind if need be. See ]. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Aside from all that, there is something I really like about WP. It's a sort of grand experiment combining sociology, interpersonal behavioral psychology, linguistics, politics, all sorts of fields, into one giant laboratory that is being allowed to self-organize. Even the rules and policies are being edited from day to day. So thinking mathematically, it's a recursive experiment, because what happens when people read ] or ] as a support for a point? They think they know what that means in a discussion, because they read it when they first got here and started editing. But maybe that policy has changed since then. How often does someone click on a link to ] when they see it in a discussion? Not very often, I'm sure. Here's an example where that fundamental policy changed just a week ago: . Is that an important change? Does it affect how editors approach their work? | |||
| :::: I did not do anything unless there is no consensus. My opponent - ] - does. He just violates established rules. Examples are , , and so on. So I need an explanation: if there are this ] and that, why ] is defigurating the data? That is all. Nothing else... --Dimitree 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| So, what does it mean when we quote policy that is constantly changing as a basis for making decisions in articles, or even decisions in policy discussions? | |||
| :::: I'll try to help with the signing of posts over at your talk page. Hold on, I think we'll be able to fix it. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I haven't thought this out in detail, but I have been very intrigued by how it works, and when I saw your essay I thought it would be interesting to share some of these thoughts. | |||
| ::::: May I ask you not to teach me what should I do and what should not? Teach yourself, please. And such kind of posts "Dimitree, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" put on your page, please. I'm enough educated to understand what is going on here. Except you, there are many others Georges W. Bushes with his "export of democracy"... Thanx! --] (]) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| At the base of it all, while Misplaced Pages itself says it is an encyclopedia, another view is that it's a new way for people to interact, and we don't quite know what it is creating. Is something true just because consensus says it's true? On Misplaced Pages, yes, as long as there are some references that look like solid third-party sources. But does that help us build a more efficient solar panel that costs less to manufacture? Only if there are some very skilled editors working on those articles and they also have the people skills to address the problems caused by less knowledgeable editors who might be really good at persuasive writing, or navigating policy points, or (as I think you've seen in action) just plain ignoring policy and being pushy with fringe ideas. | |||
| :::::: No. You called a wikiquette alert, and you have asked for help. I mean no offense but you badly need it. You are flatly wrong about about trying to tell ME directly above about so-called "established rules", and you are not following the established wikipedia guidelines yourself. | |||
| In a way, it's a noble process. It's also the biggest chess game ever known. | |||
| :::::: Jasepl has removed himself from the debate. You should not continue to bait him. That comment about dropping the stick is a standard comment in wikipedia for just the kind of problem, and you should read the link associated with the comment. Here it is again: ]. | |||
| Thanks for your thoughts, enjoy your editing... --] ] 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: This whole debate would go much better if you were willing to learn about more about these kinds of guidelines. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for the input! I'm impressed to get a comment so soon. I really put it up for my own interest and to think about it. I may put it up for consideration in the formal channels after I've had a change to polish a bit. Your point on egalitarianism is a very good one. I have accordingly added a section to my proposal, to underline that editors are not expected to be experts; merely level headed individuals with a solid commitment to wikipedia official principles. | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| : I'm also going to open up my proposal for editing by anyone who wants. Feel free to hack away. If I don't like any changes, I'll just revert them without mercy. :-) ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your intervention and your efforts. You correctly concluded that I have withrawn from the debate. | |||
| ::If you want more input from others, you could post a note at ]. Keep in mind, you may be upsetting the apple cart, so you could get some rather strong responses (I'm not suggesting you hold back, or not hold back, as I said, I like your idea... just mentioning that I've noticed in other policy-related discussions, they can get rather heated). | |||
| Dimitree's dogged refusal to even read any of the explanations by others just makes the whole thing too tedious to be worthwhile. His constant screams of the English-speaking world being on a Russia-bashing binge doesn't help either. Besides (and I don't meen this in a bad way) - I don't understand most of what he writes anyway. All colleague this, and comrade that. This is the Engligh language Misplaced Pages, isn't it? | |||
| ::You may be interested in checking out some of these links: ], ], ], ], and ]. --] ] 06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| All I will suggest is that don't go 100% by the UN definitions (they change) or by group membership. I saw there was a suggestion to include Turkey in Europe because it is potentially an EU member. So is Armenia, by the way. Will Armenia suddenly move to Europe if and when it becomes an EU member? Tomorrow Kazakhstan might decide to join the Southwest Pacific La-La Union. Will Morocco then cease being an African countty? | |||
| == The wikiproject banner == | |||
| Besides, if 3% of its territory being located in Europe makes Turkey European, then why not Azerbaijan and Georgia? More than 3% of their territory is located in Europe after all. | |||
| Well, the Zionist banner was meant to be serious in a way. Please see ] for the explanation. ] 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Physical location is something that won't change - not for several millenia in any case. Seeing how that's one constant, and that Europe's land borders are the Urals to the east and the Caucasus to the South, it's best to work with those immutable factors. | |||
| : I know. However, I felt that the manner in the which the point was being made was inappropriate and deliberately misleading, so I removed it. No offense intended. There may be some way you can mark up a more appropriate information box that can be used to tag discussions where there is a suspected deliberate attempt by an outside group to influence Misplaced Pages towards a particular point of view. If you try this, keep it as neutral as possible. | |||
| As all of the related country and continent articles, as well as a simple glance at a physical map tell us: | |||
| : In general, however, I recommend patience. The general issue of articles on ] is apparently being reviewed, as well as the attempt by ] to manipulate Misplaced Pages as they consider best. Thanks for the note. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Armenia and Cyprus are 100% in Asia | |||
| *97% of Turkey is in Asia | |||
| *Over 50% of Russia is in Asia (ie: East of the Urals) | |||
| *More than 3% of Azerbaijan and Georgia are in Europe (ie: North of the Caucasus) | |||
| Thanks, again. ] (]) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Your Kehler page == | |||
| * By you imposed wfc Kehler is not suitable as my fathers main Email, used by me. He means that he got meanwhile more spam. | |||
| * T-COM Germany promised that I soon will have DSL at my home (a bit away from cities in country). | |||
| * Our club executives (I am the 2nd in my club, one of 3 sections) decided to take a very fast VDSL, gratis by a sponsor, with an option >16.000 kB/s and a LINUX-HP to be more safe. They offered me to perhaps even completely take the old T-COM of the club (if my DSL works at home) and even to pay the line while I act for the club as its writer. | |||
| : But I suggest now to put for me personally an existing, sleeping NICKNAME DeepBlueDiamond with a still existing sleeping email DeepBlueDiamond@aol.com valid until I get T-COM; then I intend to become DeepBlueDiamond@t-online.de | |||
| ok? - Thanks for help, I think we come together if the agreement works - and then my DSL-lite. ] 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem, glad to help. I'm going to stick with it for a while, although I'm striving to live up to the high ideals of ''']. :-) | |||
| : I think some kind of user account would be a great idea. I don't know what to call you. You've signed quite a number of your posts here with an email address, and that does tend to pick up spam. The best thing might be to sign up with an account here at Misplaced Pages, and then contact people through the Wikipeda talk page channels. It's what I do; I never mention any email address here for precisely the reason you mention. If you prefer the page currently ] to be renamed to something else, just let me know. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : (I have done the rename from WFCKehler to W. Kehler.) ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : If you twist my arm, I'll confess that I don't actually share your particular view of the best solution. I personally think that the division between Asia and Europe is mainly political; not geographical at all. It is the actual '''''choice''''' of certain borders that is mutable. The boundaries you list are widely used, but not universal. They are, in effect, a consensus position -- and consensus is mutable. As far as wikipedia is concerned, I'd stick with what has been the norm now, in most articles, for quite some time, as far as I can tell. | |||
| === Our problem with by you hidden pages to SHOW === | |||
| ::: Your good meant attempt to hide sections had a problem here: Neither direct links to an inner section nor even a clic from the table of content fuctioned. | |||
| : Russia definitely belongs in Europe, because all the largest centers are in the West, and the East is far less populated and developed. There's no way Asia can possibly work as a consensus for Russia, and that's what matters in wikipedia. Turkey is more interesting; most of the airline destination lists put it in Europe, and that's where the major political links go. For airlines, I think that traffic should carry a lot of weight, and with the strong political ties from Turkey to Europe, this carries a lot of weight. It's been the normal position within the airlines project now for a long time, as far as I can tell. Cyprus belongs in Europe politically, and again this is more important, in my view. Being actually an island in the Mediterranean, the geographical argument is particularly weak IMO. Proximity does suggest Asia -- but more particularly it suggests Cyprus and Turkey belong in the same continent. I tend to think putting them both in Europe is best; and it is also the prevailing norm in so far as a norm exists. | |||
| :::: If you are talking about the attempt I made to manage the ] page some time ago, by allowing some older sections to be collapsed using the ] method, then note that I put it back as soon as you said you preferred not to have it. You will find, by the way, that when this facility is used in a page, links all continue to work when the linked sections are expanded, but not when they are collapsed. But this is irrelevant now; I removed the framing and it is all one long quarter Megabyte of continuous text, just as you apparently like. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I am looking at using some tools to help identify inconsistencies across destination lists. This also helps identify what the effective consensus is at present, which seems to be as I've indicated above. (I think.) | |||
| :: OOPS. I have just figured out the problem. My apologies! I moved the page for you just fine, but I made some of the links from this page go to the talk page of W. Kehler. Sorry; my mistake. It's nothing to do with hide/show; it is actually about namespaces. I will fix up the links. The problem is a bit subtle. There are several different "]s" in wikipedia, including a "User" space, and a "User talk" space. In this way, there is the "W. Kehler" page in my user space, and the "W. Kehler" discussion page in my "User talk" space. It is analogous to articles in the "Main" space, and discussion pages in the "Talk" space. Stand by. Links being fixed now. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) All fixed. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : But hey. I'm going to be interested to see if anyone else speaks up. I've refrained from saying any of this on the discussion, in line with the solemn teachings of DGAF. Be well, and keep up the good work. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 10:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| PLEASE look into my a bit restored new page to understand a bit my allergy, especially to "mainstream experts", ok? ] 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Whould you please have a look at any map and see that: from the Kaspian Sea (moving to the West), Azerbaijan goes first, Armenia goes second which means that Azerbaijan (moving to the West from the Kaspian) is '''more distant''' from Europe. Moreover, land boundary of Europe and Asia is Northern Caucas Mountains. So all three countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) are '''below''' this boundary. So they are Southern Caucas countries and they are in Asia. Northern Caucas belongs to Russia (to its european part)... As for Turkey: only 3 % of Turkish territory is in Europe (Istanbul), 97% - in Asia. Cyprus is on an Asian tectonic platform. So Cyprus is in Asia (in the Middle East). Geography remains relevant. But politics is irrelevant... Thanx! --] (]) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) P.S.: you may delete my post as you usually do when smth does not correspond to your conceptions... | |||
| : I have seen your new user page. Best of luck with it. You can use your page to tell people a bit about yourself, which sometimes helps. Cheers ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Dimitree, I have not ever deleted your posts or comments, and have no intention of starting to do any such thing. If you think otherwise you may provide a dif. | |||
| === Unique WIKI-ID also for changing IP's? === | |||
| ::: FOR UNDERSTANDING: I'm only "W.Kehler". | |||
| ::: Our Astro club has got old WIN98 equipment 500 Mhz working perfectly after tunings. | |||
| ::: I personally mainly try to act there with my 2.5Ghz XP-Lap. | |||
| ::: You are merely repeating your view above, which I understand. This view is not the only view around. Some time I may comment further on the boundary between Europe and Asia in the Caucasus region, as there have been many divisions proposed over the years by different authorities, based on geography. However, I do not have a big stake in this. I am mainly here to try and help editors resolve a dispute. My conception is not important, and I have not ever removed '''''anything''''' in these debates because of a different conception of what the solution should be. | |||
