| Revision as of 02:12, 22 August 2008 editFnagaton (talk | contribs)3,957 edits →IEC Binary Prefix← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:56, 22 August 2008 edit undoTom94022 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,113 edits →IEC Binary PrefixNext edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| ::::IEC Binary Prefixes when used to disambiguate ambiguous terms such as MB are unambiguous, succinct, simple to use, simple to understand and their use is approved by national and international standards bodies. IMO there is no good reason to deprecate them, but the reasoning seems to be that because they are relatively unknown and infrequently adopted they shouldn't ever be used in Misplaced Pages. A more complete statement of the reasoning is . Thanks for your assistance. ] (]) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | ::::IEC Binary Prefixes when used to disambiguate ambiguous terms such as MB are unambiguous, succinct, simple to use, simple to understand and their use is approved by national and international standards bodies. IMO there is no good reason to deprecate them, but the reasoning seems to be that because they are relatively unknown and infrequently adopted they shouldn't ever be used in Misplaced Pages. A more complete statement of the reasoning is . Thanks for your assistance. ] (]) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Everything in that link is basically a copy-paste of the same text with minor tweaks and in that talk page archive those unsupported incorrect assertions were refuted and rejected again by multiple editors. Then the time before and then again . A very short summary of the whole talk page archives presented above is that everything in that link you posted above is contrary to how Misplaced Pages works with guidelines and policies because nothing in that link tackles the real issue that using IEC prefixes is against the following ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Those cited guidelines and policies are relevant because we use secondary sources for articles and those sources do not use IEC prefixes in the majority of cases (less than 1% of secondary sources actually use IEC prefixes). You want to rely on the primary sources of the standards bodies but you cannot do that without secondary sources to support your point of view, since you have very few secondary sources then ] applies. Your personal point of view that "IEC prefixes are easy" etc is also irrelevant because you need to detach from personal bias when crafting guidelines. Your personal opinion also appears to be refuted by the vast majority of reliable sources that have chosen not to use IEC prefixes, if they were as easy as you claim then surely those publications would use them. The fact that the majority of publications do not use IEC indicates that they do not see them as a benefit to their readers. Headbomb is an excellent example of this, he personally likes IEC prefixes but he also knows that Misplaced Pages is not the place to use them. This is why we must reference existing Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies when considering changes to guidelines. Since the vast majority of the real world does not use IEC prefixes then to advocate use of IEC prefixes for disambiguation presents a false point of view (synthesis of an idea from a primary source) to our readers, which violates ], ] and ]. Also with reference to your statement above "''The alternative is to find 4 or more editors to act in concert as does GregL, et al.''" it is firstly a bad faith accusation against Greg (and others) and secondly consensus is not how many editors you can find on a particular day because consensus is made by good strong arguments so that would not help you because the arguments presented in your link are not as strong as those presented by other editors. It is ] to repeat old refuted assertions again because old refuted assertions are not suddenly good arguments just because they are repeated again and again. If you or Thunderbird2 can provide new and better substantive arguments then please do post them on ]. But please listen to the multiple editors that have refuted and rejected those assertions with much stronger arguments that are relevant to how Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies work. So in summary, since you and Thunderbird2 have not provided new substantive arguments and because the old arguments presented by Thunderbird2 (and thus yourself in that link) were discussed, refuted and rejected by multiple editors in multiple talk archives then there is nothing to mediate and therefore no need for mediation. ''']]''' 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | :::::Everything in that link is basically a copy-paste of the same text with minor tweaks and in that talk page archive those unsupported incorrect assertions were refuted and rejected again by multiple editors. Then the time before and then again . A very short summary of the whole talk page archives presented above is that everything in that link you posted above is contrary to how Misplaced Pages works with guidelines and policies because nothing in that link tackles the real issue that using IEC prefixes is against the following ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Those cited guidelines and policies are relevant because we use secondary sources for articles and those sources do not use IEC prefixes in the majority of cases (less than 1% of secondary sources actually use IEC prefixes). You want to rely on the primary sources of the standards bodies but you cannot do that without secondary sources to support your point of view, since you have very few secondary sources then ] applies. Your personal point of view that "IEC prefixes are easy" etc is also irrelevant because you need to detach from personal bias when crafting guidelines. Your personal opinion also appears to be refuted by the vast majority of reliable sources that have chosen not to use IEC prefixes, if they were as easy as you claim then surely those publications would use them. The fact that the majority of publications do not use IEC indicates that they do not see them as a benefit to their readers. Headbomb is an excellent example of this, he personally likes IEC prefixes but he also knows that Misplaced Pages is not the place to use them. This is why we must reference existing Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies when considering changes to guidelines. Since the vast majority of the real world does not use IEC prefixes then to advocate use of IEC prefixes for disambiguation presents a false point of view (synthesis of an idea from a primary source) to our readers, which violates ], ] and ]. Also with reference to your statement above "''The alternative is to find 4 or more editors to act in concert as does GregL, et al.''" it is firstly a bad faith accusation against Greg (and others) and secondly consensus is not how many editors you can find on a particular day because consensus is made by good strong arguments so that would not help you because the arguments presented in your link are not as strong as those presented by other editors. It is ] to repeat old refuted assertions again because old refuted assertions are not suddenly good arguments just because they are repeated again and again. If you or Thunderbird2 can provide new and better substantive arguments then please do post them on ]. But please listen to the multiple editors that have refuted and rejected those assertions with much stronger arguments that are relevant to how Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies work. So in summary, since you and Thunderbird2 have not provided new substantive arguments and because the old arguments presented by Thunderbird2 (and thus yourself in that link) were discussed, refuted and rejected by multiple editors in multiple talk archives then there is nothing to mediate and therefore no need for mediation. ''']]''' 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::As u can see, Fnagaton likes to ], sometimes that no arguments were made and sometimes that the arguments were weak and rubutted. I am not going to bother to waste the time and space in this forum. He and GregL have imposed there will by shouting down any debate and so it is either binding arbitration or I find a set of editors who can shout louder. ] (]) 04:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:56, 22 August 2008
This user advocates unified discussion, if you comment here, I will reply on your talk page and move the entire discussion to your talk page in the process; I would prefer it if you did the same, moving the thread back here for your reply. That way the discussions will always stay together and the intended recipient will see the message alert when he or she logs on. If you create a broken discussion by replying here while leaving my comments on your talk page, I may leave the discussion as is and continue the broken discussion, or I may reunite the discussion in my reply, depending on what I think makes more sense. Thanks.
