I am removing old references to my username per WP:RTV. I wish to ensure my privacy by removing those user name references as they are coming up in search engine results, and that concerns me, for reasons I have shared with RyanPostalwaite. Please respect that wish, and don't revert my changes. If you object to my exercise of that right, I can only suggest you discuss that in an appropriate forum, or perhaps you can ask the aforementioned bureacrat who I gave a detailed explanation in order to try to avoid discussions. Thank you for respecting my privacy. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice your conversation above regarding the use of italics in cast sections, and that because they are not expressly disallowed by the FilmProject MoS you are pushing ahead with doing it your way. Luigibob has been in touch with me concerned that you are using italics in Anatomy of a Murder. I've had a look and I would agree with the others that italics doesn't quite work in the way that you are using them. This is a useful guide as to when italics are normally used. Introducing something that is non-standard grammar is not going to get support from editors or readers and you may be facing an uphill and disruptive battle. Probably best to let this one go. Regards. SilkTork *YES!07:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions, I really have given it some thought, and I'm not convinced. The arguments I've made are still valid and the look of the italics seems to me to work well. I don't believe it's inherently "disruptive" to use formatting choices which are allowed by the MoS, as long as they're done in good faith and with the aim of improving Wikipedia, which is indeed the case here.
Wikipedia is (or anyway has become) inherently conservative about many things. There's a large overhead of guidelines which are treated by many editors as if they are static dogmatic statementss of absolute rules when, in fact, they are guidelines which evolve over time. (Note for cast lists, specifically, a table used to be the consensus format, but that has given way over time to a consensus for lists.) One way to institute change is through formal argumentation, but that tends to run up against the inherent conservatism of the place. Another method is by way of example - the more people see the change in action, the more they get used to it, and the less inertia has to be overcome. I'm not advocating this for radical changes, just for minor evolutionary ones. I think it would be be difficult to sustain the notion that using italics in a cast list is significantly different enough to be in any way disruptive of the encyclopedia, especially when it's being done -- at least by me -- only on articles I create from scratch, or which didn't have a cast list to begin with, or in which the cast list needed radical re-working anyway.
You might also want to pass on to Luigibob that I generally don't bite - he can come to me with his arguments and doesn't have to resort to using a proxy. I will argue tenaciously in support of what I believe to be best, but I try to do so in as civil and friendly a manner as possible (although, being human, I don't always succeed). I don't generally respond well at all to Arguments from Authority (which is what constant reference to the MoS amounts to), but arguments based on utility and functionality get my respect and my attention - and I've been known to back off entirely when my position has been shown to be lacking in those qualities. My goal is to make articles look better, and be more easily usable for the ordinary reader who drops in to the encyclopedia to pick up some quick information, and I'm not at all convinced that every "consensus" decision that's been encoded in the Wikipedia guidelines are necessarily the best possible choice or (more to the point) that they actually represent the consensus of people editing the project at this moment.
So... anyway... I'm sorry that Luigibob feels he was harrassed off of editing the Anatomy of a Murder (film) article, but I've reviewed the edits, and I not only believe that my reversions were justified, I'm satisfied that the article is in better shape now then what I first started working on it. Of course, I'm biased, that goes without saying... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'll try to expand the plot (I have the film, in fact I have 150 film noirs or tape or DVD) and I'll work on the reception section, unless you get to it first. Best -- Luigibob (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey back...feel free to do your thing on the article. I've been working on a few documentaries. I like Wiki because it relaxes me as I edit and bring an article to a decent presentation. Still working long hours. I have not had a chance to see the film, nor to bring it out storage (my garage). Best -- Luigibob (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those directions confuse me, compared to the other wiki, personnaly, i like hte UD wiki deletion process the most, so much easier, just put it on a list, and why ect.--Jakezing (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, since I don't really care one way or another if the article stays or go, I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, so you'll either have to figure out the instructions -- for a native speaker of English with an advanced level of English capability, it shouldn't be that hard -- or get someone else to front for you. Sorry. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I like Ed now; and just to make sure this is pointed out: Ed is NOT part of the "ovewhealiming (sic)" support group for deletion. Dgmjr05 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that "knowing me" and the social politics implicit in that desire should have any bearing upon the quality of a contribution. My edits stand the test of time[1][2] and the additional scrutiny that all contributions from anonymous IP's receive, that's not unfair. But to be pilloried, accused, and banned without foundation is not acceptable. That caution and prejudice exists is one thing, false accusations and discriminatory abuse quite another.75.57.165.180 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I asked about was the terminology of "public editor." I haven't accused you of anything, and I'm not particularly interested in your dispute with another editor. I haven't looked at the evidence, and don't intend to, so I don't know if you've been improperly "pilloried" or if you're someone gaming the system, or something in between. It's not my concern or interest. If I had my way, anonymous editing of Wikipedia would be forbidden, but that doesn't mean I necessarily prejudge you in particular, one set of anonymous numbers among so many others.