| ::: QUESTION: Could I sign-on WIKI also with changing IP? | |||
| ::: You know: I used my father's PC with his DSL and Email at his home. | |||
| ::: When I'll get a stable DSL (promised by AOL since 3 y.) for my home by T-COM in "flat country", our club will have a sponsored gratis LINUX-server. | |||
| ::: My only concern with this issue is to help editors work together better. I am concerned with issues such as assuming good faith, civility, and edit warring, for all participants, in the hope that you can all work together better. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: QUESTION: Can I act then either from my home and from that LINUX server with one WIKI-ID? | |||
| ::: Could "my page" than(!) be transferred with a tempory later erased link from the old one? | |||
| :::: U r right: u r trying to help '''editor''' (not editors) supporting ]. It is not objective and it is evident (I do not even talk about your endless and useless notations to me). As for deletion: and . That is all. There is always only one truth regardless the question we are talking. There are no 2 or 3 truths, because it is already a question of double standards. That is all. Nothing personal... --] (]) 16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "Our" 3 clubs (sections) are distributed in a circle of until 100 miles. Nearly half of our section's experts (mainly resigning but still a bit partly active pensioners) are more near to me than to club's centre. Could they act either here or there e.g. with different IPs but one new club's WIKI-ID only? ] 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Dimitree, I think you have misunderstood both those edits. Neither one removes anything of yours, and neither one removes anything to do with airline destinations. | |||
| : Each person should have their own individual account. Misplaced Pages does not allow shared accounts, and such accounts are likely to be blocked. You can read more details at ]. I have nothing personally to do with that rule. I think it is a sensible rule, but what I think doesn't matter. I still recommend obtaining an account, but it's up to you of course. | |||
| :::::* The first link you give is to an edit in which I deleted a personal attack by a well known sock puppet who is using multiple IP addresses. Such edits tend to be removed on sight by anyone, and the IP gets blocked if it continues to be a source of edits. Note that this user is leaving similar one line personal attacks on many different talk pages with closely related range of IP addresses. Removing such attacks is normal; it has nothing particular to do with you. Check the relevant talk page: ]. The IP has been blocked, but not by me. | |||
| :::::* The second link is to an edit of YOURS, not mine. I have never moved any country between continents at any time in these discussions. My edit was simply to fix a problem with indentation. Here my own actual edit is . LOOK at it for heaven's sake. All it does is line up the countries to a common indentation level, because the indentation got mixed up at some point. I moved nothing; and I have not taken any part in the edit wars on these articles. | |||
| ::::: I repeat; I have no stake in the content. I am concerned only with helping ALL editors engage the topic with appropriate civility and good faith, and without edit warring. I have certainly not tried to modify articles in favour of one side OR the other. That's the honest truth. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 03:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* I see. Thank you. --] (]) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : There is nothing to stop you using an account through a dynamic ID. You get the same access to your own user space whichever IP address you happened to be using at the time. All your information is stored here at the Misplaced Pages servers, so it makes no difference whether you access Misplaced Pages from home, or from a club, or from an internet cafe, or anywhere you like. There is nothing to transfer. | |||
| ::: Thanks, I'll do so soon, at club only with our Administrator in vacancy for 3 weeks (since Friday?). To next page: WELL DONE! ] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:::::: Glad we are on the same page again! ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Noticeboard appeal == | |||
| The ongoing discussion is now at ]. This subpage is under tighter editorial control. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please see my appeal at the noticeboard. I was known as MoonHoaxBat, but for abusing (i.e. appealing) on my talk page, I had no way to find out how to appeal to ArbCom. I would appreciate it if you could see the noticeboard. I am notifying you because I am not trying to slip something past the community.--] (]) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Physics discussion moved == | |||
| Re: your post on the noticeboard. I am willing to not file a complaint against Ratel. I can understand your position on this. I found his comments offensive, but I trust that someone else will take up getting them removed. I don't need to get involved. I also consent to any kind of check you need to do on whether I am RJ11 of years past. Thanks,--] (]) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As I said previously () I am not going to have debate over basic physics in my user talk space. Sorry, but that's firm. More material was added to the section, so I have transferred the whole thing over to ]. I will have some time to say more there, later; but not right now, and not on this page. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks for signing unsigned comment== | |||
| == Ellenberger NPOV dispute == | |||
| Thanks for signing the Dougmac7 comment; appreciate it.--] (]) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You added the NPOV dispute tag to the ] page--but I don't see any discussion on the talk page that explains what is disputed. I think the page has shaped up and is looking pretty good now--is there still something that merits that tag? ] 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Assume Good Faith == | |||
| : Hi Jim! I think there is. I put a brief comment on the discussion page last month to point out my concern, and I don't see it addressed as yet. The problem is that I might simply be wrong, and I don't have the time to check out all the background to put up a proper response. I simply don't have time over the next few days to do much, but I might try and put another comment in the discussion page. Of all the people best able to address my concerns, you'd be at the top of the list. Suggest further discussion should be in the article page, rather than here. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The changes are . | |||
| == Re: Military navigation templates in th Hundred Years War == | |||
| {{Resolved|''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| Yep, there were some template changes going on today; see ]. I don't see anything particularly wrong with leaving everything inside a single div, but it should be safe to remove it if you'd like to simplify the markup there. Thanks! ] 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please look at and ].] (]) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm putting if off just for a bit. I'd appreciate your help on another issue. When you have a lot of floating boxes stacked up on the right hand side of the page, they seem to have bad consequences for the placement of "edit" tags on other sections. Basically, the stacking seems to be achieved using style="clear: both;" in the CSS. The section "edit" tags, which align to the right, end up being pushed below all the floating boxes except the last, which is very ugly. I have resolved this problem on my own user page by wrapping up all the stacked boxes within a single container box. | |||
| : I do assume you are working in good faith, and I have not reverted anything of yours so far, for any reason at all. So this is an odd comment for you to be making. | |||
| : This issue is a problem at ]. There is an Info box and four campaign boxes there at present, all floating to the right, and they cause the "edit" tags to stack up on my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.6). But when the "div" element is in place, the "edit" tags are correctly placed. | |||
| : I |
: On the other hand, I do disagree with what you are doing, and how you are doing it; as has every single other editor who has seen it as far as I can tell. I have explained the problem as I see it in the talk pages, at this link you have provided just above. ''That'' is where you should be taking this discussion; not here please. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 07:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Is your uncomfortability with my reporting?] (]) 08:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes on both counts; see ]. ;-) ] 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
::: Frankly, there are many aspects of this that concern me somewhat, but we don't need to talk about it here, please. I do assume your good faith, and I have not as yet reverted anything you have added to wikipedia. I've commented on matters relating to your proposals in the appropriate general discussion pages, as you have also. That's the right place this discussion. That is where we focus on the substance and not on individual editors or motives, and also where others impacted may be involved more naturally. OK? It's best not to carry on a dispute over too many different pages. Best wishes ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' | ||
| ::::I just read your post on ]. Actually, I appreciate and thank you for linking those wikipediaspace pages. I had no idea they existed, (except for the policy page, I just never read down there). I will abide by them in the future. As for Misplaced Pages talk:When to use tables, it seems I'm the major contributor to the discussions, with major changes already written. I assume that the discussion will start from my first post.] (]) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Oil and water== | |||
| It seems that assuming good faith, ], and the ] (pro-wrestling project) are like oil and water. I have been contributing to this site for many months now, and the only group of people who find it necessary to harass when BLP policy is applied are members of the pro-wrestling project. If you don't believe me, take 5 biographies of living people which are poorly sourced or not sourecd at all. Choose 4 at random, and then 1 pro-wrestling biography. Try to clean them up and remove unverified material and see what happens for yourself. ] 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Really? Have you tried to do this to other biographies of oh say, the football WikiProject or the basketball WikiProject? No, you haven't, and I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised when messages come to your talk page about if you tried. I have no problem when someone tries to help pro wrestling articles, but blanking them when they are already tagged as needing sources, is wrong. — ] ] 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::::: No problem. I don't plan to involve myself in that discussion. I came in because of reports made at dispute resolution pages, and as long as editors are working together well, I'll drop out again and leave you guys to it. Good luck. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::Ok, I won't furthur comment here, outside this comment. :p Thank you for you're time. — ] ] 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === A second request on table guidelines === | |||
| ==Why Are you deleting the facilities section== | |||
| I know that my past discussions give people a biased view as to why I am changing the guide line. I have stopped discussion in those fora. Please discuss the changes that you don't feel should be included in the guideline. Also, please specifically tell me how much time I should wait until I should change the guideline.] (]) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Why are you deleting the list of facilities? Certainly the physical locations are necessary. Also, some of the information included in the article was to answer objections of verifiability. Those pieces of text were to be deleted once it was agreed that the sources were properly cited. | |||
| ] 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : You just have to get a consensus for the changes. You do that in the talk page of the guideline, not here. The onus is on YOU to explain <u>clearly</u> what changes you think should be in the guideline. It is in your interest to be persuasive, and argumentative is rarely persuasive. At present, it is really hard to follow what you are even saying. | |||
| : Please keep this discussion on the talk page of the article itself. Also, when adding new stuff to talk pages, it should go at the bottom, rather than the top. It's no big deal, but it is best to stick to accepted conventions. I'll be moving this bit soon as well. Further discussion on my talk page is not welcome, however; let's keep it where everyone will see it. Thanks ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I have no particular stake in this. I am only here because there is a problem with editors working together. | |||
| == An award == | |||
| : Here's a suggestion, which I don't mean as an attack, but as something that may help. You've raised this in all kinds of different forums, quite inappropriately. You have, for example, raised this at wikiquette alters ] and at ]. In both those discussions, all the neutral input from other editors says that you are the one who is the problem. I concur with that general viewpoint; so far you haven't been following the long accepted and well tested wikipedia conventions for how we all try to get along and work together on the encyclopedia. I became involved because of the WQA alert, and wikiquette is my concern; not tables per se. | |||
| ] | |||
| : My advice: you should stop reporting people. You should stop trying to modify guidelines until you have clearly obtained a concensus. You have to accept that you might not get a consensus. If you don't get the consensus, then you NEVER get alter the guideline; it's not a matter of waiting long enough! At this point it certainly seems unlikely. I also recommend you stop trying to modify ], as your changes to this essay are quite properly disputed, and ALSO look like trying to game the system. The reverts to your changes are NOT simply due to "no consensus" and nothing else. People <u>have</u> explained why they don't like your changes, and unless and until you get consensus, your changes are not going to take place. Don't try to get consensus by talking about it at a whole lot of different user talk pages. Don't try to get consensus by reporting people at dispute resolution pages when then disagree with you in good faith and edit appropriately in consequence. | |||
| Please don't burn out Duae. You have taken on a lot in a short period of time (I.E. ] and ] and elsewhere). Keep up the good work and stay strong. <!--I don't know how you deal with Kehler, but don't hurt yourself, I tried to talk to him on Jimbo's page (that or deepblue, I am not sure) and I was rather drained. This message should probably be deleted, I don't want to offend Kehler, just wish you the best. :) --> Cheers —]<sup>]</sup> 01:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Good luck with it all. I appreciate you are sincere in trying to work with the system, and mean this as friendly advice. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="text-align: right"><small>(Superscripts marked "tables" are clickable links to a numbered response below.''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 10:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC))</small></div> | |||
