User talk:Flyer22 Frozen - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scoundr3l (talk | contribs) at 06:07, 18 January 2016 (→Regarding RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:07, 18 January 2016 by Scoundr3l (talk | contribs) (→Regarding RfC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I RETIRED IN THE MULTIVERSE

This user left Misplaced Pages in an alternate universe...

For who I am, or was: Past introduction page and past user page. Includes information about my block log. More commentary on my block log here.

For how I was "reborn": User:Flyer22 Reborn/How I was "reborn".

For my views on disruptive editors and the administrators who protect the project from them, and an acknowledgement that I lack respect for those who don't. Includes examples of me usually being right about WP:Sockpuppetry matters.

For how I can surely recognize a person is not a WP:Newbie, even though I likely will not press the person on it unless necessary.

For my views on the WP:Neutral policy: User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Neutral/WP:Undue weight.

For my views on pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Misplaced Pages: WP:Child protection. Also see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Child protection and this discussion.

For awards and gifts I've received (including two "I hate you" type of awards): User:Flyer22 Reborn/Awards and gifts.

If you leave a message here, I will usually reply here instead of at your talk page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Keep up the good work! Jim1138 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style/Images

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I don't get what your discussion is talking about. --Steverci (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Steverci, regarding this, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you; I was simply pointing you to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members" because how the guideline should be applied is being discussed and reevaluated there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Could you please refrain from changing my edits they are all factually correct Brownkidneys (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What edits are those, exactly? You do not appear to have performed any edits on Misplaced Pages using this account prior to your having vandalized this Talk page. General Ization 21:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Going by this and this, it's clear that Brownkidneys meant the edits to the Derek Martin article. Brownkidneys is now indefinitely blocked anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding RfC

I have a request for the RfC section of Campus sexual assault. Rather than three sections, one for "Don't use in-text attribution", one for "Use in-text attribution", and one for "Provide additional information", I propose we remove the "Don't use..." subsection. Not only is this confusing by requiring the commentators to comment twice, one possibly resulting in a double-negative, but also supporting "Provide additional information" and opposing "Don't use..." can be contradictory. I am not opposed to not using in-text attribution, I am only in favor of using it. Since I would be happy with alternatives to in-text attribution (as mentioned) I am not opposed to the negative, if that makes sense, Can we please change this to a standard, single-question format "Should we use in-text attribution for this statement...?" or something along those lines. Then the comments are clear: support, opposed, or other. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the current format is fine. Editors commonly vote more than once in RfCs, including in this other recent RfC. The current format for the aforementioned RfC at the Campus sexual assault article addresses all the points, and it has one section for proposals and one section for further (general) commentary; it will make it easier for the closer to assess than having one or more jumbled sections; I state that after having taken the time to watch a lot of RfCs. Can you just let the RfC play out instead of debate this as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would have granted your wish to remove "Don't use in-text attribution," but Kaldari already voted there. I would remove "Use in-text attribution," but leaving the "Don't" heading without the "Use" heading seems biased to me, like I'm presenting "Don't" as the main or sole option, even though people can obviously add "oppose" there and there are the other sections. So, at this, point, it's best to just let editors vote once or twice if they want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I maybe should have added a "Use or don't use in-text attribution" heading instead of the individual "Don't" and "Use" ones; this way, editors can simply state "Use" or "Don't use." I could still do that, if Kaldari doesn't mind changing her "Support" vote to "Don't use." But still...some would argue that the separate sections are cleaner. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not my intention to start another debate. I didn't think it was a contentious request. The current formatting is very unusual in my opinion. Generally it's either yay or nay, not yay to the pro, nay to the con. At least in the US, ballots are also framed in the affirmative, i.e "Should we do this?" not "Should we not do this?". Plus my position has never been opposed to -not- using in-text attribution (see how tricky the double-negative is?) I intended to inform Kaldari that we may change format, but got pulled away earlier. If we can't reach them to re-comment, I see no reason we can't consider that opposed. Scoundr3l (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive

A barnstar for you!

Manual of Style/Images

Editing

Regarding RfC