Misplaced Pages

User talk:Noetica: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:26, 23 January 2013 editNoetica (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,370 edits →Your comment may help close a requested move about a MOS issue: Answering Ed: mañana← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:12, 25 January 2024 edit undo2600:381:c920:159f:d805:47eb:1454:db46 (talk)No edit summaryTag: Manual revert 
(79 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NoAutosign}} {{retired}}
<div style="font-style: roman; background-color: #000050; font-weight:bold; border: 10px steelblue solid; color:#eeeeff; padding:16px 16px">
] ]
<p>
<p>
Νοητικά means "things of the intellect", just as φυσικά means "things of nature (physics)". Using the approximate categories applicable to your species, I am male, and Australian. Stationed on the planet's surface awaiting orders for my next mission, I specialise in the details of Misplaced Pages style&nbsp;– at <font color="Aqua">]</font> (punctuation and style recommendations for&nbsp;our&nbsp;{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}&nbsp;articles). I am also concerned with titling policy&nbsp;– rational arrangements for naming those articles (see <font color="Aqua">]</font>, <font color="Aqua">]</font>, <font color="Aqua">]</font>).
<p>If you post here, I will answer here.&nbsp;Tea?<br><br>
]
<!-- <font color="#ffff33;"><br><br><big><big> ... TEXT ... <font color="#775533;"></big></big></font> -->
</div>
----
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px;"
|-
! style="background-color: #6699ff;" | '''Various resources'''
|-
|
<font color="#775533;">]</font>
<p>
<font color="#775533;">]</font>
<p>
<font color="#775533;">]</font>
<p>
<font color="#775533;">]</font>
<p>
<font color="#775533;">]</font>
<p>
<font color="#775533;">]</font>
<p>
<font color="#775533;">]</font>
<p>
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px;"
|-
! style="background-color: #99bbff;" | '''Style guides and similar works of reference'''
|-
|
<blockquote style="background: #e0e0ff; border:solid black 1px; padding:1ex"> {{User:Noetica/StyleGuideAbbreviations1}}</blockquote>


<!--
|}


Noetica has ceased to be a member of the Misplaced Pages community. Noetica has retired, so please leave this page unchanged.—User:Wavelength
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #99bbff;" | '''Links to the 83 pages of the Manual of Style'''
|-
|
''Example of full title:'' '''Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (abbreviations)'''
----
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}


--(beginning of post by Noetica at 11:37, 3 February 2013)--
'''58 pages with "Template:MoS-guideline" at the top'''


== Retired from Misplaced Pages ==
'''___________________________________'''


As promised above, Noetica is now retiring from Misplaced Pages.
] ]


For a little while I will keep email access open. I authorise ] to manage this talkpage, if Wavelength is interested in doing that. I would prefer that it be kept very bare. I do not want notifications of any kind here, and would prefer that they be put quickly into Archive&nbsp;7. I am not interested in responses to anything above on this talkpage. They can be archived also.
] ]


I will remain available for a short time to join any ArbCom case that is started to deal with matters arising at ]. But I have no interest in appealing against any decision made there in respect of Noetica.
] ]


Noetica no longer exists on Misplaced Pages.
] ]


Best wishes to all! ♥
] ]


<font color="red"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
] ]


--(end of post by Noetica at 11:37, 3 February 2013)--
] ]


Noetica has ceased to be a member of the Misplaced Pages community. Noetica has retired, so please leave this page unchanged.—User:Wavelength
] ]


-->
] ]


{{nobots}}
] ]


<!-- Category:Misplaced Pages bots which are exclusion compliant -->
] ]


== Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago ==
] ]
{{User QAIbox
| title = Awesome
| image = Cscr-featured.svg
| image_upright = 0.35
| bold = ]
}}
--] (]) 05:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


== Math ==
] ]


Hindi ] (]) 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]


{{col-break}}

'''25 other pages (miscellaneous; some inactive)'''

'''___________________________________'''

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]

] ]
{{col-end}}
----
|}

----
<inputbox>
type=fulltext
width=80
prefix=Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style
searchbuttonlabel=Search all MOS pages
break=no
</inputbox>
<inputbox>
type=fulltext
width=76
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style
searchbuttonlabel=Search all MOS talk pages
break=no
</inputbox>
{{Template:Style wide}}
{{centralized discussion|float=left|width=720px|compact=yes}}
<p>
----

|}
--------------------
Messages:
--------------------

== Category:Slow movement ==

At the present time, ] includes the following 13 articles.
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
*] (version of )
There is variation in regard to capitalization of the titles of the articles, and capitalization of the names of some headings in the articles. Also, the category page itself, ] (version of ), has the following statement, in which the linked term is redirected to "]".
*The ] is a cultural shift towards slowing down the pace of life in modern-day society.
What, if anything, should be done about the ] of the word following "Slow" in each of those instances, in the interests of consistency, accepted practice, and Misplaced Pages guidelines? (I am not in a hurry for an answer.) <br>
—] (]) 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

