This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 4 July 2013 (→Really?: — Apteva, Stop. Now.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:30, 4 July 2013 by ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) (→Really?: — Apteva, Stop. Now.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 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)
Welcome back
Hi Apteva. Welcome back to editing. What did you do with the RM backlog? How? I have been in the habit if only paying attention to backlog RMs, and may have to find a new habit? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- When I first saw it was gone I figured it had to have been another bot failure, but no, it was gone. All I did was encourage, nag, and pester as many admins as possible to help. Amazingly a combination of four admins cleared out the entire remaining backlog of 58 requests in one day. Actually all but three were done by only one admin, but they did relist a whopping 22 requests (of the rest, 25 were moved, 8 were not moved, by this closer). Fortunately new requests have been a bit slow for the last two days, so the backlog is not going to be totally unreasonable a week from now. Bear in mind that anything that has been listed a full seven days can be closed, and these always appear in the last day of the listing, before the backlog. Just check the time stamp. Apteva (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Artpop
Hi Apteva! I was just wondering if you would make the final step of moving
- I can not do that, because it requires an admin. But I did request that an admin delete Artpop so that it can be moved. That has been contested because of the history there, but I have also requested a history merge of Artpop and Artpop (2013 Lady Gaga album). It looks like the article will be sorted out soon. Apteva (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The "Li (surname)" saga.
Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Really?
I just had a glance at User_talk:Tony1 ... are you seriously suggesting that an editor can not include 1 or 2 words of "praise" or even gentle correction on an article talkpage? Seriously? What better place is there to say "I like your idea, Bob - especially because xyx", or "I don't think that edit helps the article, Michelle since it doesn't meet abc" than right there in the middle of the discussion? Please don't ever try to dissuade that kind of proper interaction! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to be helpful, it goes on their talk page. Putting it inline in a discussion is exclusionary, and completely out of place in any collaborative decision making process. In consensus decision making we speak to the group, never to an individual. In parliamentary decision making we speak to the moderator, and never to either the group or the individual. You can say "I don't think that edit helps the article", but you have to leave it at that and not personalize it, but you can certainly say because of abc. You can say "I like this idea (with a diff if needed), and can certainly say because xyz, but you do have to leave the person out of the conversation and keep it on the topic. This is not new, and has been around for 400 years now. When parliamentary procedure was developed 200 years ago the same principle was adopted, keep the discussion to the topic and never on the individual you might be agreeing or disagreeing with at the moment. In this case you are flat out wrong in saying that sort of commentary is acceptable. Some editors, though react far differently than others, and to avoid any negative impact it is best to avoid all such personalizations. This is WP policy, and for good reason. Apteva (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Care to show me this policy you claim? This is a community, not parliament - we don't follow parliamentary procedure, and we most CERTAINLY take the time to give praise in public where needed. You're very very wrong on this (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- You could start with WP:Avoid personal remarks, but the policy is at WP:FOC: "Focus on article content, not on editor conduct." Feel free to clarify that to add "This applies to praise as well as complaints." I am well aware that WP makes up its own "rules", including one that is rarely enforced, to "WP:Ignore all rules", but this is something that has been developed over 400 years, and is not unique to WP. All adopters of any form of collaborative decision making conform to the same rule. Apteva (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where does that suggest that a couple of words of praise cannot be included on the article talkpage when you see something that is appropriate? You're making shit up, and you know it - especially when you're quoting dispute resolution, when saying something nice is not part of a dispute. Stop telling people not to do the right thing - community comes first, and saying something nice is community-building (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not making anything up. Focus on content, not on conduct, both bad and good. It is exclusionary and diverts from developing consensus. The place to say nice things is on their talk page, not on an unrelated discussion. Apteva (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- My examples provide ARE commenting on content/edits. You're wrong, and it's been proven. Please stop telling others differently. I'm unwatching this page now because I have now done right by the community by saying this, and proving it. Baseless comments and links to guidelines that don't even support what you're saying is tiring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- They are mostly commenting on the edit, and they are mostly correct. The things that need to be changed are simply leave out the personalization, which is inappropriate. What you are simply proving is that the community often violates policy. On that talk page an editor even argues that it is "only a recommendation of a technique to use to avoid conflict, not a rule or conduct guideline", whereas it is not a guideline, but a policy, something that we are all expected to follow all of the time. Apteva (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apteva, drop this. I know you think this, think you have good reasons for it, and have the best of intentions. But nobody agrees with you. Stop harassing people on talk pages, dragging them to AE, etc, over this. Stop it *now*. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- They are mostly commenting on the edit, and they are mostly correct. The things that need to be changed are simply leave out the personalization, which is inappropriate. What you are simply proving is that the community often violates policy. On that talk page an editor even argues that it is "only a recommendation of a technique to use to avoid conflict, not a rule or conduct guideline", whereas it is not a guideline, but a policy, something that we are all expected to follow all of the time. Apteva (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- My examples provide ARE commenting on content/edits. You're wrong, and it's been proven. Please stop telling others differently. I'm unwatching this page now because I have now done right by the community by saying this, and proving it. Baseless comments and links to guidelines that don't even support what you're saying is tiring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not making anything up. Focus on content, not on conduct, both bad and good. It is exclusionary and diverts from developing consensus. The place to say nice things is on their talk page, not on an unrelated discussion. Apteva (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where does that suggest that a couple of words of praise cannot be included on the article talkpage when you see something that is appropriate? You're making shit up, and you know it - especially when you're quoting dispute resolution, when saying something nice is not part of a dispute. Stop telling people not to do the right thing - community comes first, and saying something nice is community-building (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- You could start with WP:Avoid personal remarks, but the policy is at WP:FOC: "Focus on article content, not on editor conduct." Feel free to clarify that to add "This applies to praise as well as complaints." I am well aware that WP makes up its own "rules", including one that is rarely enforced, to "WP:Ignore all rules", but this is something that has been developed over 400 years, and is not unique to WP. All adopters of any form of collaborative decision making conform to the same rule. Apteva (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Care to show me this policy you claim? This is a community, not parliament - we don't follow parliamentary procedure, and we most CERTAINLY take the time to give praise in public where needed. You're very very wrong on this (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)