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
message
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC
Monastery and ag
WikiProject Birds August newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
A new task force under wikiproject Europe
Hello,
I've noticed that you are active in the area of Europe. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Editor Assistance Question on Possible Deletion of several articles
(Moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)
Neolibertarian - Right-libertarian -- Left-Rothbardianism - Libertarian center - Libertarian progressivism - Mainstream libertarianism - Thick and thin libertarianism.
These articles really annoy me because IMHO they are:
- Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including especially neologisms and original theories and conclusions
- BLP issues since they claim various individuals are part of their faction without providing evidence
Basically one or a small group of people have created these phrases, use them in their small circles, and then put up articles to advertise and promote their ideas.
It's probably not very libertarian to want to delete them, but is it wikipedian? I need another opinion for my peace of mind and advise on how to proceed with most dubious articles, i.e., one by one or all at once? Carol Moore 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Carol, I agree, they all seem to be neologisms. If you attack Right-libertarian, I would also plan to go after Left-libertarian or explain why not. Neolibertarian looks like nothing but a definition and Mainstream libertarianism has no cites; I would particularly support the idea that they should be deleted. I probably won't be around to participate, and who knows the discussion might change my mind (or yours) but I don't think it's unreasonable to nominate some or all of these for deletion (curious, how did you happen to ask me?)--Doug. 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks for comments. I found someone who got rid of Left-Rothbardianism so will be interested in his comments as well. I asked because you were listed in editor assistance as someone who knew a lot about deletions. Carol Moore 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I think we're on the same line of thinking here
Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Individual_discussion_subpages.3F. Care to comment (further)?--Doug. 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, in any attempt for a ReOrg of sub-pages, I think that it would be more productive to deal with AN/I first. Consider that (at least) more than half of the postings as WP:AN would be placed at AN/I, if AN/I were fixed in such a way as most "incidents" would be funnelled there, I have doubts that there would actually be a need to split AN at all.
- Also, note that the talk page of AN/I redirects to the talk page of AN. Hence why I posted my suggestion for AN/I there.
- Hope this helps : ) - jc37 00:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Cookie8191
Regarding your indef block of Cookie8191 (talk · contribs)... wat? I checked several edits of his when I commented on the MfD, and most of them were perfectly valid. They might not have been very good, but it wasn't vandalism. I'm very confused at how you came to this conclusion. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- (I'll keep this note here on my page as it relates to my performance as an admin)Ned, I reviewed them and they appeared to me to be a consistent string of vandalism of Sesame Street and Looney Tunes articles. Here's one that is very clearly erroneous if you're over 30, no edit summary, no idea where these dates come from, but I'll WP:AGF; then there is this one , which ends the AGF quest. Following that there are a whole string of Chuck Jones related edits, all with no edit summary and no known basis for the edits, claiming every Tune known to WB was created or inspired by Chuck. Finally, if you follow the series you can see that he's following getting reverted with changes to related articles that say similar things. Taken together with the two above, I take them all as vandalism and I see not one valid edit (please provide the ones that you say were). However, if you wish, I'll ask another admin to review what I did.--Doug. 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'll admit, the date changes do leave me with the impression of vandalism, but there are people out there to believe that Chuck had a huge impact on most Looney Toons characters (I don't know if he did or not, but I do recall reading a lot of interesting debates about the claim). But then again, it could be those same kind of debates/ strong feelings that he is trying to troll.