What I am interested in is language, and how it is debased, twisted and manipulated, as by calling an anonymous editor a "public editor". It's the equivalent of calling the anti-abortion folks "pro-life" or abortion advocates "pro-choice" or the estate tax a "death tax". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the term as nothing more than those edits done on a perchance basis by members of the public. I'll suggest that it's analogous to a visitor to an art gallery resetting a picture frame to level as opposed to a member. Some of these people become members, others are simply frequent visitors more interested in the substance of the material than the fringe benefits of a membership. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually reset frames in gallery's on occasion, there are thousands of them dedicated to all manner of things - the Louvre, MOMA and Frick are the exception, most are quite accessible. But we can rephrase the analogy as a member of a theater company straightening out an aisle of chairs vs a member of the public aligning those around him.75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read your user page, I've found everything you have written to be agreeable and believe your end goal is laudable. Let me ask you one question though, assuming good faith, what if you were to edit an article anonymously with a group of only anonymous editors? No social relationships that tug on your loyalty's or prejudices and subtally effect your comments and edits - just pure unadulterated content that lives or dies on its merits and not on social-politics?75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a pragmatist - you set up that situation, and I'll assess it. I don't want to make assumptions, about good faith or anything else, about a theoretical situation. I didn't start out with a prejudice against anonymous editors -- after all, I did my first edits anonymously, before I created an account -- the prejudice grew out of practical experience, which is that while many anonymous editors are productive contributors, many are not. The anonymity of editing under an IP naturally attracts vandals and people just fucking around. Yes, there are plenty of registered users who do the same thing, but (and this is my perception, I don't have numbers to back it up), the relative percentage of vandals to good citizens is higher for anons that it is for registered users, and if my suggestion of a probation period was put to be utilized, the difference would be even greater.
I have no theoretical bias against anonymous editing, only a pragmatic one, and that's why I find the use of "public editor" somewhat annoying, because it smacks of an attempt to whitewash over a real problem instead of solving it.
I actually needed to think about that. I would not register at the current time, if Wiki rose to a level befitting its potential, not ideal but potential, I would join those individuals as it moved towards that. I will agree that IP editing is the primary source of vandals and a major contributor to poor entry's. But those are easy to deal with - the real damage is done through social politics and back door e-mails. Ban e-mail addresses, force talk into the light, that will have a dramatic impact right there.
