Revision as of 12:40, 24 December 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 48h) to User talk:Apteva/Archive 4.← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:40, 25 December 2012 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 48h) to User talk:Apteva/Archive 4.Next edit → | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*] | *] | ||
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> - ] (]) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> - ] (]) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Motion == | |||
I have reworded the first motion: | |||
:''Apteva's personal views over en dashes and hyphens are widely opposed by the community, and as a result, Apteva agrees to refrain from any further advocacy of this position and related positions. Apteva is discouraged from making or requesting any action based on such views, and if such behaviour continues, the issue should be brought to the Arbitration Committee.'' | |||
I think this is more concise and fits better what is happening. Although, my rewording needs your agreement and, because it was done after most of the votes were registered, it is considered, for obvious reasons, an alternative ''just in case that you agree''. I guess this is the best way to go. Regards. — ]] 16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Better, but still needs improvement. ] (]) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::What would you add? or remove? As a neutral party, I am interested in your thoughts about it. — ]] 17:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::The purpose of an RFC/U is to discuss with the user some particular problem instead of just blocking them. It is another tool in the chest other than just a hammer. The editor who proposed the RFC/U is not the one who should have proposed it, as they are no stranger to ] and that RFC/U is no exception to that. The level of distraction that I was causing by bringing a hundred RM's is far less than the level of distraction that was caused by misspelling airports and comets with dashes instead of hyphens as they should all be using. There is a time and a place for everything, and there is no problem with bringing this up again in a year, as there are 20 editors and counting who support the community wide ban on hyphen/dash edits and discussion for one year. ] (]) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::I know, but the methods you are using to showcase this uncorrectness are working against you. I don't hold a preference for en dashes or hyphens (I like to use em-dashes because they look pretty on my signature, but I am somewhat ignorant about which is correct on article titles, althout it seems that community isn't). My personal recommendation is to agree with my summary, if you like, let the waters calm down, and slowly bring, with a different approach, this matter in the future. I guess that such is the best way to bring an end to this. Do you agree? — ]] 18:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hey. I hope you have read this. I'd like to keep talking to you about this so we can reach a solution. I wouldn't like to see you at the front of ArbCom because of this, as I am pretty sure someone will take you there regardless of the closure of the RFC, and I want to avoid it at all costs. Regards. — ]] 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::The RFC is nothing but harassment, and as such violates the rules of RFC/U. I certainly will not give anyone a reason to bring in Arbcom. I am not sure there is anything else that can be or needs to be done. ] (]) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Well, me neither. I have seen a lot of comments that seem not to be neutral there, and I guess that's why you need to stay out of the spotlight. I did the same when I ran into some trouble back in November. My actions were questionable, I admit it, but there was no reason to escalate the thing at AN/I, and because of that, I got a NAC restriction and I am somewhat banned from making any non-admin closure on the site. Why? Because some users melt together to achieve that goal. That's how this works, the majority's desire is what will prevail. It is somewhat sad when applied in the wrong way, and as a direct consequence, I have seen very good users being scared off from the site. — ]] 03:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Tell me about it. Misplaced Pages gets about a C right now, passing, but not college material. My sole goal in making any contributions is to improve that to an A. This is the latest gem I ran across. Is it supposed to be suppurative granuloma or ]. Any first year medical student should be able to sort it out. There are no shortage of references spelled each way. A good analogy of the mass mentality is Lord of the Flies. Hint - no government in the world functions much better. The British House of Lords is a shouting match, and the US Congress is totally dysfunctional. Israel has been around for 60 years without being able to even agree on a Constitution. Although it is an old joke that if there are two Jews they will disagree, and if one leaves the one remaining will argue with themself. Suggestion to the close issue - become an ] (try again next year). ] (]) 03:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Well, sometimes Misplaced Pages's standards favour one point of view (or one naming convetion) over another. What I have learned is that, sometimes, community is not ready to change. I have seen this throughout all my wikicareer. Also, thanks for the suggestion :) Although, I am not sure if I will turn ] blue anytime soon. — ]] 05:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I was advised to try again in three months and forgot all about it for three years. If your activity remains relatively high I would guess that mid to late next year will be about right for your next try. If your first try was a self nom, having someone else do the nom stacks the deck in your favor, not something that is important to me. Basically if you are serious and sincere, there is no reason to not being an admin, if you are willing to put up with the abuse that comes with the territory. I have seen some interesting and unprintable explanations of "why I do not want to be an admin". I can think of one MOS regular who was desysop'd, and more than one that would be advised not to even think of being a sysop. Basically admin work is totally different than edit work. It is a necessary function, but requires a level of trust. ] (]) 05:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Redundant signatures == | |||
Could you please explain why you keep re-signing an already signed post at ]? Your edit summary "format for wp:rm" doesn't really explain why the post needs two signatures. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, your signature is fine, but it messes up the bot that is listing the move request at ]. This is not your problem, it is a limitation of the bot that will hopefully be corrected with some clever programming at some point. See ] for more details. ] (]) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:And I do not know if you have changed your sig or someone else modified it but the sig above should work fine with the bot. I would definitely not want you to change your sig for the bot - it is the bot that needs to be fixed if anything. ] (]) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::It's not my sig that you're re-signing, it's the nominator's sig. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 05:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh, right, well, I hope the explanation helps. ] (]) 05:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Only warning == | == Only warning == |
Revision as of 12:40, 25 December 2012
Archives | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Welcome!
Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Only warning
Hi, so I see you're the subject of the RFC and you feel the RFC was wrongly brought. That's fine. As you well know an RFC doesn't result in a specific sanction. But, you're being disruptive. Among other things this shows a complete lack of understanding regarding how to edit collaboratively. If you are disruptive or fail to edit collaboratively in the future, I will indefinitely block your account. MBisanz 06:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Want to be a mentor? Apteva (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. You're an experienced editor and people have explained their concerns, which you have not accepted, so you would be no more likely to accept the concerns of a mentor. Either you will decide to stop being disruptive and edit collaboratively or you will be prevented from engaging in more disruption. MBisanz 06:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly I have no interest in being blocked. I am here to help and for no other reason. I am surprised that that is not crystal clear. But like I said, all anyone needs to do is add a sentence here if they have any complaints or criticism. All suggestions are welcome. Apteva (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a bizarre question. Why would an admin take time to issue a warning to a clearly productive and helpful editor? Something is seriously wrong. Apteva (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. You're an experienced editor and people have explained their concerns, which you have not accepted, so you would be no more likely to accept the concerns of a mentor. Either you will decide to stop being disruptive and edit collaboratively or you will be prevented from engaging in more disruption. MBisanz 06:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Lets check the word disruptive and see how it is used on Misplaced Pages.
First there is Misplaced Pages:Disruptive user
- Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object - No
- Continuously listing articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces - No
- Calling users names or referring to articles that the user has worked on in a derogatory manner - No
- Posting rumors or lies about other Misplaced Pages users, such as false accusations of vandalism - No
- Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page - No
Okay, so far nothing there.
Then there is Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Here we get a little closer, but never cross the line.
- Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. - No (I am definitely tenacious, but not tendentious, despite the accusations to the contrary)
- Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. - No
- Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. - No
- Does not engage in consensus building:
- repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; - No
- repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. - No
- Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. - No
In addition, such editors may:
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. - No
Oh well, nothing to do but keep on fixing things that need fixing. Apteva (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would endorse an indefblock at this point. To be blunt, either you know you're wrong and you're refusing to admit it, or you don't know that you're wrong. Classic WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 08:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would be silly. Misplaced Pages would lose an excellent editor for no reason whatsoever. Feel free to change as many no's to yes's as you think apply, . Apteva (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- But the problem is that people have told you what the problem is, and you just reject it with some excuses or rationalizations. You'll probably tell me I'm wrong here too. --Rschen7754 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I take criticism very seriously. I also get a lot of criticism for things that I should not be criticized for, but commended for - as an admin I am certain that happens to you as well. The folks at MOS railroaded through some edits last year that are totally bizarre and did not have consensus when they were made. The result is not good for Misplaced Pages, and I am looking for a way to fix that problem. Suggestions are welcome. Apteva (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was an ArbCom case/motion about dashes last year with a resulting RFC that resulted in the standards that we have today. It is disruptive to rehash those debates again, whether you agree with the results or not. Please don't make us revisit them again; ArbCom had to be brought in to stop the fighting for a reason. --Rschen7754 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am sure I can find other things that need to be fixed, but the fact that arbcom had to be called in last year is a serious problem in itself. Everyone knows that there is a civility problem at MOS, I would suggest fixing that first. For example, making everyone go to the help desk for questions about implementing the MOS, and immediate warnings to everyone who violates WP:FOC, or uses the MOS talk page as a "round up the posse" page to go vote on an RM or fix a dash that someone used incorrectly. That is not what talk pages are for, and it creates the civility problem that exists there. Talk about not editing collaboratively, yeesh. Right now the entire page should be treated as a DR page, and only edited if there is a DR volunteer present. There are about half a dozen editors who do almost all of the damage. Apteva (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was an ArbCom case/motion about dashes last year with a resulting RFC that resulted in the standards that we have today. It is disruptive to rehash those debates again, whether you agree with the results or not. Please don't make us revisit them again; ArbCom had to be brought in to stop the fighting for a reason. --Rschen7754 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I take criticism very seriously. I also get a lot of criticism for things that I should not be criticized for, but commended for - as an admin I am certain that happens to you as well. The folks at MOS railroaded through some edits last year that are totally bizarre and did not have consensus when they were made. The result is not good for Misplaced Pages, and I am looking for a way to fix that problem. Suggestions are welcome. Apteva (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- But the problem is that people have told you what the problem is, and you just reject it with some excuses or rationalizations. You'll probably tell me I'm wrong here too. --Rschen7754 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would be silly. Misplaced Pages would lose an excellent editor for no reason whatsoever. Feel free to change as many no's to yes's as you think apply, . Apteva (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Other areas to apply your talent
Hi, Wikid77 here. I finally see what you have been facing in the dash/hyphen discussions (after reading wp:SSF). It took me a while to see the core problem is "Style über Alles" as the age-old problem of "form over substance" and that explains what seems like those self-righteous refusals to improve the wp:MOS. Hence, "style is never wrong, merely inappropriate". Encyclopedia Britannica has used hyphens for decades in "Michelson-Morley experiment" but recently changed to dash. It is a choice to spell "Congress" as "Congreff" because it looks like an old-time style, and using alternate letters is not wrong or "mispelled" but rather "restyled"(!). That avenue is obviously a deadend for rational thinking, period. You and others have documented so many issues, and now we can expand from there with future writings.