| <!-- This ensures new topics drop below the floating box --> | |||
| ::I have clearly mentioned what is wrong with page. It is up to the interested parties to query me more for more information.<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">Certainly not. People have already explained why they think your account of what was allegedly wrong was the page is itself incorrect. The onus is not on them to persuade you to agree. I think the real problem is that people just '''don't agree with you''' i.e. no consensus. Hence: no change.</ref> | |||
| <div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
| ::Please look at this . Why is it that my edits require consensus, when I HAVE discussed my changes?. (Oh, and don't go reverting that change; I agree with it).<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">In the case you have linked, no-one objected. In your case, they did. THAT'S the difference. Furthermore, you '''already knew''' from previous discussions on other pages that your perspective on tables is disputed! There's nothing wrong with being bold, even on a guideline, to start off with. If you get reverted, then stop editing and proceed to the talk page. Having been reverted, you should not make further changes to the guideline until the consensus is explicit. See ].</ref> | |||
| == Cheers == | |||
| ::I would like to believe you don't have legal interest either any of the issues that you have started reverting on, but precisely because you have done this, it makes me wonder..<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">Your reluctance to assume good faith is a big part of what is causing you problems. The only way this can change if you change it. That means deliberately assuming good faith for as long as you possibly can. i.e. No prejudicial speculations about other people until it is obvious to everyone that there is a lack of good faith involved.</ref> | |||
| Cheers for fixing my talk page. I've never had anything to do with that user or any articles remotely related to that topic, so I think you're right that it was random canvassing. Have a nice day, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">]</font> <sup>(])</sup> 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please do not think I have raised issues with editors inappropriately. I think they were edit warring, with invested interest, which is reason to report bad faith behavior.<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">I am certain that you have raised issues with editors inappropriately. You have been told this now by a number of neutral editors in the reports I listed above. You may well have reported in good faith; but you don't yet understand what is appropriate and what isn't. It's long past time when you need to stop and think to yourself: ''"Wow. Perhaps this wasn't appropriate."'' That's learning.</ref> | |||
| == Thanks... == | |||
| ]For boiling down the debate at ] to its core principles. It seems to have brought reason back into the room. ] ] 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Although the input maybe neutral, I still feel he was discriminating against me. I think that's hard to persuade. | |||
| :: Thank you very much. I especially value this comment given that we have some disagreements on images, and I'm delighted to see that they can be pursued cordially and with mutual regard. I have also made a suggestion for a similar addition to be made to the guideline itself. See ]. Revisions, suggestions, and comment are welcome. I said earlier one of the image talk pages I was contemplating taking up the issue more generally; this stands as the most constructive and helpful way I could think of for doing that. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I totally agree that the issue is a thorny one. The ArbCom addressed some of these issues in ], but ] is going to be a constant source of tension between free-content advocates on the one side, and people who care deeply about particular articles on the other. With respect, and best regards - ] ] 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I have been following civil behaviors editing. You are not the only one who have mentioned that they believe I have been acting in good faith. | |||
| == A concern == | |||
| ::I have stopped reporting people. | |||
| Greetings. We obviously have much in common: an interest in non-free content, a desire to consistently uphold policy, etc. It's always good to work with someone who cares about our policy and understands why it's important. Even if we disagree on how policy should be interpreted or applied in certain cases, I'd like to consider you an ally. But there have been several instances lately where you have stated that I have an interest in changing the meaning of NFCC #8. I think you've been misrepresenting my views on the subject. I don't want NFCC #8 to mean anything more than what it says, and I honestly don't have any ulterior agenda. If I sometimes paraphrase "this image does not convey significant encyclopedic information, beyond what could be expressed by words alone" as "this image isn't essential for understanding the topic", I really don't mean that I want the criterion revised. I have advocated keeping many, many images which were not truly necessary for fully understanding the topic, but that nonetheless provided important encyclopedic information that could not be adequately conveyed by text alone. I hope we can assume good faith about each other, and work together on these cases. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Concerning guideline modification, don't you think you owe me a reply if you don't feel when I said "I assume that the discussion will start from my first post" applied?<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">Of course I don't owe you a reply. I already told you that I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be. That WAS my reply. I stepped in to the talk page discussion to emphasize ]; I don't "owe" you a response on anything else! The situation on guideline modification is pretty dammed clear. You can be bold, to start off with, if you like. People can revert you if they don't agree; especially in a guideline. After this, '''stop''' editing and start talking. There is no guarantee that by arguing long enough you will prevail; nor are people obliged to continue to respond to your arguments indefinitely. I am not going to argue the policy with you, and I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be.</ref> | |||
| : I was half way through composing a comment for your talk page! It is currently too long; I am trying to prune it. I'll put it here instead, soon. I did not want to take up the other pages with it; I'm glad you apparently feel the same way. | |||
| ::I want to stress the significance of not waring on the previous points of contention that I had with previous editors. I have accepted some points that I could not get consensus for. Some edits on pages that I used to edit I no longer edit. I just have a very aggressive editing manner.<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">Consider adjusting your editing manner. Misplaced Pages is based on consensus, and I think this aggression is making life harder for you.</ref> | |||
| : I do most certainly think that your paraphrases of the guideline pragmatically constitute a change to policy. You've said that you do paraphrase. I accept that you are trying in good faith to capture the intent. I think your attempts fail, and constitute a misrepresentation of policy. Not a malicious one; not an insincere desire to impose change. But a failure of comprehension all the same. The example you give is dreadful; a major difference in meaning that is likely to work to the detriment of the goal given in the guideline of a free high-quality encyclopedia. | |||
| ::Please compare . This edit says alot.<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">I don't particularly understand or care what you think about this edit; it is not to a guideline in any case, but to an essay. I don't see any particular problems with any of the recent edits there.</ref> | |||
| : Or perhaps I have the failure of comprehension. What I would like to occur is either for the guideline and policy wording to be strengthened, to match up better with the ways in which you describe it, since I think there does need to be a strengthening for your paraphrases to be the natural reading. Either that or I would like the guideline to give a clearer recognition that "significant increase" does not mean something fundamental to the whole topic, but another significant contribution to the whole, comparable to a significant paragraph or equation or quotation or any of the other items brought to articles to help a reader develop their understanding of a topic. Something which omitted would be a genuine detriment to the article's substance; but not a total demolition of the substance. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please look at the discussions I've started. I makes me confused: how is it possible that people are objecting to the changes, if they don't even discuss their concerns? Canvassing is inappropriate. Obviously, I am opposing the current version of the page. There's already objection to the current version. I think due process should be given in this case.<!--response as ref--><ref group="tables">There has been a fair bit of discussion across a range of pages already, and what you have on the talk page mostly misses the point. The thrust of the guideline is that you should avoid tables, if something simpler works. You apparently want to use them more widely; but I don't see any clear argument for this, other than that you like it. Responses have already pointed out that the sentences you described as "vague" are not as vague as you suggest, and that there's no POV problem. The ] is a policy on '''encyclopedic content'''. That is, they think your description of "what is wrong with the page" is itself incorrect. The due process has occurred, the discussion was engaged, and you did not get consensus. You can try and make your case again, explaining better <u>why</u> your changes are an improvement; but people are not obliged to keep going around this with you indefinitely.</ref> | |||
| :: OK, here goes. Didn't have time to make it shorter, sorry. :-) | |||
| ::When I was reporting people, they were edit warring because they did not discuss their concerns.] (]) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the ''']''', you said: | |||
| {{Messagebox|Reply: I don't advocate expanding the definition of NFCC #8. I don't believe that a reasonable person would read the text of the article, and then see the magazine cover, and say "Now that I see the actual magazine cover I have a significantly enhanced understanding of the matter." You're misrepresenting my position, as you have in several deletion debates previously.}} | |||
| ::: If you don't like or don't trust my advice, then stop asking for it. You can always solicit advice from ] or ], as advice, without making it a report against someone else. I am pretty sure that just like before, you will be told that you are actually the one who is a problem here. But for what it is worth, here is yet another attempt to explain. It is referenced back to your comments, so that you can click between your comment and my response: | |||
| ::I object to the notion that I am "misrepresenting" your position. I'm giving an honest description of how I see it. You're so close to dealing with disagreement on this with a fair recognition that there actually is honest disagreement. Just now I nearly dropped this rant in the discussion, with an associated AARGHH.... which would not have helped. :-) | |||
| <div style="margin-left:5em;"><references group="tables" /></div> | |||
| :::''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 10:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, ], another cool link. I didn't know it existed before: thanks for showing me it. I apologize for all the trespasses I've tread instead of going to it. | |||
| ::I am in good faith describing what I see your position as doing; and it is disruptive to demand that I refrain from expressing this view of the problems I see with your position. You can't object to that as "misrepretation" unless you are just wanting to stifle all critical evaluation that fails to fall over and see things as you do. I appreciate that you disagree with me on the appropriate use of non-free images and their impact on understanding; but we DO disagree. Let's allow that we disagree! I am not saying that you do this with any malicious intent; I've appreciated some of your positive words. | |||
| ::::#They did not explain why they did not agree with me. I just don't like it is not an argument, they have to explain why they don't like it. Otherwise their edits are unconstructive.] (]) 05:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: No; they DON'T have to explain. There <u>are</u> responses on the page and others are not obliged to keep going until you personally are satisfied. | |||
| :::::: You still have the onus backwards. This is a guideline, and so the onus is on the person proposing a change to make a ''persuasive'' argument. If other people don't like the change, then that's too bad for the change. Other editors DON'T have any onus at all to get you to understand why they disagree. | |||
| ::The guideline recognizes a tension between high quality and the principle of free use. The ''']''' supports both principles, and recognizes that sometimes there is a conflict between them. What the guideline demands from a non-free image is "significant increased understanding". There's no notion there of "full understanding" at all; I don't think any such abstraction exists. In the kinds of topics we look at there is a scope for study and investigation to give increased understanding almost indefinitely, without ever reaching such a thing as "full" understanding. The policy does not say anything about "full" understanding. It speaks of "increase". | |||
| :::::: You have been told now by multiple neutral observers that you are wrong to accuse others of "unconstructive edits". You were actually the problem; not others -- because you persisted in making changes to the guideline long after it was clear you had no consensus, and you make it worse insisting incorrectly that others have to justify their reverts. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::For example... I certainly do consider that the Time magazine cover gives significant increased understanding of the issue. It does it in several ways. There is also explicit precedent for recognition that a magazine cover can give a significant increased understanding, using a comparable example. The example in the guideline is the Demi Moore Vanity Fair cover. It shows a profile shot of Demi Moore from thigh to head, standing naked and pregnant with one arm over her breasts and the other cradling her swollen abdomen. That text description gives you a fair understanding of the cover, but not nearly as good as seeing it for yourself. Seeing the image evidently gives increased understanding '''under the guideline'''. That kind of cover is identified as possibly admissible. The question is going to be how much significance is enough, I guess, but the bland dismissal of significance at all, or the imposition of impossible hurdles, contrasts with the phrasing of policy and the chosen illustrations in the guideline. | |||