:After a survey of the listings, and one or two of the articles, I am at least as concerned about the case of words that follow "slow". The article ] itself? I think it should be ]; and then, should the term in running text be the same but with no caps at all? I would be prepared to accept "Slow" capitalised, with the precedent of ] ("Occupy" is capped within the article). Earlier I had wanted to retain quotation marks for that article, but I have changed my mind now that "Occupy movement" has very wide currency. Not so, I think, for the ill-defined "Slow" movement.
:The capitalisation is not sufficient to make a good distinction from "slow movement" in the area of musical form, and I would certainly argue for the musical topic as primary, and of perennial interest. But I find to my surprise that there is no such musical article!
:It is too time-consuming to campaign in such areas. But I will consider any request to assist.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you for your reply. After reading it, I was almost ready to move "]" to "]", but I looked at the section headings in that article, with their variation in ], and I do not know what to do about the other expressions (in that article and the others) that use the word "Slow" or "slow". I considered your time limitations and your possible desire to clear your talk page of discussions for the new year, and I decided to leave those articles unchanged for now.
::"]" and "]" are redirected to "]". <br>
::—] (]) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

== Australian English: "nee" and "née" ==

You may wish to comment at ] (version of ) or at ] (version of ). <br>
—] (]) 17:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC) and 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks. I have added my sharp comments , and . <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

::Oops! Your first link (to the second page I mentioned), as used here and at ], is a link to the page history of ]. There is by ] at ].
::—] (]) 16:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

:::Ah yes. No harm though. And now that history link shows another post of mine, in response to Paul.
:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

== RFC/U for Apteva: move to close ==


I am notifying all participants in ] that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

* ]

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

== New copy-editors; WP:COPYEDIT ==

New copy-editors and a revision of ] (]) are mentioned at ] (version of ). <br>
—] (]) 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC) and 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for the note. I have now copyedited ] (). Such poor writing!
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

== Extra punctuation marks ==

This may interest you. Perhaps the extra symbols are more practical than those in the book '']'' by ].
* <br>
—] (]) 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you. I mainly buy serious works on real punctuation, but I have just ordered this one for my collection because I found it for just $A14 including delivery, on eBay. It can't do any harm; and there might be some incidental theoretical remarks that are worthwhile.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

== Sentence first (blog) ==

From my watchlist, I followed linking to ] (version of ) to linking to ] (version of ), where the second external link in the first sentence is to , for which the main page is ("An Irishman's blog about the English language"). <br>
—] (]) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
:Ah yes. I went straight to the blog entry itself, and I found myself broadly agreeing with the line taken there. A bit wordy! I often have to fix ''however'' and its allies when I edit: sometimes moving it, sometimes altering the punctuation, sometimes substituting an alternative.
:I see from the other links you provide that her perceptions of ill-considered admin actions have led ] to retire from Misplaced Pages. I fully understand her frustration at a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Incompetent, trigger-happy, and often juvenile admins. I hope she changes her mind; but I would understand if she did not. I will post at her talkpage soon.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

==Talkback==
{{talkback|Guerillero|ts=06:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)}}
] &#124; ] 06:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== Focus on content ==

At ] (talk pages and their associated article pages are synonymous), you wrote:
:::::Apteva, the word "point" is not by itself of interest. The mere fact that Dicklyon happened to use it does not show WP:POINTiness. The inclusion was not with you in mind personally; but it has the great benefit of illustrating how things work consensually on Misplaced Pages, as opposed to a view you hold that has been set aside as non-consensual.
:::::It so happens that yes, you sought to have the article ] moved; and consensus was against that move. It so happened that yes, you have tried at many forums, many times, to bend policy and guidelines your way; but consensus is revealed as contrary to that way.

Per ], it is inappropriate to focus on an editor, or even to answer an editor, by saying "XYZ, the word". It is not appropriate to say "that ABC happened to use"

What is appropriate is to say "The word "point".

Directing conversation to one particular editor is never appropriate on a policy, guideline, project or article talk page. It ''is'' appropriate only on ''that editors talk page''. It is appropriate at an ANI about that editor, but only about that editor. I know that we have a popular concept of boomerang, but doing so is a violation of FOC - instead a separate AN/I needs to be opened.

What is appropriate is to say "that was used".

What is appropriate is to say "I did not see this as WP:POINTiness.