These are some other pages to ponder:
- Article "form over substance" - did not even exist after 12 years of Misplaced Pages (Google: search 162,000 results)
- Essay wp:Manual_of_Substance - shift the form-over-substance view toward practical rules about article contents, noting wp:ACCESS to keyboard keys
- Essay wp:NOTMOS (What style is not) - to explain the limits where style interferes with productivity or usability of WP
- Any essays on wp:IAR - because the simple phrase "ignore all rules" seems boundless, then more essays could clarify when IAR is a practical alternative, with examples
- Essay wp:Cyberbullying - more needs to be explained, how one person's bully is another person's stylist who is never wrong
By broadening Misplaced Pages's coverage of major issues which compete against style-based or functional-based tunnel vision, then other editors could better understand how the style rules seem to be a wp:MOSque of self-righteous beliefs, even though that was not their original intent, and people laughing at the style guide would have logical explanations.
However, I must agree with you how others now will see "goofy rules" in the current system, but by broadening the pages about those issues, then more educated people will realize that Misplaced Pages is not so backward as they might have thought. By those means, we can elevate Misplaced Pages's reputation without megabytes of discussion with people who are never wrong. That could give hope to the "hidden" college professors who edit WP as anon IP addresses, for fear of dealing with the current rules. Does that seem reasonable next year? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting suggestions. The MOS today is poorly constructed, and poorly written (the MOS does not even follow itself). Instead of working collaboratively to construct it, there are daily edit wars, which is why it is under 1RR sanctions. The current mentality of those editing it appears to be, to try to make every article the same. That is simply not possible, and not a plausible goal for Misplaced Pages. The focus on MOS should be to specify how articles are laid out, not how to use punctuation, and not try to teach good writing. It is a completely false assumption that title policy chooses the letters to use for an article title and that MOS determines the punctuation to use between words. As pointed out, if that was the case we would end up with ridiculous spellings for comets and airports - like we now have for comet Hale-Bopp, and for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. I would rather fix the MOS than write essays about it being garbage, but I certainly could write something about cyberbullying. Misplaced Pages has a lot of brilliant writers, and it would be trivial to bring the MOS back to reality - and have it provide form and substance. As to "Misplaced Pages is not so backward as they might have thought" I do not see that - I would say it is worse than they thought - or just as bad as it seems. Until people have reason to stop saying "Read any article on a topic you are expert in, and roll your eyes (and forget about trying to correct it, by the way)", we are not "there" yet. But there is certainly hope. Misplaced Pages is constructed a lot like the five blind people describing an elephant - each of us has something to add, and by collaborating we can get a better view of what an elephant is. Apteva (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
RE : username
my username will remain the same so please do not send me another spam message about it Wickedangry (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- No need to get angry about it though. It just is not what I would call an appropriate username. Apteva (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
well what's wrong with my username ? i'm just sick of seeing messages on my talk page saying "check out the tea house, change your settings, change your username ect. Wickedangry (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- To me it indicates that the editor might be wicked and angry. But that is just me, others may find it to be a perfectly acceptable username. If you like it I would wait to see if anyone else complains and then think about changing it then. I see that you are a valuable contributor - but have already attracted a block history. I would recommend thinking about asking for a mentor - someone who can help you personally. See WP:Mentor and Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user if you are interested. You can request adoption by simply adding {{subst:dated adoptme}} to your user page, User:Wickedangry, or you can go to Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and pick anyone there. There is also a button at the bottom of that page that launches a widget that helps edit your user page and not only add the request but fill in information that would be helpful. No one wants anyone to be frustrated, and not be able to be as productive as they can. A mentor gives you a single point contact who can help you. Apteva (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)