- Since he didn't even bother to challenge the block at all, I'm starting to think you were correct to just block him. I'm probably just thinking about this too hard. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
IEC Binary Prefix
Hi Doug: Thanks for volunteering to mediate the dispute on the usage of IEC Binary Prefixes. What has happened is that two editors GregL and Fnagaton with the occasional assistance of Headbomb have acted in concert to prevent any indication of a dispute on the usage of IEC Binary Prefixes in Wikepedia. Then then further impose their will at the Binary Prefix article. It is not surprising that GregL and Fnagaton will not agree to mediation, they have everything the way they like it and together bully other editors into submission or acquiescence. Essentially together they use the 3RR rule to prevent any individual editor from raising any question about their view of the world at both the Binary Prefix article and the MOSNOM article. I suspect the next step is arbitration. The alternative is to find 4 or more editors to act in concert as does GregL, et al. How does one go about getting binding arbitration going now that u have closed the mediation case? Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- PS I will watch for a reply here Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- You would go to Requests for Arbitration and follow the instructions there (sorry, I've never filed one, so I can't really help). Can you explain what the arguments are for the IEC system? (please do so without telling me that the change goes against consensus or anything of that nature. Consensus is generally a circular argument. You either have it or you don't and arguing you have it is generally pointless. Read some of the essays on consensus for more information on that point.) I can't mediate the case (unless the other parties magically show up and agree) but I may be able to provide you advice one whether to go forward with an RFAR.--Doug. 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- IEC Binary Prefixes when used to disambiguate ambiguous terms such as MB are unambiguous, succinct, simple to use, simple to understand and their use is approved by national and international standards bodies. IMO there is no good reason to deprecate them, but the reasoning seems to be that because they are relatively unknown and infrequently adopted they shouldn't ever be used in Misplaced Pages. A more complete statement of the reasoning is here. Thanks for your assistance. Tom94022 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Everything in that link is basically a copy-paste of the same text here with minor tweaks and in that talk page archive those unsupported incorrect assertions were refuted and rejected again by multiple editors. Then the time before that in the previous archive and then again here. A very short summary of the whole talk page archives presented above is that everything in that link you posted above is contrary to how Misplaced Pages works with guidelines and policies because nothing in that link tackles the real issue that using IEC prefixes is against the following WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. Those cited guidelines and policies are relevant because we use secondary sources for articles and those sources do not use IEC prefixes in the majority of cases (less than 1% of secondary sources actually use IEC prefixes). You want to rely on the primary sources of the standards bodies but you cannot do that without secondary sources to support your point of view, since you have very few secondary sources then WP:UNDUE applies. Your personal point of view that "IEC prefixes are easy" etc is also irrelevant because you need to detach from personal bias when crafting guidelines. Your personal opinion also appears to be refuted by the vast majority of reliable sources that have chosen not to use IEC prefixes, if they were as easy as you claim then surely those publications would use them. The fact that the majority of publications do not use IEC indicates that they do not see them as a benefit to their readers. Headbomb is an excellent example of this, he personally likes IEC prefixes but he also knows that Misplaced Pages is not the place to use them. This is why we must reference existing Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies when considering changes to guidelines. Since the vast majority of the real world does not use IEC prefixes then to advocate use of IEC prefixes for disambiguation presents a false point of view (synthesis of an idea from a primary source) to our readers, which violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Also with reference to your statement above "The alternative is to find 4 or more editors to act in concert as does GregL, et al." it is firstly a bad faith accusation against Greg (and others) and secondly consensus is not how many editors you can find on a particular day because consensus is made by good strong arguments so that would not help you because the arguments presented in your link are not as strong as those presented by other editors. It is pointless to repeat old refuted assertions again because old refuted assertions are not suddenly good arguments just because they are repeated again and again. If you or Thunderbird2 can provide new and better substantive arguments then please do post them on WT:MOSNUM. But please listen to the multiple editors that have refuted and rejected those assertions with much stronger arguments that are relevant to how Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies work. So in summary, since you and Thunderbird2 have not provided new substantive arguments and because the old arguments presented by Thunderbird2 (and thus yourself in that link) were discussed, refuted and rejected by multiple editors in multiple talk archives then there is nothing to mediate and therefore no need for mediation. Fnagaton 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- IEC Binary Prefixes when used to disambiguate ambiguous terms such as MB are unambiguous, succinct, simple to use, simple to understand and their use is approved by national and international standards bodies. IMO there is no good reason to deprecate them, but the reasoning seems to be that because they are relatively unknown and infrequently adopted they shouldn't ever be used in Misplaced Pages. A more complete statement of the reasoning is here. Thanks for your assistance. Tom94022 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- As u can see, Fnagaton likes to shout, sometimes that no arguments were made and sometimes that the arguments were weak and rubutted. I am not going to bother to waste the time and space in this forum. He and GregL have imposed there will by shouting down any debate and so it is either binding arbitration or I find a set of editors who can shout louder. Tom94022 (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- You would go to Requests for Arbitration and follow the instructions there (sorry, I've never filed one, so I can't really help). Can you explain what the arguments are for the IEC system? (please do so without telling me that the change goes against consensus or anything of that nature. Consensus is generally a circular argument. You either have it or you don't and arguing you have it is generally pointless. Read some of the essays on consensus for more information on that point.) I can't mediate the case (unless the other parties magically show up and agree) but I may be able to provide you advice one whether to go forward with an RFAR.--Doug. 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- PS I will watch for a reply here Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)