Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 5 September 2009 (→Really?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1·2·3·4·5·

Advice please

Hi Maunus, I need some advice (not about your article). I've been caught up in an edit war at IB Diploma Programme and I'm not handling it very well in my opinion. One editor is very tendentious and makes what are in my view sloppy mistakes, and has turned the talk page into a rant (although I'm afraid I've been guilty of the same tonight). I've unwatched the pages and will walk away from the article, but do you have advice for dealing with such situations? Sorry, also it's sidetracked me from finishing your article that I intended to finish tonight. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Those kinds of situations are really tough to handle. The best advice is to keep a cool head and not take it personal, and walk away when it becomes too much. I can't say I have been very good at following that advice myself in my encounter with Dale Chock today - but I do try because it isn't worth it to let it get to you. There are dispute resolutiojn venues but in my experience they aren't very effective unless one editor is actually using four letter words or racist insults, legal threats or stuff like that. Also it is good to keep the focus on arguments and policies and try to ignore inflammatory rhetorics. About editwars the most important is never to revert more than once or in extreme cases twice - always take it to the talk page - involve as many other editors as possible in establishing a consensus and implementing it. Don't let your own hands get dirty by reverting more than once. About Dale Chock's antics on the Otomi page - i really shouldn't let it get to me, his ideas about deleting half the content aren't based in policies and I don't think most other editors would agree - what is so aggravating is the condescending attitute he uses and that's what gets to me. I guess one just has to try to forget one's personal pride, taking offenses to one's pride by strangers on the internet isn't really conductive for anything. But it is hard. That was a little rant about my own case: you seem more patient and well balanced than me and I am sure you have what it takes to just ague your case and keep a cool head. Thanks for all your help.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, but there have been 3rs on IB Diploma Programme today --not mine, because I don't revert -- although I probably am guilty of provoking one of them. Also, the same editer User:ObserverNY left this comment on my talkpage for another editor, which is highly uncivil. The same editor has been blocked twice for 3rs, the page has been protected, yet the drama goes on. There are a lot of editors on the page, the talk page is incredibly long, but the personal insults keep coming. I try very hard to be even keeled; this is a collaborative project and we're building an encyclopedia here. Each editor has his/her strengths, but it's very hard to get caught up with people who come to wikipedia with an agenda. Will take your advice and cool myself off and return tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him that that way of interacting with other editors can get him blocked.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help with the situation above. It's calmed down a bit for now. Also, enjoy your wikibreak, and for whatever it's worth, I like the Otomi language article as is, that's why I didn't really hack at it when copyediting. Don't stay away too long! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For when you resurface, I've left a comment here. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Otomi diacritics

What I did was using combining characters. Mind you, they are a bit hit-and-miss, especially in italics. Circeus (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's actually what I was arguing in favor of from the start. I don't see a reason to argue in favor of IPA in examples except where the spelling is completely un-phonemic (French or English come to mind) or non-Latin. I'll see about giving a deeper read (I mildly lost interest around the grammar section for some reason) whenevr I have the time. Circeus (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully {{unicode}} formatting will force them to display properly even in italics.

I agree (if this is the issue at hand) that once the IPA is used in the phonology section, it is often more practical to use orthography for the rest of an article. kwami (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

