| Revision as of 22:16, 21 January 2016 editKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 editsm →"Voluntary" means what exactly?: coffee and colons← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:04, 22 January 2016 edit undoDarkfrog24 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,724 edits →"Voluntary" means what exactly?: I have NEVER removed a reliable source just to take out text I didn't like. Most of what SmC is saying is just not true.Next edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| ::::In response to what Darkfrog24 just posted up there, note the attitude that the editor is the ] from heathen hordes of nonbelievers. Actually, I've spent a small fortune this month on obtaining reliable sources (pretty much every non-trivial style guide in print that I didn't already have) specifically for improving WP's articles on the English language, most of which are a shambles (many don't even exist, as such, and just mostly-unsourced sections like ] that read like someone's personal essay). Meanwhile, DF24 relies on decades-obsolete material like the 14th ed. of the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' (even the current edition of which is not a reliable source on British styles, logical quotation, or other stylistic matters it denigrates and conflates, but does not define, like a zoology book that incorrectly confuses two plant species clearly distinguished in botanical literature), has a habit of refusing to acknowledge multi-editor disputes against DF24's PoV at the article in question , and deletes reputably published sources the editor disagrees with, over multiple objections, and replaces them with self-published ranty blog posts by those who agree with DF24's PoV . DF24's take on what would happen at articles like this is exactly the opposite of reality. The implication that I or Dick Lyon (who has been gone for most of a year until very recently) had anything to do with with unsourced material being added to the article, much less would add more of it is false and unsupported ] (part of a string of them so long I've considered a separate ANI action to seek an interaction ban on CIVIL/NPA/AGF grounds). DF24 actually editwarred to delete the sourcing dispute tags {{em|I}} placed at that article , , without doing anything to resolve the disputes I identified (which are still extant). The primary reason that article in particular is in such a poor state is because the tendentiousness applied by DF24 to the entire topic area in September 2015 (diffed in detail ]) was so intense and disruptive it effectively chased me and most other editors away from touching the matter for months. And most of that was on talk pages, so yes, they need to be covered by the TB. I've been sitting on my hands on the entire set of articles, waiting for this one editor's OWN / GREATWRONGS / BATTLEGROUND behavior to be reined in. I've very tentatively begun this source-based improvement work, in a different article on a different style matter yesterday , to test the waters.<p>Any TB applied to DF24 needs to include the mainspace, since that's the only place the PoV pushing and OR actually matter to the outside world, and even to most editors on the project as a whole. MOS wonks can argue until blue in the face on guideline and essay talk pages and it's just hot air. Embarrassingly poor articles that the British press mock us for in public is {{em|real}}. Broad construal of the TB is necessary; as my diff-pile demonstrates, this quotation marks campaign is something DF24 has pursued for almost 7 years in every available forum, from MOS and its talk page, to various MOS-related supplementary pages, noticeboards, RfCs, user talk, and mainspace and its talk. I think the TB should cover the whole ] area, since the disruptive behavior is likely to simply shift from this stylistic pet-peeve to a different one, but I guess we'll see. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)</p> | ::::In response to what Darkfrog24 just posted up there, note the attitude that the editor is the ] from heathen hordes of nonbelievers. Actually, I've spent a small fortune this month on obtaining reliable sources (pretty much every non-trivial style guide in print that I didn't already have) specifically for improving WP's articles on the English language, most of which are a shambles (many don't even exist, as such, and just mostly-unsourced sections like ] that read like someone's personal essay). Meanwhile, DF24 relies on decades-obsolete material like the 14th ed. of the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' (even the current edition of which is not a reliable source on British styles, logical quotation, or other stylistic matters it denigrates and conflates, but does not define, like a zoology book that incorrectly confuses two plant species clearly distinguished in botanical literature), has a habit of refusing to acknowledge multi-editor disputes against DF24's PoV at the article in question , and deletes reputably published sources the editor disagrees with, over multiple objections, and replaces them with self-published ranty blog posts by those who agree with DF24's PoV . DF24's take on what would happen at articles like this is exactly the opposite of reality. The implication that I or Dick Lyon (who has been gone for most of a year until very recently) had anything to do with with unsourced material being added to the