| <div class="NavFrame collapsed"> | |||
| <div class="NavHead" style="text-align: left">Arguments submitted by 174.3.102.6 on tables and lists, Nov 17.</div> | |||
| <div class="NavContent" style="text-align: left;"> | |||
| ::::Regarding your point 1: They explained what they don't understand, but I don't understand what they don't understand.] (]) 05:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It really ought to be plain as a pikestaff that images often give significant increased understanding; that's why they are so useful in a high quality reference. If it wasn't for the fact we are discussing non-free images where some folks want to set almost impossibly high hurdles, this would not be controversial at all. Images like the naked Demi Moore cover or the Evolution Wars cover employ carefully chosen and constructed iconography, which plainly gives increased understanding. Now I appreciate that you might want to argue the toss about just how significant it has to be; but with the example of Demi Moore explicit in the guideline, I think you are very thin ice indeed to say that the iconography of the Time cover does not also provide comparable increased understanding in the same way. Both issues are significant cultural objects in their own right, directly relevant to the article topic. Other ways in which understanding is increased include an understanding for identification of the magazine, which is likely to be relevant for readers of the wikipedia article who might want to look it up in a stack of magazines at a library or somewhere like that; or the increased understanding by virtue of the natural speed and efficiency with which humans process and recall visual information pertinent to the topic, and so on. The role of identification is also explicit in the guideline as relevant. | |||
| ::::Please note both cases are completely different: Touhou Project's prose might just not fit well in a table. My proposed changes to the guideline does not affect the application of tables in articles. | |||
| ::These submissions should be recognized as good faith attempts to meet the policy. You can argue the extent of significance, or that the the significance is insufficient to override the principle of free use. I cordially disagree. But I don't consider it fair to the guideline or to the debate merely to dismiss out of hand the explanations as unworthy of even being considered in the balance. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regarding point 2:"Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly delineated with headings categorically in a statistical manner." is my sentence. It does not say EXPLICITLY THAT ALL information should be put in tables. In this sentence, it just says that information like data should be put in table, which makes it more intuitive to read. Chemistry, biology, physics, and sometimes, data such as shows like ]. Not all information belongs in a table. And it needs to be taken on a case by case procedure. People CURRENTLY believe the prose does not belong in a table, then I can't fight it.] (]) 05:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Duae, I think the Demi Moore example may not be a good one. The difference there is that '''the cover itself''' was the subject of media commentary, parodies, copycat works, etc. It would be inappropriate in an article about ], for example. I don't see that was commentary on the '''covers''' of the specific magazines or books that are the subject of our debate. Sorry to butt in, just my two cents. Respectfully - ] ] 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Often a list is best left as a list." This sentence is POV because | |||
| :::: The cover is the critical point here as well! Look, the Time magazine article is not particularly important for its textual content. There are better sources than that. It is the very matter of a Times front cover recognition of religious dimensions to the controversy that is so significant. The particular emphasis provided by the iconography of the article is significant because of the whole matter of whether the controversy is a scientific debate or whether ID is inseparably linked with religion. One of the controversial and very damaging (for ID) features of the Kitzmiller decision is the answer it gives to the question posed on the cover, both as text and as iconography. And the article is focused on that case, with the cover itself bringing to national prominence the question that ID advocates wanted out of the arena. | |||
| ::::*It does not describe why they are best left as a list | |||
| :::: I'm happy for the image to be judged on its merits. I consider this particular image to be about as well supported as any cover image could be! I would have thought it actually beats out the Vanity Fair example, in that the iconography is so much more pointed and so much more pertinent to major issues in the article. But perhaps that's just my interest in the topic. What really cheeses me off, however, is endless outright dismissals any need even to CONSIDER the value of the images to understanding, based on what I see as highly strained interpretations of a policy text that naturally understood should allow that there is a case here worthy of consideration. I want to assume good faith, I really do. But its becoming disruptive and vexatious the way this is being pursued. I really want this dealt with officially. Ideally I'd like the proper application of the guideline to be nailed down so that either you guys get brought back what is implied, or I do. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*It lends undue weight to lists | |||
| ::::: Hang in there, my friend! By the time we resolve this, you'll be a Misplaced Pages image policy expert, too! ;) You know, I was going to say that the ] cover had ''sourced'' commentary on the cover's cultural impact, but the statements in that paragraph are "citation needed"! How ironic - we really need to fix this, as that image is cited so often as an acceptable example of non-free magazine cover use. Anyway, the difference is that the ] article doesn't have any commentary on ''that particular'' ''Time'' magazine cover. That is the position that the deletion advocates are arguing from, and it has been generally accepted in previous deletion discussions, as identifying a ''particular copyrighted work'' (paraphrasing from the Foundation resolution). The people on the other side are saying, essentially, that the controversy on intelligent design is not "a particular copyrighted work", and thus doesn't need a copyrighted image to identify it. Am I explaining this well, or am I just confusing the issue more? ] ] 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Each case should be taken on a case-by-case status | |||
| ::::*If taken out, the guideline will be more clear, direct, and useful] (]) 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I understand just fine. But you are simply mistaken, understandably. The article does have commentary specifically on that cover, because I added it myself a few days ago. In my view the cover image stands alone as giving understanding in its own right, with the significance and relevance immediately apparent. But I was advised that there should be some additional text, so I added that also, and the article is improved as a result. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The counter-argument that is being made is that a picture of the cover in question is not necessary to understand the text as written, and there are no sources to show that this particular cover was notable or had any impact on society or on the debate. (Please understand that I'm not trying to argue with you here, just trying to explain the opposite side's position.) ] ] 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*"Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table." | |||
| :::::::: These arguments are so disruptive to the encyclopedia and injurious to the atmophere of co-operation because they keep going around in circles. I don't even see that this counter-argument is relevant. It appears to be founded on wording that simply does not appear in the policy. | |||
| ::::* "..., and is not really what tables were designed to do" | |||
| ::::According to ], it says that guidelines "should ... emphasize the spirit of the rule. Verbosity is not a defense against misinterpretation. Be unambiguous and specific: avoid platitudes and generalities." which is logical to take out those sentences. | |||
| :::::::: We have that word "necessary" to understanding yet again. There's no such implication in the policy. We now have a "Verifiabilty" argument, that the cover must be shown to be notable by some additional reliable source. I don't think that would be hard to find, but it's simply not part of the policy requirements. Does the image give increased understanding? Yes it does. Would removing the image be to the detriment of understanding? Yes it would. Is there a free alternative available? No, there isn't. And so on. The image itself is from a reliable source, significant in its own right, considered in the text, contributing to understanding, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. I don't mind addressing the policy issues. But that is not where it ends. | |||
| :::::::: These endless hoops, many of which are being pretty much pulled out of thin air, seem to not actually be about policy itself, but about a firm belief that every possible obstacle should be put in the way of non-free images. The policy, however, recognizes a trade off between quality and free-use, without giving one precedence over the other. And there is now another problem; the sheer volume of issues being raised, taking up everyone's time that would be better spent on the encyclopedia, fostering ill-will and irritation, and basically sending the whole operation to hell-in-a-handbasket. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think that's why some people feel that non-free content should be eliminated completely, like the German Misplaced Pages. (That's not my position, by the way.) I don't think you and I will come to agreement on this issue, but I hope we can continue to work together in an amicable way. Regards - ] ] 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the === Simple lists === and it's paragraph, it's just not true. It really depends on the case. Some "lists" are better organized in a table. As I've mentioned before, some biological or cultural data may be best put in a table or, even though it seems "simple" (in this case). | |||
| :::::::::: I don't see any real lasting obstacle to working together. I also think that you and I and Quadell coming to an agreement together here on this user talk page is not going to be all that significant. Pleasant; perhaps, but not much more. I suspect we will normally not be overlapping much at all. | |||
| The new sections that I put in helps to explain when tables are useful and when they are not. The rationale sections help to divide the reasons behind the bylaws so readers can more easily understand and follow them. | |||
| :::::::::: Right now the need is for a much broader level of agreement that will help not just the three of us work well together, but address the corrosive effects of the disagreement on concord throughout the whole community. I'm pleased to see you brought up the matters at the guideline discussion page. That is where there needs to be some resolution, even if limited, of such things as use of the word "necessary" and an alleged need to document notability in the same way as we require for content claims in main space articles. Cheers ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I totally agree. I want to thank you, by the way, for your valuable work on article authorship. (Believe it or not, my primary work is not image patrolling, but obtaining free images from copyright holders, as shown on my userpage. I just help with image patrolling because they're shorthanded and backlogged.) I think ] is an example of the high quality that Misplaced Pages can produce. Best wishes to you, my friend, and please don't hesitate to drop me a line if there is ever anything I can do to help you. ] ] 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <p>Just noticed this. It's great to see the three of y'all talking in one place. Agreed that the lack of clarity about "free/non-free", "fair-use/NFC", "public domain/free-license", etc. etc. has an unnecessarily corrosive effect on user relationships. I believe this will take some time, perhaps months, maybe more, to sort out myth and ideology from fact regarding copyright, public domain, free-license, EDP for NFC and such, and allow regular participants in the image-and-media-files department of WP to get a better footing in copyright issues to guide the assessments of NFCCs and NFC in general. For the moment, I'd like to take some time away from the discussion to assemble some thoughts to present to the "only-free-license" and "no-fair-use" advocates. Among the problems are that free-licenses today frequently carry more restrictions than does valid "fair use/fair dealing" and public domain material with an expired copyright. Another issue here is the validity of the free licenses themselves, which often are presented not under the legal names of the persons claiming to grant free license, but instead online pseudonyms of various kinds, in addition to other widespread errors with free licenses. Further, no one has rights to license something in the public domain under a free-license. And a bunch of other things. Bottom line is, I suspect, that the appeal of the words "free content" and "free license" is illusory and misleading in many ways. Quadell and myself will, I imagine, be arguing intensively over certain practical and procedural issues in the near future, and likely also exchanging more notes and ideally some case-law examples of how courts have interpreted public domain and fair-use issues. Somewhere at the end of that, I think, is a more informed, more coherent conceptual framework that will enhance this aspect of the project-- at least that is my hope. Again, I'm gratified to see this exchange here. Good regards, ] 00:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The reason I used a table that you can use in toolbar is to encourage a more widespread use of tables (the button in the toolbar increases access and ease-of-access) in the toolbar. The reason I used merge was so it can help demonstrate the use of merge.] (]) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for the interjection... == | |||
| The reason I used a prose example is because the prose example is almost where a table should never be used.] (]) 06:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ... at the WQA between {{user-c|Jiejunkong}} and {{user-c|Cydevil38}}. I'd reached the point where I had no idea how to respond to him anymore. I suppose I need more practice in dispute resolution... heh. Thanks again. --] (]) 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| :::::: <u>'''Take it to the bloody talk page for the guideline'''</u>. This argument does not belong on my talk page; I don't matter. | |||
| == Just a note regarding the Children of the Century dispute == | |||