greenlandic as a non-threatened language

Hi Maunus I've noticed that you erased twice my editing on the greenlandic language. Believe me, I've been working in the navajo reservation, navajo IS threatened as fewer and fewer children actually learn to speak it. Same thing goes for Inuktitut/Yupik as today more and more native villages turn to english. The main difference between greenlandic and all other languages in the americas, is that this is the sole example of a language that has a corresponding state(or a truly autonomous political entity) to endorse it(with a 100% of literacy rate as well). There is no similar thing in the whole of america, such that even native-majority countries such as Peru or Bolivia, still endorse spanish as their main language, and in any case those who speak the native languages are usually part of the lowest ranks in the society. If you dont agree with me for any reason, please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.51.236 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote that Greenlandic is the only language in North America that is not threatened - this is problematic for two reasons: first other North American languages such as Navajo and Inuktitut have more speakers, if you count Mexico as north America then Nahuatl, Zapotec, Mixtec, Maya all have many more speakers. (in South America Quechua, Guaraní all have many millions of spakers) Secondly number of speakers isn't the only factor to take into account when assessing endangerment - as you note also the rate of acquisition comes into play and the level of official support. It is correct that Greenlandic is the only native american language to have a complete official status backed up by a government apparatus - but again this does not necessarily mean that it is less endangered than other extremely viable languages like Maya or Zapotec that have hundreds of thousands of speakers at all age levels. The short explanation here is - it doesn't matter what you or I believe to be the least endangered language - it matters what specialists in the field think. If you can find a reference to a reliable source stating that Greenlandic is the only non-threatened language in the Americas then we can include the claim together with the reference, if not then it is only personal speculations and w can't include that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree on the inclusion of the following sentence: greenlandic is the only amerindian language to have a complete official status and as such it is far less threatened than most other languages in the americas that are usually put under a considerable pressure from neighboring european languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.51.236 (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No we can't that includes the unsupported assumption that being an official language necessarily implies being less threatened than any non official language. That assumption can only be included if you have a very good reference for it. Also Greenlanidc isn't amewrindian by any means - it eskimo-aleut. We can agree that "Greenlandic is the only indigenous language of North America to have full official status". Comparing levels of endangerment can only be done by using sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single linguist that actually believes that "being an official language necessarily implies being less threatened than any non official language" is an "unsupported assumption". It's such a commonly held belief that I suspect the only reason you are arguing with me on this issue is becuase you feel you somehow possess this wikipedia article. If I started to delete every unsupported assumption you have made use of in your edits without giving well-founded references, I would probably erase more than half of the what you've written. Now, I have no intention of doing so, and I can't see any reason for you being so overprotective over articles you've been working on. By the way, the term "amerindian languages" is a common way of calling any indigenous language from the Americas(at least in the US). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.237.10 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you just met that single linguist. Take your ownership accusations elsewhere and start using reliable sources. Being a linguist I can also tell you that linguistically speaking calling Eskimo-Aleut languages Amerindian makes no sense whatsoever. For example they are not just spoken in the Americas but also in Asia.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Amerindian" always excludes "Eskimo-Aleut". (Taivo (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

My point exactly.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine

Thanks for you work Maunus. It was refreshing to see someone actually care about fixing the entry. The NRM subject area needs tons of help. Have a good break.PelleSmith (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FlG Cult

Please explain how my changes made the section a pro-Falun Gong opinion piece. I'm going to be accused of bad faith editing. I would rather die than behave dishonorably. I believe this can be dealt with with strict reference to wikipedia policies, particularly regarding neutrality, due weight, and reliable sources. It's not like I particularly care whether my version is up or not, but there are objective policies, and I might as well not edit the pages if I'm not going to actually call it as I see it with regard to all these things (in terms of policy, this article, the lay of the land when it comes to the reliable sources, etc.). By the way, I was going to say "I think it's bullshit that you just accuse me of bad faith like that!" etc. etc., but I calmed down and I think the best thing is actually just calmly and rationally going through the sources and see what comes out. This isn't a matter of drawing a conclusion we think is neutral then backfiling the sources--neutrality is a methodology, and I put my faith in the process of rational discussion. --Asdfg12345 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Its quite simply really - you change the framing of all statements that suggest that some people do see Falun Gong as a cult and make it look like this is a fringe and discredited view when the previous version established unqeuivocally that there is a very large group of people who do think it is a correct description. I don't believe you are editing in bad faith - I think you probably believe that your view is neutral. But it's not.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. yes, I do believe it is a fringe view, and I believe this can be proven with reference to reliable sources. This is not a judgement on the quality of these people or whatever, it's a purely technical thing about what sources their comments appear in, and what other sources make contradictary, different, or rejectionary... rejectional? whatever the "reject" word for the form of "contradictory" is, if you know what I mean--statements about these views, and further state that they were copied from the CCP's propaganda handbook. Let me paste the whole Johnson passage, for example. actually just go here and see it. This is purely a technical question, it's not what I think or you think, it can be sorted out with reference to intersubjective phenomena (like the amount and quality of sources (which can be measured using objective criteria)). I'll keep the sources coming, I just hope you follow the trail...--Asdfg12345 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

to begin with, btw, the most prominent proponent of these views is Singer. That's already saying something, right? --Asdfg12345 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?