Possibly consider fading identities-each entry gets assigned a code unique to the user which fades into the users name after 10 day's. Every ten days generate a different anonymous identifier for article posting purposes and every ten days fade that back into the unique user name. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is coming in between your messages on my talk page and I think we are on the same wavelength about the two different external links, but, I thought that I would send it anyway to refresh your memory. Here [3] is the sockpuppet case and here [4] is one of your comments at the time this happened about six months ago. You will want to scroll up to see more of what was going on at the time. You might also want to take a look at the messages that are currently at the bottom of my talk page from User:Sarcasticidealist about this persons links as he was involved at the time and now. My apologies for any upset at crossed communication. I hope that I am allowed to make this rather bad joke - I hope to see you coming down my chimney next Xmas ;) - and I apologize for it too if it isn't funny at all. Happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! Just because you share the same first name I drive right off the cliff and assume you were the same person. My only excuse is that I was trying to get the message to you as quickly as possible and I did not pay attention to what I was doing. Thanks for your understanding and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk16:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I've been wanting to get back to you but have been working long hours. I'm involved in politics and it's quite a busy season for us as we in California have a primary in early June (statewide offices and congressional, and more). Yes, I'll add a few reviews, and send you a few arguments for some of your minor edits. I love this film and it's a landmark film due to Ms. Lupino's involvement. It does make sense to move noir analysis to the reception area. See, I edit so many noirs I should move all noir analysis I edit to "Reception." Also, I should change critical reception to just Reception in the same as is noted in WP:FILM. More on this in my next note to you. Good work Ed. Best -- Luigibob (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your comment about making a report and not hearing back. The only replies that I ever got about abuse were automatic ones stating that for privacy issues they could not report back on their findings or actions. I did noticed that on at least one occasion an IP vandal stopped for three months before returning. They resumed and I made a second report and they have never come back. So it may be worthwhile making the reports even if you don't get a reply. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont) I agree that the blind quoting of MoS is more debilitating than useful and I would never advocate for that type of approach. What I am now butting up against is a mindset that veers into ownership issues. The reliance on interpretation of the guidelines into hard-and-fast rules is what is often cited as the reasoning behind the protectionist tendencies that some editors have maintained. In order to keep guardianship, the rejection of any other contribution that does not "fit" provokes at times, a voluminous and detailed explanation that mainly looks like rationalizing why other editors should not sully the soup. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yup, but as I observed, it really wasn't the changes that were advanced but merely that there were changes advanced. FWiW, in one instance, the "supervising" editor labelled all the new submissions as possible original research and rejected the attributions that were presented as unreliable. Bzuk (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
With such a general bias against "original research", perhaps the editor thought people would be blinded by b.s. Or, maybe, he or she just doesn't know what "original research" means - which is certainly true of many people here who throw the expression around indiscriminately. I've been told, for instance, that comparing a movie to the book it was made from is "orignal research"., or that unless I could find a reliable source to cite for a plot summary, it would be "original research" to have one -- hence my rules-of-thumb: "Observation is observation" (not original research) and "Artifacts speak for themselves" (media objects are their own sources). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fun i have recently had when I responded to three requests for help, continues. Now, one editor is "irritated" at my talk page comment that additional material was found and could be the basis of a bibliography, which is against "consensus". Introducing a bibliography is again not the real issue, there is still a prevalent feeling that revolves around "don't mess with my stuff." I will have to consider that the film editors do operate in a more "closed shop" than the aviation project group (with some notable exceptions) and this new murky world I have stepped into requires me to gain more steady footing. FWiW (please excuse the speaking in parables, I am really not Yoda) Bzuk (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hey, Ed! Duck Soup is nearing its good article candidacy and we only have a few more days before the ultimate decision is made, but a new reviewer has left some suggestions at the talk page. Click here to go to the new discussion. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been checking in occasionally. I'll take another look, but I'm not sure how much help I'll be to you, as I'm not really sure what the reviewer is looking for. I'l try, though. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right in that Lovecraft is who the editor who put that in is talking about -- he's done it before, and I've taken it out before. I have no doubt that Lovecraft wrote some science fiction, but that's not what he's known for, and it doesn't make him a "science fiction writer" any more than Doris Lessing is, and she wrote a entire "space fiction" series. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)20:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that there is a kind and gentle soul residing behind the outwardly fastidious facade you have attempted to convey to others. LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the laugh-out-loud link to conversations you have recently had about Dick. Now as an outsider, I think the discussion quickly swirled into a complex diatribe by the various participants as to the reputed motives and "your mother wears army boots" snipping. I have read your stuff before, and I can decipher your cues, but I can't say that others will have that impression. They may perceive that you are slightly haughty (perish the thought...), but at the same time, the arguments that were forwarded were all reasonable and authoritative. I give you and everyone involved cudos as all neatly skirted being a real Dick and that's the point, after all. A draw, retire to your corners. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I get suspicious when someone actively and ambitiously seeks the job. My usual assumption is that they want the power, and not the drudgery that goes with it... not to mention the hassles from disgruntled vandals who try to get vengeance. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. I was referring the Gaines dog food. Get religion. Get on the Gravy Train. Join some appropriate sect, like the Church of Baseball, or the Church of What's Happenin' Now. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Eddie. I'm not mad, just a little concerned, but why in the world did you take off the adaptation note and external link that talks about the classic Disney Channel bumper based on and inspired by The Maltese Falcon? It stars Mickey Mouse as a detective.Click here to watch the bumper.