article, much less would add more of it is false and unsupported ] (part of a string of them so long I've considered a separate ANI action to seek an interaction ban on CIVIL/NPA/AGF grounds). DF24 actually editwarred to delete the sourcing dispute tags {{em|I}} placed at that article , , without doing anything to resolve the disputes I identified (which are still extant). The primary reason that article in particular is in such a poor state is because the tendentiousness applied by DF24 to the entire topic area in September 2015 (diffed in detail ]) was so intense and disruptive it effectively chased me and most other editors away from touching the matter for months. And most of that was on talk pages, so yes, they need to be covered by the TB. I've been sitting on my hands on the entire set of articles, waiting for this one editor's OWN / GREATWRONGS / BATTLEGROUND behavior to be reined in. I've very tentatively begun this source-based improvement work, in a different article on a different style matter yesterday , to test the waters.<p>Any TB applied to DF24 needs to include the mainspace, since that's the only place the PoV pushing and OR actually matter to the outside world, and even to most editors on the project as a whole. MOS wonks can argue until blue in the face on guideline and essay talk pages and it's just hot air. Embarrassingly poor articles that the British press mock us for in public is {{em|real}}. Broad construal of the TB is necessary; as my diff-pile demonstrates, this quotation marks campaign is something DF24 has pursued for almost 7 years in every available forum, from MOS and its talk page, to various MOS-related supplementary pages, noticeboards, RfCs, user talk, and mainspace and its talk. I think the TB should cover the whole ] area, since the disruptive behavior is likely to simply shift from this stylistic pet-peeve to a different one, but I guess we'll see. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)</p> | ||
| :::::Oh, dear. How fast do you type? I've read the first sentence so far and yes, I've noted that already (internally mentally) and alluded to the BG issues on WP:AE. I'm fairly confident in the wisdom of the AE admins. Please do be patient with us, thanks! ]] 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC) | :::::Oh, dear. How fast do you type? I've read the first sentence so far and yes, I've noted that already (internally mentally) and alluded to the BG issues on WP:AE. I'm fairly confident in the wisdom of the AE admins. Please do be patient with us, thanks! ]] 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Killer C, forgive me but I have to ask, you did ''look'' at the things he's citing right? Did you scroll up and see what what we were talking about in the thread? SmC has posted so many links that I can see why it might be tempting to skip that step, but so much of what he's saying is completely untrue. | |||
| ::::::SmC says that I remove solid sources and replace them with unreliable blogs just because I don't like the text they support. That's not true. I have ''never'' done that. The case he's citing? Here's the actual dif. with my edit summary: Notice where it says "removing contested Yagoda source." I took out Yagoda because I thought SmC was contesting it, based on his edit summary: When he (very rudely) made it clear that that wasn't what he'd meant, I ''immediately'' said that I didn't mind if he just put the Yagoda source back. Then he accused me of "making things up" just because I'd misunderstood him. At no point did this involve changing one word of the paragraph's text. I replaced one source that supported the sentence with a different source that also supported the ''exact same'' sentence. | |||
| ::::::That's the pattern. Everything he's telling you falls apart if you look closely. The first link is from 2009 when I was a relatively new editor. Both my understanding of this issue and my MO have developed a lot since then. | |||
| ::::::He says I rely heavily on outdated sources. Also not true. I keep posting the link to Chicago 14 ''alongside'' other sources because there ''is'' a link to it. That passage of 14 is available online, and 15 and 16 are not. I've got a copy of 15, but only in print. I also have literally dozens of other sources, mainstream, high-quality, recent, with names like Oxford, Modern Language Association, Purdue OWL, university websites, professional journals, and SmC has seen me cite them. | |||
| ::::::On a lighter note, I clicked your "BG" and ended up in Wikiproject Bulgaria. Figured that wasn't the target, but it was a nice moment. ] (]) 02:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:04, 22 January 2016
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 7:11 pm, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives Centralized discussion 
NiceVery nice to see the puppy drop by. Always great to see you. :-) — Ched : ? 17:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 January 2016
A beer for you!
"Voluntary" means what exactly?I'm in the process of trying to work out something with Laser Brain. LB was the only admin who answered my request for more information. From my perspective, when Ed Johnson said "a voluntary offer sufficient to forestall a ban," it sounded like he was demanding that I agree to something before finding out what it was. I need some specifics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
|
|||||||