| :::::: As a point of information, the POV argument is silly. The wikipedia requirement for neutrality is only for '''encyclopedic content'''. See ]. A guideline is not encyclopedic content. OK? Any policy or guideline is necessarily taking a stand for how to write the encyclopedia. Guidelines do express stylistic preferences, intended to give a consistent style that is easy to use and maintain. Saying that a guideline is "POV" simply fails to understand the relevance or significance of POV in an encyclopedia. | |||
| You should not use the IMDb's naming conventions as a point of reference regarding the title for a simple reason: IMDb ''always'' uses the original language title no matter what. Our conventions are not identical on that point. As far as the DVDs go, it is my understanding that the Region 2 disc is no longer in print. Which leaves only the R1 as the sole source in circulation. You might also want to peruse discussions about this which have recently been raised in ], because there is a disparity between ] and ] which has been recognized. It seems to me, however, that the Films project discussion created a consensus for Children of the Century. Anyway, I'm not entering the Children of the Century discussion anymore because I don't believe that Dohanlon will ever yield even were there overwhelming consensus in the other direction, and I believe his edit history speaks to that. ] 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I have no particular comment on other details in the rest of your argument. It's a waste of time putting it here. | |||
| : I'm fine with that. I did find it very odd that someone is thinking IMDB is actually evidence that the premiere and release in the UK did not retain the original French title, however! Ah well. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Just keep in mind that you have to actually be <u>persuasive</u>. Aggression will backfire. This guideline impacts all of wikipedia, so you should make your argument self contained and easy to follow for someone coming to the page for the first time. It should be calm, and clear, and needs to start afresh in a new section. It would be sensible to give on the talk page the key new text you propose to add into the guideline, and focus on what is good about it. It needs to be clear what change you are proposing to make, not merely what you don't like about the current version. People have to LIKE your change, or it won't get consensus. | |||
| == Dispute Question == | |||
| Per WP:LEGAL, should I be asking Mr. Young to retract his threat to press charges? I do apologize for debating in the Wikiquette page, but if I don't, I'm worried that he'll drown out my WP:NPA and WP:HARASS complaints by posting his conspiracy theory about my "Supercentenarian Holocaust." He also lists facts that are either misrepresented or made up that I feel like I have to defend myself against because they are accusations. Cheers, ] 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Your previous attempt on Nov 7 () was calm and clear, but unpersuasive. The POV point was silly, and the sentence you called "vague" is not vague at all. You did not explain what you proposed to replace it with. People DID respond to this, and they are not obliged to keep responding to you until you change your mind. Beyond that, your argument on Nov 7 boiled down to "I don't like" having a preference expressed for simple lists. | |||
| :: It is awfully hard to figure out what is going on. Ryoung122 brought the original alert, so it is probably sensible to make some kind of comment yourself in response. | |||
| :::::: Try again, if you like. But people are <u>not</u> obliged to keep going around the mill with you on this. If no-one else likes your changes, then you don't have consensus. It's that simple. But <s>for the love of Harry</s> please, '''go away''' and stop trying to make the argument on my talk page. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I will probably try to manage this, at first, by the simple expedient of boxing up long rambling diatribes and dumping them into the NavFrame, or something like that. I think you probably need to be ready with a short clear statement of position. If it gets mangled with a lot of counter argument, I'll just clear them out. I want you both to be heard; but as side by side statements, not as an extended blow by blow exchange. I think that will work well for you as well. | |||
| :: |
:::::::* ''Finis''. I have deleted ongoing unwanted badgering; archived as these hard links: , , . ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 07:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| ::: Followup. I had a quick glance through the exchange, and frankly I don't think you need to worry about legal issues. It looks like a good candidate for a wikiquette alert. A bit of free advice might even clear most of it up. We'll see. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The edits repeatedly made to ] -- made by an anon with a edit history that is entirely nonconstructive -- include obvious and indisputable BLP violations and clear failures to comply with WP:RS. The most conspicuous example is at the end of the first paragraph, where the text accuses not only the article subject, but his father and his sister, of committing serious US/federal crimes. The anon originally left this paragraph unsourced, but later added a "reference" to a randomly chosen page which includes only unrelated derogatory comments about the article subject, and does not mention the supposed criminal activity, or the article subject's father, or the article subject's sister. Adding fake sourcing to a Misplaced Pages article in order to prevent BLP violations from being removed is quite clearly an "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages," which is the definition of ]. The other sources in the article clearly fail WP:RS, as was pointed out in prior discussions, and the anon has made no effort to improve them -- they are blogs, nonindependent claims made on the official Stern site, and a mirror of the article itself. The anon vandal has done nothing to resolve the major problems in the article; instead, he makes superficial, nonconstructive changes and then posts phony attacks on me for refusing to let his vandalism stand. <br> | |||
| == Mr. Neutron's talk page == | |||
| I wouldn't go quite so far as this user's comment does , but I strongly believe that when dealing with a persistent nonconstuctive editor, that repeating the full discussion ad nauseum, whenever the nonconstructive editor pops his/her/its head up again, is simply playing into the hands of people trying to damage Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Although you have clearly decided not to assume any good faith from this editor any further, I personally am of the opinion that it is better with a clear description on the article talk page of the problem, for the benefit of others. That will help. I'll add a comment there to confirm I see the point. Thanks for responding. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Although it sounds reasonable what are you saying, the present situation is particular in a sense that there is an ongoing dispute with the other user, and he is trying to represent me as the impostor, while it was he all the time who acted out of line. If any 'powers that be' read the history of this dispute I want them to have full and unedited sequence of events, which Mr. Neutron is trying sneakily to conceal, and present me as the bad guy. Other than that, I have no problem with him vandalizing his own talk page. | |||
| ::this clearly show that this user does not assume good faith and bites new comers some action needs to be taken against the user.] (]) 01:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] 03:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It shows that the editor does not assume ''your'' good faith. That's unfortunate; but there's some basis for it. I would prefer he does assume good faith; but in reality there does come a point where the assumption of good faith is no longer tenable. I don't think we are there yet. Hullaballoo apparently does. I recommend you simply try to show that you deserve good faith a bit better. That means you set the example; stop referring to his edits as vandalism (they are no such thing), or generalizing about his "antics" (he does a power of useful work on maintaining BLP standards) and start giving more substantive comment about the article itself on the talk page. So far, you've got very little there and what it is seems to be all about your own personal animus with nothing substantive on the article. This doesn't look good. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 02:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : You are way out of line with the ways you are using terms "vandalize". This is not open to debate; you are definitely misusing the term, and that '''''is''''' a personal attack. On this point in isolation, you are in the wrong. If you want to make any progress at all with you other concerns, you need to retract this and stop misusing standard terms in this way. | |||
| ::::I sorry, but i don't care what that user thinks about me if he wants to game the system i can play him at his some game, this user have over 25 documented complaints against here (do a search) that has to means something. The saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander or something. I can watch every edit he makes and nit pick it like he does to me. That is what he is doing] (]) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : In the same way, your insinuations of being "sneaky" are not acceptable, and will also make it harder for anyone to help you. At this point, the way you are pursuing the matter is ending up putting everyone off and making you look like the major problem. | |||
| :::: I also feel he needs to read ] this is what is happing right now! ] (]) 05:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I have had a bit of a look at the page you are concerned about, and I think you might have a point about the content. I am not sure as yet. As a matter of basic advice about getting things cleared up, you might need outside help from neutral observers and possibly administrators. For that to happen, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of sticking carefully to accepted guidelines yourself. Hard though it may be, you are going to have to review the following. | |||
| :* ''']''' Try to put yourself in Mr Neutron's shows. You may think he is mistaken on some points, but you should try your hardest to see if just maybe he also really is trying to work to make a better encyclopedia. I'll tell you frankly, all content matters aside, it looks to me that you both are working in good faith to try and make a better article, but have different ideas of what that might involve. If either of you distract the central content matters with a lot of presumptions that the other side is not working in good faith, then you make yourself in a problem that administrators and observers will be trying to correct. Just like I am now. | |||
| :* ''']''' You can disagree with someone, and you can point out problems with various versions of an article. You can disagree with and be critical of the actions of another editor. But as soon as you start throwing around words like "sneaky", you actually draw attention to yourself and end up being the focus of attention as a likely source of the problems. | |||
| :* ''']''', and ''']'''. These are two foundational principles in Misplaced Pages. If you can make a solid case for change, founded on a credible understanding of those guidelines ''as written'', then you have the best possible hope of change. If you argue for change based on fairness, or on historical accuracy with the presumption that you are one editor with historical accuracy all sewn up, then again you end up being the problem. Understanding these guidelines is the key to making a case in mediation or arbitration situations. | |||
| ::::: In other words, you have ALSO decided to assume the worst rather than assume good faith, and deliberately plan to do what you think is being done to you. What could possibly go wrong? LOL. This, I think, would backfire on you badly. I certainly hope so, if you do deliberately take up such an ill advised course of action. | |||
| : This is intended as a help to you working more effectively at Misplaced Pages. Good luck with it. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I continue to advise you to try and assume good faith yourself, to do better in showing yourself worthy of receiving good faith, and I'll say the same for Hullaballoo. Difference is, he's way WAY better than you at dropping the matter and getting on with work on the encyclopedia. I've told Hullaballoo what I think and we've moved on. Perhaps you and I will do the same. If you move on in the direction you appear to be proposing, you run the risk of getting blocked -- especially as you have pretty clearly indicated here that you plan to disrupt the system to score some kind of point. Bad, bad, bad idea. Don't say I didn't warn you. But do what you must. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 05:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question== | |||
| Someone recently made reference to the Wikimedia Board legal counsel Mike Godwin (also ]) advising against aggressive image deletion of fair-use material that was not contested by the copyright holder, or something to that general effect. I wonder if you've seen it and recall where you saw it? thanks, ... ] 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == You are both at it again. Use the talk page. == | |||
| : Sorry, no, I haven't seen it. My own perspective on this is that there is a hardline group against any use of non-free images at all, who as a compromise want to have the strongest possible interpretation of policy. The policy at the English wikipedia seems to be a kind of exception to a position of the foundation . I suspect that is the issue, rather than any legal concern. It's a kind of determined anti non-free principle for its own sake. I think. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 00:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is there something that can be done when you reverted ] a couple of hours later our friend comes and redirects it again, what can be done to stop? ] (]) 00:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, DuaeQ... . If someone knows where it's posted, I'd appreciate being pointed to it again -- I neglected to bookmark it. ... ] 03:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : What can be done is what I have done. I have asked for, and been given, an adequate description of the problems with the article on its own talk page. You also must STOP saying vandalism. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Furthermore, given the information on the talk page which is easily confirmed, Hullaballoo is correct to say that the article is still unacceptable, still improperly sourced, still a BLP violation. I have, accordingly, reverted to the redirect. You now ALSO have to engage on the talk page, and stop just edit warring without discussion. Unlike Hullaballoo, I am willing to assume your good faith, for the time being; but you are the one now in the position of needing to explain yourself on the talk page. THAT is the problem, all along. Inadequate discussion. You have contributed to that as well. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| ::I still think it does not matter most of the actions he does is an great example of ]] (]) 01:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually, at this point I think you are the one who seems to be gaming the system. I'm not particularly impressed. But I am simply speaking of appearances. I really don't know what either of you is thinking, and can't identify or judge your motives. | |||