Just asking...
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 2:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I took it off because (1) it's just a bumper, therefore not terribly notable, (2) You Tube videos are discouraged from being linked to because of copyright violation problems, and (3) It was written in such a way as to say that the bumper inspired the book, instead of vice versa. #3 could be fixed, but not #1 and #2. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)06:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed you reverted my Kode9 link in the Ballard article. I don't mind you doing so, of course, but wondered why? THis is just in the spirit of improving my editing... Apologies if I did it incorrectly. Millichip (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that sections like that tend to grow like topsy unless they're rather ruthlessly tended. There are many musicians, writers, filmmakers, etc. who would cite Ballard as an influence, and it simply seemed to me that Kode9 was not all that significant or notable a name to merit inclusion. The name was not familiar to me, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, so I looked over his article here, and didn't see anything there that popped out at me as indicating a level of significance enough to justify inclusion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree. In fact I was just linking Kode9 because I saw the ref when reading the entry page and I know he has a page. Kode9 and Dubstep are certainly both notable, and the inspiration of Ballard is quite interesting, but is probably a good subject for a magazine article, not a Wikipedia one. Certainly, more POV than it should be. I think many good articles are spoiled by vainglorious mentions of friends' bands, so I can see where you are coming from. Wouldn't this suggest removing the whole para, though? If we are going to have the para referring to Kode9, surely it is right to link to his page? Millichip (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are absolutely right, and that is totally my mistake. I had intended to remove the entire Kode9 entry, but actually only deleted the wikilink to his article. But after looking at the other entries in that section at the moment, I think we might as well leave Kode9 in there -- the whole section needs a good cleaning out, but it may as well stay in the meantime, since he's probably as notable as some of the other subjects of other entries. (I've restored the wikilink - sorry about that, and thanks for making me take a second look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know what the MoS says about image sizes. The MoS, however, is a guideline and not a rigid set of rules to be applied in an absolute manner, and in this case the "second-class citizen" nature of the way that images have been dealt with in the past is clearly represented in those guidelines.
If Wikipedia is to be successful, if it is to become the first choice of most people for information when they need something quickly, then it has to function well for people who pop in to find something out and pop out, i.e. people without an account, or people who have an account but haven't bothered to learn the ins and outs of it, because they're just not that interested in getting deeply involved. We need to be the primary source of information for those people, who will not have have their image size preferences. Now, if they come over, and everything is set at the default thumb size of 180, what they're going to see is a bunch of tiny little photographs which don't enhance the information, don't make the article look better, don't do anything, really, except take up a bit of space.
That's not acceptable. Wikipedia articles have to look good as well as have good information in them, and that means we have to be concerned about things like image size and layout: how does an image function, does it look good where it is, does it compete with the text around it or complement it, all that kind of stuff -- and that requires that many image sizes be hard-coded to set their relationships with the surrounding text.
There is just no way that the current system of non-coded thumbs and user-set image sizes will do that. I understand, I think, how and why it evolved that way, but it's no longer functional for the project at this point in its development, and needs to be re-thought. In the meantime, hard-coding of image sizes and paying attention to layout and other questions of visual functionality need to be our concern. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)22:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I, too, generally put in thumbnail sizes (I started out coding in HTML, so it's a habit to put in image sizes), a width of 180 pixels isn't really that small. This image is the default thumb size, which seems like a decent size for a picture. The benefit of having an electronic encyclopedia is that a user can click on an image to see the full size, so it's not necessary to display the image in a larger size on the article, as it would be in a paper encyclopedia.
