| Revision as of 22:13, 3 December 2011 editMaunus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,261 editsm →Food for thought← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:26, 4 December 2011 edit undoRexxS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,075 edits →Food for thought: some real food for thoughtNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ==Food for thought== | ==Food for thought== | ||
| I would like you to consider this. Our common project here is to build an encyclopedia. This is done by writing articles. By your behavior you have caused one of our very foremost content contributors for the past several years to feel so bad that she wants to leave the project. You on the other hand have 282 edits to article space, and you've been registered a month. You should hope very much that she returns to article writing in spite of how you treated her. Because if she doesn't return, you will have done more harm to the project than you can hope to make up for. If you take this to heart in the future you will consider how your actions affect the project as a whole.]·] 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC) | I would like you to consider this. Our common project here is to build an encyclopedia. This is done by writing articles. By your behavior you have caused one of our very foremost content contributors for the past several years to feel so bad that she wants to leave the project. You on the other hand have 282 edits to article space, and you've been registered a month. You should hope very much that she returns to article writing in spite of how you treated her. Because if she doesn't return, you will have done more harm to the project than you can hope to make up for. If you take this to heart in the future you will consider how your actions affect the project as a whole.]·] 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| : And I'd like you to consider this, Maunus. An online encyclopedia has many components. Although content may be the most important, that does not give content writers the right to denigrate the work of the other contributors who work just as hard and conscientiously in their own fields. Without those who make sure that all the brilliant content is accessible and usable by as many readers as possible, that content would lose much of its value. | |||
| : What I have observed is Alarbus making a {{diff2|460984063|small cleanup edit}} to Hemmingway on 16 November and Dianna fixing several broken references a few days later (the year for Harvard refs, correcting a mistyped ISBN, etc.) The response to which was not to work with them to correct references, but to remove citation templates entirely from the article, while both Dianaa and Alarbus explained how citation templates actually ''helped'' to maintain references particularly as scripts could rapidly spot problems in a way that is not possible with hand-coded citations. Yet they were met with condescension and then hostility in ]. Truthkeeper embarked on the large task of removing citation templates but found how difficult it is to avoid errors when you try to hand-craft over 200 citations. Dianna fixed some and gave a list of others. See for yourself the reaction at ]. | |||
| : The point is that neither Dianna nor Alarbus did anything other than disagree with the opinions of the 'regulars' on a ''technical'' issue. The arrogance and foul language of Ceoil is dwarfed only by his ignorance of the issues and by his continuous desire to foster dissent and fan the flames. I've never seen anybody get away with quite so much edit-warring on other peoples' talk pages. I feel quite sorry for Truthkeeper – she has been pushed into a corner by Ceoil's actions which have been calculated throughout to escalate small differences and remove any chance of reconciliation. | |||
| : Finally, you don't get to rank an editor by 'countitis'. Go look at how much time and effort was put into the development of ] by several editors, one of whom was Alarbus. Now, you may think you can dismiss technical contributions because you're a 'content editor', but content editors (like me) are actually more dispensable than the handful of really well-informed technicians who can make big steps forward in improving Misplaced Pages's accessibility - and do so without the stars and ego-massage. | |||
| : Think hard on it. --] (]) 00:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:26, 4 December 2011
November 2011
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Misplaced Pages articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Titania was changed by Alarbus (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899497 on 2011-11-01T09:41:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't vandalism. I'm putting it back. Alarbus (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Food for thought
I would like you to consider this. Our common project here is to build an encyclopedia. This is done by writing articles. By your behavior you have caused one of our very foremost content contributors for the past several years to feel so bad that she wants to leave the project. You on the other hand have 282 edits to article space, and you've been registered a month. You should hope very much that she returns to article writing in spite of how you treated her. Because if she doesn't return, you will have done more harm to the project than you can hope to make up for. If you take this to heart in the future you will consider how your actions affect the project as a whole.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- And I'd like you to consider this, Maunus. An online encyclopedia has many components. Although content may be the most important, that does not give content writers the right to denigrate the work of the other contributors who work just as hard and conscientiously in their own fields. Without those who make sure that all the brilliant content is accessible and usable by as many readers as possible, that content would lose much of its value.
- What I have observed is Alarbus making a small cleanup edit to Hemmingway on 16 November and Dianna fixing several broken references a few days later (the year for Harvard refs, correcting a mistyped ISBN, etc.) The response to which was not to work with them to correct references, but to remove citation templates entirely from the article, while both Dianaa and Alarbus explained how citation templates actually helped to maintain references particularly as scripts could rapidly spot problems in a way that is not possible with hand-coded citations. Yet they were met with condescension and then hostility in Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Citations. Truthkeeper embarked on the large task of removing citation templates but found how difficult it is to avoid errors when you try to hand-craft over 200 citations. Dianna fixed some and gave a list of others. See for yourself the reaction at Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Citation problems.
- The point is that neither Dianna nor Alarbus did anything other than disagree with the opinions of the 'regulars' on a technical issue. The arrogance and foul language of Ceoil is dwarfed only by his ignorance of the issues and by his continuous desire to foster dissent and fan the flames. I've never seen anybody get away with quite so much edit-warring on other peoples' talk pages. I feel quite sorry for Truthkeeper – she has been pushed into a corner by Ceoil's actions which have been calculated throughout to escalate small differences and remove any chance of reconciliation.
- Finally, you don't get to rank an editor by 'countitis'. Go look at how much time and effort was put into the development of WP:HLIST by several editors, one of whom was Alarbus. Now, you may think you can dismiss technical contributions because you're a 'content editor', but content editors (like me) are actually more dispensable than the handful of really well-informed technicians who can make big steps forward in improving Misplaced Pages's accessibility - and do so without the stars and ego-massage.
- Think hard on it. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)