| Excuse me, dear Duae Quartunciae, could I ask you do you speak and read Bulgarian? It is important, trust me in advance. Greetings, ] 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Therefore I am continuing to assume good faith, for both of you. I note that you have still said pretty much nothing substantive about the real issues with this article on the talk page. | |||
| : I don't trust anyone in advance, and I don't speak any Bulgarian. I am completely new to the subject; and strongly opposed to nationalist perspectives of ANY kind being the basis for articles. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It would have been better to work on the article in your own sandbox somewhere and then post the revised version with a clear acknowledgment that your previous referencing WAS invalid and that you acknowledge it needed to be fixed. But I'll wait and see. I recommend that you avoid making this into a personal issue. You are not on very firm ground with such a tack. Stick to the actual substance and if you can assume good faith as far as you possibly can, this works better when other editors start to look at what is happening... as will occur when we have an edit war going on. I appreciate that this is going to be difficult if you do not receive that assumption yourself; but truly, it is in your own interest. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. The official "domestic" language of all ] revolutionaries was exactly Bulgarian language. It is really strange that you embark on general editing of the article about Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising without having command of the main literary language of the Macedonian and Thracian liberating movement in the beginning of the 20th century. Please, try to understand my intentions with these words. Of course it is not sin not to know some language, but personally I will not try to edit highly controversial historical topics without profound knowledge of the concrete problems and their documentary base. Accept my greetings, ] 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Blocked the IP in question. Just an FYI, but the IP has already started threatening to use sockpuppets, so keep an eye out. I'll semiprotect if it gets out of hand. ]] 07:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I have not embarked on any general editing of the page. I am raising issues in the discussion. I have not mentioned language at all. I am deeply suspicious of the particular nationalist perspectives here; both the Bulgarian view that prefers to down play the moves towards new autonomous states and the Macedonian view that prefers to down play the breadth of the insurrections. | |||
| ::::: Thanks for your help. The attack was hilarious; I've not seen anything like it before. Very educational. In the meantime, I have left a comment on ] which lists some more of this IP's history. Very revealing. The page itself seems okay at present but I could be wrong. The content is so thin that the redirect still looks a better option; but I can't see any need to insist on it at present. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Misplaced Pages is a teriary source. It should be based mainly on what appears in secondary sources; not on primary sources. To insist that the article can only be written by experts with access to primary sources is an invitation to abuse and to original research. The overriding concerns for Misplaced Pages are ], and ]. You should pay particular attention to ], which is a section within the no original research official guideline. | |||
| == On attacks on this page == | |||
| : If a total novice like myself does step in to edit the article, which I have NOT done as yet, it will be primarily to maintain these principles. The idea would not be to write a complete article by a novice, but for a neutral outsider to structure what is given by people with more expertise, in a way that best fits the wikipedia guidelines. | |||
| I seem to have upset someone; there have been a series of attacks made on this page in recent time. I don't take myself sufficiently seriously to find this anything other than hilarious; and since there are hard working people around who deal with this kind of nonsense, I am free to sit back and ignore it. | |||
| : I would very much prefer not to have to do this. I have not done so as yet. But I will not hesitate if it becomes necessary. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| But in the meantime... the most likely attacker seems to associated with {{Useranon|98.117.34.180}}, who has apparently taken some exception to the engagement I had in his dispute with {{User0|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}}. You can read about it in the two sections immediately above this one. The funny thing is that as far as I am concerned, I gave more practical support to the IP in relation to his work on the ] page than anyone else; but apparently because I did not come completely over to his way of thinking he's reduced to this attack. | |||
| If you are interested in Macedonian history, you could read following english-language books, written by eyewitnesses: | |||
| * | |||
| In the meantime, anyone trying to contact me on this from an IP address may find be unable to do so. You probably need to contact someone else anyway. I'm not an admin and I have no special authority on anything. ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :That IP returned again and was blocked for three months by a different admin. ]] 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :I think the IP also has made me a target. yesterday on my talk page. Based on the comments it was trying to add, it was clearly 98.117... ]] 04:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| Greetings, ] 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Welcome back== | |||
| Noticed your "two cents" at Talk:Global_warming_controversy ;-) Nice to see you back on the 'pedia. ... ] (]) 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks! I don't think I'll be hugely active for a while; and that topic particular bogs down pretty badly. But I'm dropping in occasionally! ''—] <small>(] '''·''' ])</small>'' 12:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You are awesome! Keep up good work! ] (]) 13:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692057745 --> | |||
| == Fair Use in Australia discussion == | |||
| As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of ''Fair Use'' into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place ], please read the proposal and comment there. ] ] (]) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| <small>This message has been automatically sent to all users in ]. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to ]</small> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Lankiveil@enwiki using the list at //en.wikipedia.org/Category:Australian_Wikipedians --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi. We're into the last five days of the ]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WiR_list_1&oldid=812113281 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 14:14, 16 March 2022
 Archives |
|---|
Thanks ...
for talking the time to comment at the Wikiquette page and elsewhere. It is always a bit scary when complaints get made, but I find it fascinating that total strangers, spread throughout the world, take the time to look into things carefully and then opine. Thanks again. --Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And it is fascinating. Frankly, I think we are a little bit voyeuristic. The whole wikipedia project is fascinating; and the way so many people work together on it; including some rather odd folks. Something like wikiquette alerts helps manage it a bit, I guess. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Alan (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
What is it?
May I ask you to explai what is it, or it, or it? It seems to me that Alaska is also in Asia (and belonged to Russia no so far away). May be, we must move it? What are we doing: trying to find a consensus or playing provocative games? Thanx! --Dimitree 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
- We are trying to find a consensus, of course. You MUST stop taking all dispute over this as personal. These unwarranted insinuations of attack or game playing or provocation at disruptive of the project. Please stop worrying about motives of other editors and stick to the content, on the assumption that we are all working in good faith. Take all actual substantive discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airlines#Regions for airports. Thanks.
- Also, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I asked a question. Would u please answer? It seems to me there is only one truth: smone can do whatever he wants inspite it is evidently silly. Smone must shut up and follow mainstream. Ok. The question remains: if it is correct to put Russian Federation in Asia unless there is no any consensus? May I hope to hear from you soon. Thanx! P.S.: I put 4 tildas from the very begining, but it does not work. Don't know why... --Dimitree 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
- I answered the question, on what we are are trying to... we are trying to find a consensus. I also pointed you to the proper place for further discussion of the specifics of geographical location.
- Ok.
- Your rephrased question is a bit unclear, but you appear to be asking what to do if there is no consensus. If there is no consensus, then the correct thing to do in wikipedia is work towards consensus. The most important considerations for that, by far, are to assume good faith of other editors and keep your cool. The worst thing to do is make your own personal decision on what is "correct", and then edit war all over the place to maintain your choice, whatever it might be. You should leave the content of the article alone, and focus on obtaining the consensus. To do that, you have to listen to others, and be willing to change your mind if need be. See Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did not do anything unless there is no consensus. My opponent - User:Jasepl - does. He just violates established rules. Examples are here, here, here and so on. So I need an explanation: if there are this Template:Airline destinations and thatUnited Nations World Macro regions and components, why User:Jasepl is defigurating the data? That is all. Nothing else... --Dimitree 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try to help with the signing of posts over at your talk page. Hold on, I think we'll be able to fix it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- May I ask you not to teach me what should I do and what should not? Teach yourself, please. And such kind of posts "Dimitree, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" put on your page, please. I'm enough educated to understand what is going on here. Except you, there are many others Georges W. Bushes with his "export of democracy"... Thanx! --Dimitree (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- No. You called a wikiquette alert, and you have asked for help. I mean no offense but you badly need it. You are flatly wrong about about trying to tell ME directly above about so-called "established rules", and you are not following the established wikipedia guidelines yourself.
- Jasepl has removed himself from the debate. You should not continue to bait him. That comment about dropping the stick is a standard comment in wikipedia for just the kind of problem, and you should read the link associated with the comment. Here it is again: WP:STICK.
- This whole debate would go much better if you were willing to learn about more about these kinds of guidelines. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your intervention and your efforts. You correctly concluded that I have withrawn from the debate.
Dimitree's dogged refusal to even read any of the explanations by others just makes the whole thing too tedious to be worthwhile. His constant screams of the English-speaking world being on a Russia-bashing binge doesn't help either. Besides (and I don't meen this in a bad way) - I don't understand most of what he writes anyway. All colleague this, and comrade that. This is the Engligh language Misplaced Pages, isn't it?
All I will suggest is that don't go 100% by the UN definitions (they change) or by group membership. I saw there was a suggestion to include Turkey in Europe because it is potentially an EU member. So is Armenia, by the way. Will Armenia suddenly move to Europe if and when it becomes an EU member? Tomorrow Kazakhstan might decide to join the Southwest Pacific La-La Union. Will Morocco then cease being an African countty?
Besides, if 3% of its territory being located in Europe makes Turkey European, then why not Azerbaijan and Georgia? More than 3% of their territory is located in Europe after all.
Physical location is something that won't change - not for several millenia in any case. Seeing how that's one constant, and that Europe's land borders are the Urals to the east and the Caucasus to the South, it's best to work with those immutable factors.
As all of the related country and continent articles, as well as a simple glance at a physical map tell us:
- Armenia and Cyprus are 100% in Asia
- 97% of Turkey is in Asia
- Over 50% of Russia is in Asia (ie: East of the Urals)
- More than 3% of Azerbaijan and Georgia are in Europe (ie: North of the Caucasus)
Thanks, again. Jasepl (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, glad to help. I'm going to stick with it for a while, although I'm striving to live up to the high ideals of don't-give-a-fuckism. :-)
- If you twist my arm, I'll confess that I don't actually share your particular view of the best solution. I personally think that the division between Asia and Europe is mainly political; not geographical at all. It is the actual choice of certain borders that is mutable. The boundaries you list are widely used, but not universal. They are, in effect, a consensus position -- and consensus is mutable. As far as wikipedia is concerned, I'd stick with what has been the norm now, in most articles, for quite some time, as far as I can tell.
- Russia definitely belongs in Europe, because all the largest centers are in the West, and the East is far less populated and developed. There's no way Asia can possibly work as a consensus for Russia, and that's what matters in wikipedia. Turkey is more interesting; most of the airline destination lists put it in Europe, and that's where the major political links go. For airlines, I think that traffic should carry a lot of weight, and with the strong political ties from Turkey to Europe, this carries a lot of weight. It's been the normal position within the airlines project now for a long time, as far as I can tell. Cyprus belongs in Europe politically, and again this is more important, in my view. Being actually an island in the Mediterranean, the geographical argument is particularly weak IMO. Proximity does suggest Asia -- but more particularly it suggests Cyprus and Turkey belong in the same continent. I tend to think putting them both in Europe is best; and it is also the prevailing norm in so far as a norm exists.
- I am looking at using some tools to help identify inconsistencies across destination lists. This also helps identify what the effective consensus is at present, which seems to be as I've indicated above. (I think.)