As for the need for a hard-coded size to make an image work with the rest of the text, that doesn't always work out right. While the image will stay the same size from user to user, the text doesn't necessarily stay the same. Users may specify a different font size or font face in their browser, or their operating system might display a different font face by default. I know Ubuntu's default font in Firefox is a tad bit smaller than the default Firefox font in Windows, which leads to display differences (a Wikipedia article viewed in Ubuntu will look more condensed than the same article viewed in Windows). This, of course, is the disadvantage to an electronic encyclopedia: there's no way to guarantee it will look the same to every single person who uses it.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I can see the other point of view as well. Besides, thumb sizes are simple unnecessary, not outlawed. --clpo13(talk)08:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the image involved. An image of any complexity or which doesn't have a great deal of contrast will be pretty hard to see at 180. I try various methods to fix that, not necessarily simply changing the image size. What I would do with the sample image above -- assuming that it's the person we want to see and the background as irrelevant -- would be to crop it and improve its contrast. Once I did that, it would look like this:File:Sample crop.jpgA sample image, cropped and enhanced
at which point there would probably be no need for increasing the image size. But some images just don't improve enough with these techniques, and they really want to be slightly bigger than 180, so I play around with image sizes until it looks right.
I really do understand the problems here, I'm not going to disagree with you that it's complicated, and I have no solution for them -- other, deeper minds than mine will have to solve them. I do know that Wikipedia has given short shrift to visuals and to layout issues, and that's going to have to change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)08:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a brief look at this situation, I'm inclined to agree with Ed that the multi-paragraph intro, presumably repeated from the bio, and also reading like it was lifted from someplace else, does not need to be repeated in the bibliography page. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?07:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are accusing User:Roogroog of plagiarism? Do you have any evidence that the material he wrote was "lifted from someplace else"? If not, it sounds like you are assuming bad faith about a brand new editor who has improved an article. It also sounds like you support Ed's incessant edit warring to force his POV into articles. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I will say that when I first saw the essay, one of my thoughts was that it might have been lifted from somewhere, because it had that find of feel to it, but I did a cursory search for a phrase from it and didn't get a Google hit. I'll take a closer look now.
Great, so we have bad faith accusations from two editors, a suspicion of sock puppetry, and no evidence. Anything to avoid discussing the subject, eh? How many brand new users post to Wikipedia every day, Ed? And how does that have anything to do with your three reverts? Why don't you request a check user, Ed? And failing that, are we supposed to be suspicious of new editors who show up to an article and actually add material to it? Why? Last time I checked, anyone could edit an article. Why does a new editor showing up to add a lead to an article "strike" you as strange, Ed? I'm curious to know how this could be construed as strange on any level. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas: I know we have been at loggerheads over the Dick articles, but I'd really prefer that it not be brought here. It seems as if this discussion would be more appropriate on the talk page of the article, so can I request that you make any future remarks on this subject there? It would be appreciated. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)07:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll be waiting for the results of the checkuser request. My guess is that the person who wrote that is a professional writer and wants to remain anonymous. That you would revert it without so much as a thought is disgusting. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The Bibliography of Philip K. Dick article existed for two years without a lede, which I think is perfectly fine -- it is, after all, a list, split of from the main article because it was getting too big. I didn't see a need for any kind of introductory essay. Someone else (Roogroog) posted the 3-graf general essay about Dick as a lede and I deleted it, and Viriditas restored it. We went a couple of rounds, and since he seemed to think that the article needed a lede, I took the lede from the main article Philip K. Dick and edited it down to a paragraph focusing on the writing. I'm not in love with it, I don't really think it's necessary, and if someone wants to replace it with something of similar size and focus, that's fine with me. Or, if people agree that it doesn't need a lede, great, I'm happy, take it away! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)09:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking to the other guy. And as I read it more, it not only looks like it was lifted from somewhere, it appears to be unsourced and certainly fails due to POV-pushing. That's in addition to it being inappropriate for a spinoff article that's alleged to be a simple bibliography. Your one-paragraph summary is sufficient. I would say that lengthy essay also doesn't belong in the main article as it stands, due to the other issues, but it definitely does not belong in the spinoff article. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?09:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, to misconstrue who you were talking to.)