This is 100% absurd. 5 people wanted to turn the page into a redirect. 9 people said -no-. That is 64%. At an AfD, that would be an easy keep. There was clearly consensus against turning a 60k page into a redirect. Constant edit warring it into a redirect is classic blanking vandalism. Your comments are so unbelievably absurd that they surely must be a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Afd and redirect is not a vote. It comes down to arguments not numbers. Redirecting is not vblanking vandalism unless it is obviously done in bad faith in this case you are in a content dispute and content disputes are never vandalism.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be calling for your desysopping when this goes to RfAr. Your views about Misplaced Pages are so contradictory that allowing you to have any access to any buttons is clearly dangerous. Redirecting of one page to another by definition is always vandalism unless it is done with consensus. There is no way to claim otherwise except by a 100% denial of our standards and policies. There is no way to justify their constant blanking of the page against consensus and your attempts at it show that you are not here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus: In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights, I will explain my position shortly and not argue with others if they disagree. If they ask questions, I shall respond politely and not judge the questioner. I should seek to be inclusion and not exclusive, and consensus involves everyone and not a majority that overruns a minority. - Ottava Rima". From User:Ottava Rima/Philosophy. --Folantin (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You really are gracious about it when somebody disagrees with you ottava. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree? No, your comments are destructive to the encyclopedia. There was a clear consensus against this vandalistic action and a clear statement by the community that the action was inappropriate. You fail to recognize it in a very dangerous manner. This is a clear cut case and you are pretending as if they were some how justified in blanking a 60k top priority page without getting clear consensus to do it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your misunderstanding of the most basic points of WP:VANDAL is far more concerning. If the case were so clear cut then it is suprsing that nobody seems to agree with you at ANI. Now pack your empty threats about "calling for my desysopping" away and please leave my talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough people agreed with me that they reverted the action as a violation of clear consensus. And empty threat? I've been involved in many people being desysopped for less than what your actions are. Your actions are completely destructive and show not only a lack of understanding of the subject but a complete denial of some of our easy to understand policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow i find it hard to believ that any one has been desysopped for voicing an opinion at ANI. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And as far as I can see Persian empire remains a redirect.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply because most admin have already been involved in the page nor want to wheel war. And yes, people have been desysopped for promoting an opinion, especially when that opinion is the utter promotion of vandalism and a complete affront to our consensus procedures and our policies. There was already an RfC that determined that it was not to be a redirect. There was already consensus about working towards fixing the page. There were already two proposals for rewrites. If you bothered to read the talk page, you would see that there was a large group of people working together while five users edit warred the page out of existence. So, I assume you did your job as any responder and actually looked at the history, investigated, saw all of that, and decided to speak to the contrary. Otherwise, you didn't look at it at all and decided to comment on something you had no clue about. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe those nine editors should have considered that including the five dissenting editors was the only way to achieve a real consensus? The most important part of understanding WP:VANDAL is to understand what vandalism is not - vandalism is NEVER EVER edits done in a content dispute. It can be disruption, it can be trying to make a point but it is never vandalism. Editors have been de-rollbacked for claiming something to be vandalism that was clearly goodfaith editing. You should take the time to read Misplaced Pages:What is consensus?, which is an interesting essay describing what consensus is and isn't - it is not a policy but it makes for thought provoking reading nonetheless. Oh, and I must say that i agree wholeheartedly with your editing philosophy as presented above by Folantin - you really should try putting it in practice some day.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - including them in consensus? When 5 people want to completely delete a page, what is the "compromise"? Your response above is ridiculous. Vandalism can always deal with content. This is not a dispute of the content, this is the complete removal of a page. The fact that you cannot understand that proves that you are unworthy of adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)