- But hey. I'm going to be interested to see if anyone else speaks up. I've refrained from saying any of this on the discussion, in line with the solemn teachings of DGAF. Be well, and keep up the good work. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whould you please have a look at any map and see that: from the Kaspian Sea (moving to the West), Azerbaijan goes first, Armenia goes second which means that Azerbaijan (moving to the West from the Kaspian) is more distant from Europe. Moreover, land boundary of Europe and Asia is Northern Caucas Mountains. So all three countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) are below this boundary. So they are Southern Caucas countries and they are in Asia. Northern Caucas belongs to Russia (to its european part)... As for Turkey: only 3 % of Turkish territory is in Europe (Istanbul), 97% - in Asia. Cyprus is on an Asian tectonic platform. So Cyprus is in Asia (in the Middle East). Geography remains relevant. But politics is irrelevant... Thanx! --Dimitree (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) P.S.: you may delete my post as you usually do when smth does not correspond to your conceptions...
- Dimitree, I have not ever deleted your posts or comments, and have no intention of starting to do any such thing. If you think otherwise you may provide a dif.
- You are merely repeating your view above, which I understand. This view is not the only view around. Some time I may comment further on the boundary between Europe and Asia in the Caucasus region, as there have been many divisions proposed over the years by different authorities, based on geography. However, I do not have a big stake in this. I am mainly here to try and help editors resolve a dispute. My conception is not important, and I have not ever removed anything in these debates because of a different conception of what the solution should be.
- My only concern with this issue is to help editors work together better. I am concerned with issues such as assuming good faith, civility, and edit warring, for all participants, in the hope that you can all work together better. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- U r right: u r trying to help editor (not editors) supporting User:Jasepl. It is not objective and it is evident (I do not even talk about your endless and useless notations to me). As for deletion: here and here. That is all. There is always only one truth regardless the question we are talking. There are no 2 or 3 truths, because it is already a question of double standards. That is all. Nothing personal... --Dimitree (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dimitree, I think you have misunderstood both those edits. Neither one removes anything of yours, and neither one removes anything to do with airline destinations.
- The first link you give is to an edit in which I deleted a personal attack by a well known sock puppet who is using multiple IP addresses. Such edits tend to be removed on sight by anyone, and the IP gets blocked if it continues to be a source of edits. Note that this user is leaving similar one line personal attacks on many different talk pages with closely related range of IP addresses. Removing such attacks is normal; it has nothing particular to do with you. Check the relevant talk page: User talk:203.76.185.35. The IP has been blocked, but not by me.
- The second link is to an edit of YOURS, not mine. I have never moved any country between continents at any time in these discussions. My edit was simply to fix a problem with indentation. Here my own actual edit is here. LOOK at it for heaven's sake. All it does is line up the countries to a common indentation level, because the indentation got mixed up at some point. I moved nothing; and I have not taken any part in the edit wars on these articles.
- I repeat; I have no stake in the content. I am concerned only with helping ALL editors engage the topic with appropriate civility and good faith, and without edit warring. I have certainly not tried to modify articles in favour of one side OR the other. That's the honest truth. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dimitree, I think you have misunderstood both those edits. Neither one removes anything of yours, and neither one removes anything to do with airline destinations.
- I see. Thank you. --Dimitree (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Glad we are on the same page again! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Noticeboard appeal
Please see my appeal at the noticeboard. I was known as MoonHoaxBat, but for abusing (i.e. appealing) on my talk page, I had no way to find out how to appeal to ArbCom. I would appreciate it if you could see the noticeboard. I am notifying you because I am not trying to slip something past the community.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: your post on the noticeboard. I am willing to not file a complaint against Ratel. I can understand your position on this. I found his comments offensive, but I trust that someone else will take up getting them removed. I don't need to get involved. I also consent to any kind of check you need to do on whether I am RJ11 of years past. Thanks,--FredUnavailable (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing unsigned comment
Thanks for signing the Dougmac7 comment; appreciate it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith
Please look at and Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due to "no consensus".174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I do assume you are working in good faith, and I have not reverted anything of yours so far, for any reason at all. So this is an odd comment for you to be making.
- On the other hand, I do disagree with what you are doing, and how you are doing it; as has every single other editor who has seen it as far as I can tell. I have explained the problem as I see it in the talk pages, at this link you have provided just above. That is where you should be taking this discussion; not here please. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is your uncomfortability with my reporting?174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly, there are many aspects of this that concern me somewhat, but we don't need to talk about it here, please. I do assume your good faith, and I have not as yet reverted anything you have added to wikipedia. I've commented on matters relating to your proposals in the appropriate general discussion pages, as you have also. That's the right place this discussion. That is where we focus on the substance and not on individual editors or motives, and also where others impacted may be involved more naturally. OK? It's best not to carry on a dispute over too many different pages. Best wishes —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)
- I just read your post on Misplaced Pages talk:When to use tables. Actually, I appreciate and thank you for linking those wikipediaspace pages. I had no idea they existed, (except for the policy page, I just never read down there). I will abide by them in the future. As for Misplaced Pages talk:When to use tables, it seems I'm the major contributor to the discussions, with major changes already written. I assume that the discussion will start from my first post.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't plan to involve myself in that discussion. I came in because of reports made at dispute resolution pages, and as long as editors are working together well, I'll drop out again and leave you guys to it. Good luck. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A second request on table guidelines
I know that my past discussions give people a biased view as to why I am changing the guide line. I have stopped discussion in those fora. Please discuss the changes that you don't feel should be included in the guideline. Also, please specifically tell me how much time I should wait until I should change the guideline.174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- You just have to get a consensus for the changes. You do that in the talk page of the guideline, not here. The onus is on YOU to explain clearly what changes you think should be in the guideline. It is in your interest to be persuasive, and argumentative is rarely persuasive. At present, it is really hard to follow what you are even saying.
- I have no particular stake in this. I am only here because there is a problem with editors working together.
- Here's a suggestion, which I don't mean as an attack, but as something that may help. You've raised this in all kinds of different forums, quite inappropriately. You have, for example, raised this at wikiquette alters WP:WQA#Inflamatory Comments and at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive115#User:Nifboy User:Gary King reported by User:174.3.111.148 (Result: No violation). In both those discussions, all the neutral input from other editors says that you are the one who is the problem. I concur with that general viewpoint; so far you haven't been following the long accepted and well tested wikipedia conventions for how we all try to get along and work together on the encyclopedia. I became involved because of the WQA alert, and wikiquette is my concern; not tables per se.
- My advice: you should stop reporting people. You should stop trying to modify guidelines until you have clearly obtained a concensus. You have to accept that you might not get a consensus. If you don't get the consensus, then you NEVER get alter the guideline; it's not a matter of waiting long enough! At this point it certainly seems unlikely. I also recommend you stop trying to modify Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due to "no consensus", as your changes to this essay are quite properly disputed, and ALSO look like trying to game the system. The reverts to your changes are NOT simply due to "no consensus" and nothing else. People have explained why they don't like your changes, and unless and until you get consensus, your changes are not going to take place. Don't try to get consensus by talking about it at a whole lot of different user talk pages. Don't try to get consensus by reporting people at dispute resolution pages when then disagree with you in good faith and edit appropriately in consequence.
- Good luck with it all. I appreciate you are sincere in trying to work with the system, and mean this as friendly advice. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have clearly mentioned what is wrong with page. It is up to the interested parties to query me more for more information.
- Please look at this edit. Why is it that my edits require consensus, when I HAVE discussed my changes?. (Oh, and don't go reverting that change; I agree with it).
- I would like to believe you don't have legal interest either any of the issues that you have started reverting on, but precisely because you have done this, it makes me wonder..
- Please do not think I have raised issues with editors inappropriately. I think they were edit warring, with invested interest, which is reason to report bad faith behavior.
- Although the input maybe neutral, I still feel he was discriminating against me. I think that's hard to persuade.
- I think I have been following civil behaviors editing. You are not the only one who have mentioned that they believe I have been acting in good faith.
- I have stopped reporting people.
- Concerning guideline modification, don't you think you owe me a reply if you don't feel when I said "I assume that the discussion will start from my first post" applied?
- I want to stress the significance of not waring on the previous points of contention that I had with previous editors. I have accepted some points that I could not get consensus for. Some edits on pages that I used to edit I no longer edit. I just have a very aggressive editing manner.
- Please compare this edit. This edit says alot.
- Please look at the discussions I've started. I makes me confused: how is it possible that people are objecting to the changes, if they don't even discuss their concerns? Canvassing is inappropriate. Obviously, I am opposing the current version of the page. There's already objection to the current version. I think due process should be given in this case.
- When I was reporting people, they were edit warring because they did not discuss their concerns.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't like or don't trust my advice, then stop asking for it. You can always solicit advice from WP:WQA or WP:EAR, as advice, without making it a report against someone else. I am pretty sure that just like before, you will be told that you are actually the one who is a problem here. But for what it is worth, here is yet another attempt to explain. It is referenced back to your comments, so that you can click between your comment and my response:
- Certainly not. People have already explained why they think your account of what was allegedly wrong was the page is itself incorrect. The onus is not on them to persuade you to agree. I think the real problem is that people just don't agree with you i.e. no consensus. Hence: no change.
- In the case you have linked, no-one objected. In your case, they did. THAT'S the difference. Furthermore, you already knew from previous discussions on other pages that your perspective on tables is disputed! There's nothing wrong with being bold, even on a guideline, to start off with. If you get reverted, then stop editing and proceed to the talk page. Having been reverted, you should not make further changes to the guideline until the consensus is explicit. See WP:GUIDELINE.
- Your reluctance to assume good faith is a big part of what is causing you problems. The only way this can change if you change it. That means deliberately assuming good faith for as long as you possibly can. i.e. No prejudicial speculations about other people until it is obvious to everyone that there is a lack of good faith involved.
- I am certain that you have raised issues with editors inappropriately. You have been told this now by a number of neutral editors in the reports I listed above. You may well have reported in good faith; but you don't yet understand what is appropriate and what isn't. It's long past time when you need to stop and think to yourself: "Wow. Perhaps this wasn't appropriate." That's learning.
- Of course I don't owe you a reply. I already told you that I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be. That WAS my reply. I stepped in to the talk page discussion to emphasize WP:GUIDELINE; I don't "owe" you a response on anything else! The situation on guideline modification is pretty dammed clear. You can be bold, to start off with, if you like. People can revert you if they don't agree; especially in a guideline. After this, stop editing and start talking. There is no guarantee that by arguing long enough you will prevail; nor are people obliged to continue to respond to your arguments indefinitely. I am not going to argue the policy with you, and I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be.
- Consider adjusting your editing manner. Misplaced Pages is based on consensus, and I think this aggression is making life harder for you.
- I don't particularly understand or care what you think about this edit; it is not to a guideline in any case, but to an essay. I don't see any particular problems with any of the recent edits there.
- There has been a fair bit of discussion across a range of pages already, and what you have on the talk page mostly misses the point. The thrust of the guideline is that you should avoid tables, if something simpler works. You apparently want to use them more widely; but I don't see any clear argument for this, other than that you like it. Responses have already pointed out that the sentences you described as "vague" are not as vague as you suggest, and that there's no POV problem. The WP:NPOV is a policy on encyclopedic content. That is, they think your description of "what is wrong with the page" is itself incorrect. The due process has occurred, the discussion was engaged, and you did not get consensus. You can try and make your case again, explaining better why your changes are an improvement; but people are not obliged to keep going around this with you indefinitely.
- Oh, WP:EAR, another cool link. I didn't know it existed before: thanks for showing me it. I apologize for all the trespasses I've tread instead of going to it.
