Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:26, 14 March 2013

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Misplaced Pages's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Start a new discussion thread

Only 993066808 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993066808 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon (talk)

Rene Redzepi discussion thread

Hi, thanks for the notification about the DNR Rene Redzepi thread. I noticed that the discussion has been archived without a proper investigation from third parties about the complaint. Is the reason of that the fact that no other user involved took part in the discussion? I just joined Wiki so there are still many things I don't understand. To whom should I talk to in order to have such an arbitration on the issue? Thank you for your patience Etimo (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow the steps at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution without skipping any steps. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

AH dispute

This conversation never got anywhere at talk. And now also with your volunteer help, for exactly the SAME reason, went nowhere. Editors still refused to engage in good faith dialogue at DR. As editors are refusing to provide verfiable sources, have refused to respond to cited quotes, (as here: ) and have refused to abide by DR policy of only discussing content, I feel they therefore can not fairly complain if the sentence is now deleted in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy that ALL material must be verfiable, with cited sources and not the result of synthesis. What do you think?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy: I disagree. Good faith has taken place overall and many cites given. The point I believe is we are dealing, in the end, with facts mixed with opinions and estimates; those by experts and otherwise; and therefore consensus must be obtained and majority opinions followed. I believe an agreeable lede summary sentence can be agreed upon. I would suggest you listing out the several suggested lede summary sentences for tweaking, comment and hopefully approval. I can't check back until later, due to real life calling; but that is my suggestion. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, I understand your frustration, but I am far from convinced that this case is ready to be closed as failed. I think that you have made the best case you can, so you might want to consider (your choice, do what you think best) sitting back for a short while and watching to see how it goes. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To Kierzek: Good faith? Sheesh! The clear animosity, obstinacy, dishonesty of response, and petty-mindedness of NickD and Mallaja strikes me as overwhelming. They add nothing as a contribution to a discussion of content and in fact have been a huge obstacle to that endeavour. We need to discuss the quoted sources. No-one is discussing mine and Dianna is repeating lists of numbers again (as Britmax advised against) without addressing the basic question of synthesis (agreed by myself, Timesarchanging and Britmax) nor the disputed numbers of Rummel (Woogie's point). I.e. we haven't moved forward at all. It also seems to me that apart from Dianna, editors (including yourself, Kierzek) are just praising the work of their own perceived 'contestant'. When we don't need more opinions, we need sources and a fair discussion of them. So comments like "outstanding and rigorous work as always", "Great job," and "*** lays out the argument well" do not move us forward but are just a variation on the false "we all agree" theme. I am not arguing that people didn't die in WW2 or that Hitler wasn't responsible for war deaths. Check out my original point 7. Ah, but that would require reading something that I have written, and responding to my argument, wouldn't it. And there lies the problem. (sarcasm).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact is Mystichumwipe, the above is arguing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You have been given a lot of replies with cited sources on these matters; including ones by myself. Since you don't like what you are hearing, I will not be replying further to you here but only to the AH DR in general. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To Guy Macon: I posted a variation of this post to you, over at the AH talk page. Perhaps that is why Dianna responded. Or maybe its a coincidence. Anyway, I welcome a response that deals with content. But the other respondents seem to me to not be doing that. Can I ask you therefore to consider removing the comments that are merely praising their own perceived 'contestant' as they strike me as another variation of user conduct comment, albeit a positive one (i.e. they do not add anything to a content discussion).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to take a family member to the emergency room, (non life threatening) and may not be online for the rest of the day. While I am gone, please Try not to do things that you know annoy the other person and try not to be easily annoyed. Later. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything worked out fine at the hospital, and I am back.

OK, let's talk about all of the above.

First, the quickest way to alert me that something in a DRN case needs to be addressed is right here. It pops up a "you have a new message on your talk page" message no matter what page I am working on. No need to put it on DRN unless you want another volunteer to see it as well (which you might want to do if I am not online, this is just a suggestion).