It is not appropriate to say "The inclusion was not with you in mind personally"

What is appropriate is to say "The inclusion may not have been with any one editor in mind" (unless you are a sock of the other editor involved it is impossible for you to know what they were thinking when it was added as an example).

The following, though, is appropriate:

:::::'''Good guidelines and good policy do not shy away from ruling on cases that have been controversial but are now ''settled''. Such settled precedents and decisions are exactly what editors look for in policy and guidelines.'''
:::::Move on?
:::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Please read ] and focus on content not on the user. This has nothing to do with user A, B, C, or D, and it is improper to have a conversation, like "Yes A, I agree, or no B I think". Say I think, not you said. While it is common to say oppose/support per A, B, that vote is an echo vote and does not count for much, but theoretically saying per A, B too is a violation of ], but "per reasons given" is not.

But no, hyphens and dashes are not "settled". Someone, whose username starts with an N and ends with a vowel, ignored the well founded opposition and lack of consensus to apply dash rules to proper nouns, and did it anyway. By the way, we do have stewards on wikipedia, but they do not steward, so using steward is not appropriate unless someone is actually talking about the stewards. And for another thing, your habit of edit warring immediately is completely inappropriate. We have a ] cycle that we use. After B comes R, which happened after an editor boldly (that is the B) placed comet Hale-Bopp as an example and it was reverted (that is the R). Then both you and another editor violated BRD by following R with a second R. After the R comes D - for discussion - always, always, always. Plus this is a policy page, and as it says at the top of the talk page "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so ]." Editing policy pages is very different from editing guidelines, because they reflect a wider consensus, and carry a stricter mandate (although by the way '''none of the ''examples'' used in a policy carry any mandate whatsoever''', which is the false assumption that was used in adding comet Hale-Bopp, to try to pretend that it being in a policy could be used as an argument that it was spelled correctly with a hyphen or a dash). On the other hand, the principles followed in editing policy pages are well advised for editing guidelines and essays as well. ] (]) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Per this post:

(one particular editor):

# There is no lack of accord between the two long-established pages ] and ]. Each has its role on Misplaced Pages. A small minority does not like this. You speak pejoratively of "some arcane MOS guidance"; but it is all derived consensually&nbsp;– arguably far more consensually than certain tight and untested algorithms that have been promoted and included in WP:TITLE.

Is this a private conversation with another editor? If so it belongs on their talk page. Is this something written by a particular editor? If so naming them is not appropriate. And seriously, asking editors to post at the end? Not reasonable. This is a talk page, not an essay. Putting replies next to what they are replying to is more readable. ] (]) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for the vintage Apteva tirade. I was feeling neglected! But seriously, now that you are topic-banned through action at WP:ANI (following the overwhelming community consensus at ]), I hope and expect that you will moderate your behaviour. If you are so prolifically mixed up in an issue that you become almost identified with the content, expect that people will find it hard to "focus on content". Very difficult, with you at centre-screen. See my similar remarks to Born2cycle, below. He was warned at ArbCom for being so "assertive". Let's all learn from our mistakes, and work more collegially.
:Please stay away from here now, unless you have some ''new'' and particular matter to address. Tersely.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

== Happy New Year! ==

{| style="border: 3px solid purple; background-color: #FFFFFF;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="3" |
|style="font-size: large; color: Purple; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Best wishes for the New Year!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid Plum;" |Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! <p>Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my ], and apologies for the false alarm of my the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the ] pages this year. <p>Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at ], ] and ]. but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the ] process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!<br />
] (]) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
|}

I appreciate that note, and I regret that I did not reply earlier.<br>☺ <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

== The Apteva issue ==

Hello, Noetica. I would suggest you take a look ] I held recently with Apteva. Through it, I've come to the conclusion that he may indeed be willing to consider distancing himself from the dash area for a time; I think this is a perfectly fair way to end the dispute. Notwithstanding the issues in which Apteva has been involved, I really do think he's a reasonable and well-intentioned editor who is just in the minority of a MoS-related dispute. Harmonizing relations between the minority and the majority, which has attained the consensus, appears to be the logical next step in this process. Best, ] &#124; ] 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re hat note - thanks for that, I'll make sure to in future if I do again. (A rarity.) — ] ] 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

== Dazed and Confused ==

Hi, Noetica! I've seen your name a lot at RM discussions lately. :) I saw your comment regarding ''Dazed and Confused'' and responded to it. Would like to hear from you! Direct link ]. ] (] &#124; ]) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