- They did not explain why they did not agree with me. I just don't like it is not an argument, they have to explain why they don't like it. Otherwise their edits are unconstructive.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- No; they DON'T have to explain. There are responses on the page and others are not obliged to keep going until you personally are satisfied.
- Oh, WP:EAR, another cool link. I didn't know it existed before: thanks for showing me it. I apologize for all the trespasses I've tread instead of going to it.
- You still have the onus backwards. This is a guideline, and so the onus is on the person proposing a change to make a persuasive argument. If other people don't like the change, then that's too bad for the change. Other editors DON'T have any onus at all to get you to understand why they disagree.
- You have been told now by multiple neutral observers that you are wrong to accuse others of "unconstructive edits". You were actually the problem; not others -- because you persisted in making changes to the guideline long after it was clear you had no consensus, and you make it worse insisting incorrectly that others have to justify their reverts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your point 1: They explained what they don't understand, but I don't understand what they don't understand.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please note both cases are completely different: Touhou Project's prose might just not fit well in a table. My proposed changes to the guideline does not affect the application of tables in articles.
- Regarding point 2:"Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly delineated with headings categorically in a statistical manner." is my sentence. It does not say EXPLICITLY THAT ALL information should be put in tables. In this sentence, it just says that information like data should be put in table, which makes it more intuitive to read. Chemistry, biology, physics, and sometimes, data such as shows like survivor. Not all information belongs in a table. And it needs to be taken on a case by case procedure. People CURRENTLY believe the prose does not belong in a table, then I can't fight it.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Often a list is best left as a list." This sentence is POV because
- It does not describe why they are best left as a list
- It lends undue weight to lists
- Each case should be taken on a case-by-case status
- If taken out, the guideline will be more clear, direct, and useful174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table."
- "..., and is not really what tables were designed to do"
- According to wp:guidline#Content, it says that guidelines "should ... emphasize the spirit of the rule. Verbosity is not a defense against misinterpretation. Be unambiguous and specific: avoid platitudes and generalities." which is logical to take out those sentences.
Regarding the === Simple lists === and it's paragraph, it's just not true. It really depends on the case. Some "lists" are better organized in a table. As I've mentioned before, some biological or cultural data may be best put in a table or, even though it seems "simple" (in this case).
The new sections that I put in helps to explain when tables are useful and when they are not. The rationale sections help to divide the reasons behind the bylaws so readers can more easily understand and follow them.
The reason I used a table that you can use in toolbar is to encourage a more widespread use of tables (the button in the toolbar increases access and ease-of-access) in the toolbar. The reason I used merge was so it can help demonstrate the use of merge.174.3.102.6 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The reason I used a prose example is because the prose example is almost where a table should never be used.174.3.102.6 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Take it to the bloody talk page for the guideline. This argument does not belong on my talk page; I don't matter.
- As a point of information, the POV argument is silly. The wikipedia requirement for neutrality is only for encyclopedic content. See WP:NPOV. A guideline is not encyclopedic content. OK? Any policy or guideline is necessarily taking a stand for how to write the encyclopedia. Guidelines do express stylistic preferences, intended to give a consistent style that is easy to use and maintain. Saying that a guideline is "POV" simply fails to understand the relevance or significance of POV in an encyclopedia.
- I have no particular comment on other details in the rest of your argument. It's a waste of time putting it here.
- Just keep in mind that you have to actually be persuasive. Aggression will backfire. This guideline impacts all of wikipedia, so you should make your argument self contained and easy to follow for someone coming to the page for the first time. It should be calm, and clear, and needs to start afresh in a new section. It would be sensible to give on the talk page the key new text you propose to add into the guideline, and focus on what is good about it. It needs to be clear what change you are proposing to make, not merely what you don't like about the current version. People have to LIKE your change, or it won't get consensus.
- Your previous attempt on Nov 7 (this edit) was calm and clear, but unpersuasive. The POV point was silly, and the sentence you called "vague" is not vague at all. You did not explain what you proposed to replace it with. People DID respond to this, and they are not obliged to keep responding to you until you change your mind. Beyond that, your argument on Nov 7 boiled down to "I don't like" having a preference expressed for simple lists.
- Try again, if you like. But people are not obliged to keep going around the mill with you on this. If no-one else likes your changes, then you don't have consensus. It's that simple. But
for the love of Harryplease, go away and stop trying to make the argument on my talk page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Try again, if you like. But people are not obliged to keep going around the mill with you on this. If no-one else likes your changes, then you don't have consensus. It's that simple. But
- Finis. I have deleted ongoing unwanted badgering; archived as these hard links: 1, 2, 3. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
The edits repeatedly made to Sal the Stockbroker -- made by an anon with a edit history that is entirely nonconstructive -- include obvious and indisputable BLP violations and clear failures to comply with WP:RS. The most conspicuous example is at the end of the first paragraph, where the text accuses not only the article subject, but his father and his sister, of committing serious US/federal crimes. The anon originally left this paragraph unsourced, but later added a "reference" to a randomly chosen page which includes only unrelated derogatory comments about the article subject, and does not mention the supposed criminal activity, or the article subject's father, or the article subject's sister. Adding fake sourcing to a Misplaced Pages article in order to prevent BLP violations from being removed is quite clearly an "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages," which is the definition of vandalism. The other sources in the article clearly fail WP:RS, as was pointed out in prior discussions, and the anon has made no effort to improve them -- they are blogs, nonindependent claims made on the official Stern site, and a mirror of the article itself. The anon vandal has done nothing to resolve the major problems in the article; instead, he makes superficial, nonconstructive changes and then posts phony attacks on me for refusing to let his vandalism stand.
I wouldn't go quite so far as this user's comment does , but I strongly believe that when dealing with a persistent nonconstuctive editor, that repeating the full discussion ad nauseum, whenever the nonconstructive editor pops his/her/its head up again, is simply playing into the hands of people trying to damage Misplaced Pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although you have clearly decided not to assume any good faith from this editor any further, I personally am of the opinion that it is better with a clear description on the article talk page of the problem, for the benefit of others. That will help. I'll add a comment there to confirm I see the point. Thanks for responding. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- this clearly show that this user does not assume good faith and bites new comers some action needs to be taken against the user.98.117.34.180 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- It shows that the editor does not assume your good faith. That's unfortunate; but there's some basis for it. I would prefer he does assume good faith; but in reality there does come a point where the assumption of good faith is no longer tenable. I don't think we are there yet. Hullaballoo apparently does. I recommend you simply try to show that you deserve good faith a bit better. That means you set the example; stop referring to his edits as vandalism (they are no such thing), or generalizing about his "antics" (he does a power of useful work on maintaining BLP standards) and start giving more substantive comment about the article itself on the talk page. So far, you've got very little there and what it is seems to be all about your own personal animus with nothing substantive on the article. This doesn't look good. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I sorry, but i don't care what that user thinks about me if he wants to game the system i can play him at his some game, this user have over 25 documented complaints against here (do a search) that has to means something. The saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander or something. I can watch every edit he makes and nit pick it like he does to me. That is what he is doing98.117.34.180 (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I also feel he needs to read WP:AOBF this is what is happing right now! 98.117.34.180 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- In other words, you have ALSO decided to assume the worst rather than assume good faith, and deliberately plan to do what you think is being done to you. What could possibly go wrong? LOL. This, I think, would backfire on you badly. I certainly hope so, if you do deliberately take up such an ill advised course of action.
- I continue to advise you to try and assume good faith yourself, to do better in showing yourself worthy of receiving good faith, and I'll say the same for Hullaballoo. Difference is, he's way WAY better than you at dropping the matter and getting on with work on the encyclopedia. I've told Hullaballoo what I think and we've moved on. Perhaps you and I will do the same. If you move on in the direction you appear to be proposing, you run the risk of getting blocked -- especially as you have pretty clearly indicated here that you plan to disrupt the system to score some kind of point. Bad, bad, bad idea. Don't say I didn't warn you. But do what you must. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You are both at it again. Use the talk page.
Is there something that can be done when you reverted Sal the Stockbroker a couple of hours later our friend comes and redirects it again, what can be done to stop? 98.117.34.180 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- What can be done is what I have done. I have asked for, and been given, an adequate description of the problems with the article on its own talk page. You also must STOP saying vandalism. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Furthermore, given the information on the talk page which is easily confirmed, Hullaballoo is correct to say that the article is still unacceptable, still improperly sourced, still a BLP violation. I have, accordingly, reverted to the redirect. You now ALSO have to engage on the talk page, and stop just edit warring without discussion. Unlike Hullaballoo, I am willing to assume your good faith, for the time being; but you are the one now in the position of needing to explain yourself on the talk page. THAT is the problem, all along. Inadequate discussion. You have contributed to that as well. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I still think it does not matter most of the actions he does is an great example of Gaming the system98.117.34.180 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, at this point I think you are the one who seems to be gaming the system. I'm not particularly impressed. But I am simply speaking of appearances. I really don't know what either of you is thinking, and can't identify or judge your motives.
- Therefore I am continuing to assume good faith, for both of you. I note that you have still said pretty much nothing substantive about the real issues with this article on the talk page.
- It would have been better to work on the article in your own sandbox somewhere and then post the revised version with a clear acknowledgment that your previous referencing WAS invalid and that you acknowledge it needed to be fixed. But I'll wait and see. I recommend that you avoid making this into a personal issue. You are not on very firm ground with such a tack. Stick to the actual substance and if you can assume good faith as far as you possibly can, this works better when other editors start to look at what is happening... as will occur when we have an edit war going on. I appreciate that this is going to be difficult if you do not receive that assumption yourself; but truly, it is in your own interest. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP in question. Just an FYI, but the IP has already started threatening to use sockpuppets, so keep an eye out. I'll semiprotect if it gets out of hand. Enigma 07:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. The attack was hilarious; I've not seen anything like it before. Very educational. In the meantime, I have left a comment on Talk:Sal the Stockbroker which lists some more of this IP's history. Very revealing. The page itself seems okay at present but I could be wrong. The content is so thin that the redirect still looks a better option; but I can't see any need to insist on it at present. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
On attacks on this page
I seem to have upset someone; there have been a series of attacks made on this page in recent time. I don't take myself sufficiently seriously to find this anything other than hilarious; and since there are hard working people around who deal with this kind of nonsense, I am free to sit back and ignore it.
But in the meantime... the most likely attacker seems to associated with 98.117.34.180 (talk), who has apparently taken some exception to the engagement I had in his dispute with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk). You can read about it in the two sections immediately above this one. The funny thing is that as far as I am concerned, I gave more practical support to the IP in relation to his work on the Sal the Stockbroker page than anyone else; but apparently because I did not come completely over to his way of thinking he's reduced to this attack.
In the meantime, anyone trying to contact me on this from an IP address may find be unable to do so. You probably need to contact someone else anyway. I'm not an admin and I have no special authority on anything. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- That IP returned again and was blocked for three months by a different admin. Enigma 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the IP also has made me a target. Whack-a-proxy yesterday on my talk page. Based on the comments it was trying to add, it was clearly 98.117... Enigma 04:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back
Noticed your "two cents" at Talk:Global_warming_controversy ;-) Nice to see you back on the 'pedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! I don't think I'll be hugely active for a while; and that topic particular bogs down pretty badly. But I'm dropping in occasionally! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| You are awesome! Keep up good work! Phyton505 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery
Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!