Second, the issue of synthesis is being addressed. I have made it a main point in my questions, and I am getting responses with suggested wording / citations that do not violate WP:SYNTHESIS. I looked very carefully at all of the "my questions are being ignored" claims and where I agree I am asking the same questions in a less confrontational manner. DRN is working. We may not be able to resolve this but we are making good progress. Please stop saying that it is broken. Also, agreeing with and praising someone who you believe -- rightly or wrongly -- is making good points about article content is allowed. That is how we build consensus.

Third, "Good faith? Sheesh! The clear animosity, obstinacy, dishonesty of response, and petty-mindedness of NickD and Mallaja strikes me as overwhelming." is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You need to go up to that message, strike the comments with <s> and </s>, and apologize.

Normally I wouldn't bother pointing the above out because of a basic fact about WP:DRN: We don't care about whether someone was wronged. We don't care who misbehaved or why. Not only that, but the people who look up things on Misplaced Pages don't care either. All we care about is the article content (text and citations). I only pointed the above out because it happened on my talk page.

Here is an important point: just because WP:DRN doesn't care about behavior, that does not mean that nobody cares. WP:ANI and WP:RFCU care a great deal, and unlike us DR volunteers who purposely have been given no real power other than the power of persuasion and some minor housekeeping abilities within DRN, WP:ANI and WP:RFCU can end with someone being blocked or even banned.

I fully expect to see someone open a case at WP:RFCU after the DRN case is closed (if you do it before they will ask you to wait). Those venues don't allow discussion about article content and only focus on user conduct. I also expect to see WP:BOOMERANG in action when that case is filed. That will be the place to complain about someone allegedly refusing to answer legitimate questions. That will be the place to complain about someone allegedly using words like "obstinacy", "dishonesty" and "petty-mindedness". That will be the place to complain about someone refusing to follow the rules at DRN. Me? I don't care. That's why I volunteer at DRN and not at RFCU. All I care about is making the article better. Anyone who focuses on that with me has nothing to fear from ANI or RFCU. Not only that, but (and this is really hard for some folks to wrap their minds around) this is true even if they are dead wrong about content. You can literally try to make Misplaced Pages say that Adolph Hitler was actually a 10th-century Chinese emperor, and as long as you follow our rules, you won't get blocked. (you also won't get your way unless you have reliable sources backing up that claim, but that is another story). It could very well end up that the person who disputes the 10th-century Chinese emperor theory gets blocked because of edit warring, personal attacks, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You perhaps haven't been reading NickD's comments elsehwere. NickD even felt he had to ask you, why you were lumping the 11 million figure into your reply! .-o Amazing! I.e. he still doesn't get the synthesis aspect. Diannaa's reply with sources was still suggesting writing "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of at least eleven million people". Also quite amazing. So he/she apparently doesn't either. Neither answered the question of synthesis which is what this is, and always has been about. They ducked it at talk and they are still avoiding it at DR.

You yourself wrote right at the beginning: "the question before us is not what the numbers are ...but rather what those sources are counting." Don't you agree, that this has been consistently ignored? Diannaa didn't with his/her lists.

Diannnaa asked me to comment on their very slightly new suggestion, when I have already written now extensivley on exactly that for days now, with supporting arguments and sources, which not only have gone unacknowledged and unaddressed, but the administrator Nick D argued you shouldn't have accepted the disccussion as he thinks I am alone and my conduct is the problem!! :-o. He even refuses to admit the clear fact of simple arithemtic that there are five editors who have issues with the sentence! I find it quite bizarre and so, yes I admit I lose patience now. You deleted my request that editors should respond to the points and sources I have made, yet you allowed Diannaa's similar request to me to stand? BOTTOM LINE: I still want the original synthesis point to be adressed and acknowledged. Hopefully my alternative suggestions will solve this.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Re. POSITIVE and NEGATIVE USER CONDUCT comments.

Of course, agreeing with someone who you believe is making good points about article content is allowed. Sure. That is how we build consensus. But praising someone is about user conduct, not about content. I ONLY think this important in THIS discussion as we DO have a problem here that numerous editors have refused to discuss the points I am making, by seeking refuge in a 'consensus' argument, and by trying to argue that I am the ONLY problem for the sentence being disputed. So THAT -- coupled with praising Diannaa's again avoidance/blind spot(?) to the synthesis issue -- is what I am referring to as unhelpful user-conduct commentary. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Guy Macon; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)