:Erik, see more recent RMs in which I have commented also. It's damn hard work! I used to do that a lot, but found it to be a waste of time. I will probably retire from it again, unless we can achieve reforms.
:Thanks for coming here. Stay for a cup of tea next time? We can talk through some of the issues. But just now I have way too much to do in real life, and of course in the very important RFC at ] (which promises to rationalise a great number of RMs).
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

== Relisting ==
Two things per this diff.{{diff|Talk:The Wizard of Oz %281939 film%29|532311902|532300431}} First, only the closer relists a discussion, not participants in the discussion ("the closer may choose to re-list the request"). Second, no reason for the relisting is ever given. There are more instructions about this in the closing instructions. Cheers. ] (]) 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

:Apteva, instead of playing every wikilawyering avenue one could come up with—regardless of hair's breadth validity or invalidity—wouldn't it be better for you and everyone else to take a more collaborative stance? Your contributions on certain topics are much valued, and I think the community would be most grateful if you expanded on these rather than pushing up against a brick wall (I don't imagine it's very satisfying for you, the current imbroglio; more like a drag). The community has decided that it's disruptive, and may I say that continuing down this avenue is the very opposite of the roles that would give you the intellectual and social recognition we all wish for. ] ] 06:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks Tony. There is in fact no provision against relisting by an involved editor. Often it is plainly warranted by continuing discussion. See ] at ]. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::That thread was a complaint about it not being clear enough that no one involved should be relisting, and concluded that no further clarification was needed. But the main thing to understand is that relisting does nothing other than move the location of the listing. It does not keep it from being closed, because listings can be closed no matter where they appear. If fact none are indented to reach the backlog section, which is not a make a decision here section, but a catch all for discussion that have been around for longer than a week. Relisting is discussed in detail for the closers, and is an action that is taken by whoever is closing the discussion to say they looked at it and decided to kick the can down the road just to clear out the backlog section and nothing else. If someone involved relists it, that is completely pointless. ] (]) 05:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Here is the ] that is relevant to relisting (my underlining):
::::<blockquote><u>If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, you may elect to re-list the discussion, though it is entirely optional and up to the closer.</u> Relisting simply consists of stating <tt><nowiki>Relisted. ~~~~</nowiki></tt> before the initial requester's first timestamp (see for an example). This gives the request a new timestamp which ] will use as the date to relist the entry on the requested moves project page. This can be done using {{tlx|relisting|subst=y}}, which also signs it automatically.<br>If the discussion has become stale, or seems that it would benefit from the input of more editors, <u>some editors will notify at least one relevant ] of the discussion, in addition to (or instead of) relisting it</u>. The template {{tl|RM notification}} could be useful for this. These WikiProjects can often be found by means of the banners placed at the top of many articles' talk pages.</blockquote>
::::As I note above, there has been inconclusive discussion about who may relist an RM discussion. Interpretations and opinions obviously differ. I very rarely relist anything; but in the present case it could not be denied that seven days were elapsing, there was still vigorous discussion, and questions had been put but not yet answered. Since that relisting, discussion has continued, so that seems to vindicate my action. And opinions are evenly divided between oppose and support.
::::Apteva, you reiterate the opinion you expressed in the ]; but it remains just one opinion among several. It is ''not true'' that only the eventual closer ever relists (contradicted, in fact, by the very diff it uses as an example); and it is ''not clear'' that only an uninvolved admin or editor may relist.
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Confusing relist notice ===
Hi Noetica,

Regarding the same relist , I find the result confusing on first look. It looks like the original nomination is yours. In general, inserting any comment between someones comment and their signature is to be avoided. Why not use ]? --] (]) 06:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

:Smokey, using that template is one option; but it seems quite unnecessary and extremely rare for RMs. See the diff given as an example in the quoted text above; and see the last dozen relistings in the ] listings. In effect they are done just I have done mine, except that I add a clarification (seen often before, from admins like Mike Cline). And note: the signed relist note is ''supposed'' to come before the signature of the RM's proposer. Always. It is distinguished by use of small text.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
::I do not recall ever seeing anyone inserting any comments other than just the word "relist" or something very similar. That though is not the issue. Why would the proposer of an RM be following the instructions for the closer? Neither are the same. It is just basic procedure to allow an uninvolved editor handle any close or relisting, no matter what it is, RfC, AfD, RM, all are handled the same way. We let someone else do the close or relisting. But in the diff, above, the text used was simply "Relisted", and then a huge long stylized signature, that really was not the best of examples that could have been used. There actually are a very small number of RM regulars who do most of the closes and relistings. Right now we have been actively asking for some more help because the backlog is so large, but we never expected the proposers of the RMs to be doing their own relistings or closings. By the way, I would suggest per above refracting the relist to just the word relisted, and removing the reason. ] (]) 08:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Uh huh. Now, let's consider the matter closed. I am not interested in hearing any more from you on this topic, Apteva. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the wording. In fact, I think an explanation for a relist is helpful. Just this time, I was surprised at what I thought was your nomination, until I got to your !vote against. But certainly no big deal. --] (]) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

== I appreciate your diligence ==

Greetings Noetica. If nothing better comes of the current RfC, I will have done well for having collaborated with you. I came to this discussion only recently, for different reasons all together. I only noticed the discussion by that chance. I don't know how hard fought the battles were, nor the players. I can accept the consensus either way, though if I had entered the en dash debate when it began, I believe I would have opposed its use; except perhaps for newer subjects, with some form of grandfathering for hyphenated articles that were already published in Misplaced Pages that way. My reason would be based on the assumption that -- could have been used if the writers felt the more prominent dash was the best fit for that article. Naturally where technology has advanced, any occurrence of -- could be updated to – an en dash without objection, I would imagine. But to take well accepted common names and basically respell them; I think is arrogant, and not a best exercise of editorial judgement, <abbr title="In my opinion">IMO</abbr>. What am I failing to consider regarding the dash to answer that question?&nbsp;--]&nbsp;(]) 12:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Welcome to my talkpage, Strat. I really like the way you are contributing at the ]. It's ''hugely'' important to get that simple clarification. We can talk about it here, if you like; but not now! Way too much to do in real life, for me.
:Just note: often an RFC can be stalled when participants basically agree, but insist on their own preferred variant. Well, such variants may have great merit! '''But the essential thing is to achieve the basic reform first.''' It can be really positive to reconsider, and support a simple initial proposal. We often find that perfection is the enemy of the good (as I was reminded recently). Can we get what's good first, in the present case? Perfection (like heaven) can wait!
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

== FOC reminder ==

First, I remind you of ]

{{quotation|Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Misplaced Pages is built upon the principle of collaboration, and ] is important to our community. Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings.<p>It can be difficult to focus on content if other editors appear to be uncivil or stubborn. ]! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind, which will only serve to derail the discussion. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue ].}}

I remind you of this because of of yours on the disambiguation talk page:

{{quotation|So when one's own take on a guideline is questioned in a hotly contested RM that is not going as one likes, with hard argument one is at a loss to answer, one denigrates the opposition as "confused", and rushes off to change the guideline in midstream?}}

Second, at the time you made this comment, every element of your "hard argument" at the discussion to which you were referring. Catch up.

Oh, I see you have now, finally, responded. And you're still claiming I missed your point. Sigh. --] (]) 23:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Thank you for bringing this to my talkpage, B2C. Quite obviously we disagree fundamentally. Yes, while you were posting here, I was proposing that we abandon that long-winded discussion (see ). ("Finally"? So rude. We in other time zones do sleep occasionally, you know.) Of course we must focus on content. Unfortunately, when I attempt the detailed and sophisticated analysis that is essential if I am to counter your facile claims (as I see them!), your responses are equally facile. They are governed by ill-examined principles that appear to have no basis beyond certain misreadings of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that ''you'' have variously campaigned to include, elevated in status, or tweaked to suit an agenda. You are often so heavily involved and present (see ArbCom's warning to you) that it is often difficult to separate you from the content. Trust me: I wish it were easier.
:I have long avoided areas in which you (and a couple of others) dominate and do not genuinely ''discuss''. It is so unpleasant. Others feel the same way (as reading through ] will demonstrate. See how I have been almost absent from RM discussions, till I recently decided to test the water again? I see not much improvement.
:Let's try to stay out of each other's way, yes? You can help by not attempting to tweak your favourite guidelines when a discussion is too hard for you to win, and your "opponent" is therefore quite obviously "confused" (see ]).
:♥
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

== Your comment may help close a requested move about a MOS issue ==

Hello Noetica. I'm trying to clear out some old ] from the backlog. One of them is related to the ]: ]

The people who favor this move are saying that this 'Falkland Islands work group/Units' page ought to be moved to a subpage under ], next to the other specialized style guides that now reside there. The requester is citing this RfC which you marked as Resolved back in July 2011:
:* ]

The catch (in my mind) is that you found only a consensus to make 82 *existing* pages of type ] become subpages under ]. At least some of these are marked {{tl|style-guideline}}, which I assume needs consensus. Do you think your RfC paves the way for the Falklands people to move their 'Units' page into that august set of subpages? Thanks for any ideas. ] (]) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Ed. No time today, but I'll have a close look at the whole thing tomorrow.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:12, 25 January 2024

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.



Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Math

Hindi 157.42.230.148 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)