If the essay was lifted, it doesn't appear to be from anywhere online, as I checked a number of fairly idiosyncratic phrases from it (stuff life "fabric of false reality" and "frantic odyssey") and didn't get any hits. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)09:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user has a long history of being accused of trolling behavior [5] and also has had several run-ins for 3RR violations. [6] The user ID also sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't recall from where. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that the first of the user Roogroog's two lone edits came one minute after Viri signed off. [7][8] Viri was already in a heated discussion with you on some topic, and his first work after signing back on, about 11 1/2 hours later, was to get into the Phil Dick argument again. [9] That one-minute-after-signoff is obviously too soon to have written that essay, but it could have been ready-to-post already. And the sudden appearance and disappearance of that red-link, along with the claim of "2 votes to 1" are interesting. None of these are accusations, just points of interest to keep in mind in case an RFC becomes necessary. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?10:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of days earlier in that debate, he had called for adding information to the bibliography, presumably in support of his contention that Phil Dick should be classified as a Christian writer. Two days later, that red-link's essay appeared, although it contains nothing to suggest any Christian basis to Dick's writing. [10]Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?10:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(out) Thanks. I really don't know where this is going to lead, but there seems to be such serious (and, I think, quite unjustified) animus against me from this person, that it's hard for me to see him stopping anytime soon, which means it's bound to lead to some sort of dispute resolution, unless he absolutely goes haywire and does something so heinous that admins have to take note of it, or, alternately, gets ahold of himself and stops, which I certainly hope will be the case. I don't really expect either of those things to happen, though.
In my past interactions with this person, I had found him to be somewhat helpful, though in a limited and rather one-sided way. In a dispute with another editor, he convinced me to stop making the editing changes while the editor and I talked about it, but then never quite followed through to use his influence with the other editor -- it was all pretty much one-sided: I was supposed to stop, but no compromising was expected of my opponent. That happened twice, I think -- I'd have to go back into my contribs to run it down, it was a while ago -- and even then I felt there was a rather condescending attitude on his part. Not enough to stop me from listening to him the second time, but certainly enough that I would probably not have accepted him a a neutral third party for a third time.
Still, it means there's a history between us, which complicates things. Relations in this recent discussion got off to a bad start right away, when he said he had sources and evidence for restoring a category to the Phil Dick article, and then wouldn't say what they were, he wanted to tell other people but not me. (You can see that here, if you're interested.) But I'm rambling -- enough of that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)10:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mysterious comment, "I have the book in front of me", to which you are referring, also provides a possible clue to where an essay could have come from, i.e. from a book rather than an online source. I would just like to know why he thinks that essay belongs in that bibliography, and he won't answer that question. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?11:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty certain he was referring to the Lawrence Sutin biography of Dick, the standard biography at the moment -- that's certainly what I took him to mean. Anyway I doubt anyone would lift anything from there, since it would be caught pretty soon. Besides, it doesn't sound at all like Sutin's voice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)11:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that essay is entirely his own. In any case it's replete with unsourced opinions. If his revised version is still that way, I'll put a "fact" tag on every sentence that's a personal opinion, as needed, so that he'll maybe get the point. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible. If I ever had a run-in with either of them, I don't know what it was about. I try not to dwell on those things, but sometimes names will ring a bell faintly. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I judge users' behavior by what I call the User:Tecmobowl standard. He's a bit snippy, but he's nowhere close to that. Meanwhile, I found the reference. Tell me if this is obscure enough for you. It's from The Owl in the Attic and Other Perplexities, by James Thurber. Part of it is an ersatz "advice column" which he obviously wrote both sides of. There's an illustration of a horse peering out from behind some curtains in a house. The questioner asks what to do about this horse that's prowling around the house. Thurber answers: "The horse is probably sad. Changing the flowered decorations of your home to something less like open meadows might discourage him, but then I doubt whether it is a good idea to discourage a sad horse. In any case, speak to him quietly when he turns up from behind things. Leaping at a horse in a house and crying, 'Roogie, roogie!' or 'Whoosh!' would only result in breakage and bedlam. Of course, you might finally get used to having him around, if the house is big enough for both of you." After re-reading this blurb, it somehow seems to apply to the current situation, in a strange and symbolic way. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undergoing what feels to me like a personal attack against me by User:Viriditas on multiple fronts, so I'm making a record here of the various places where this is taking place, so I'll have them to hand in case I need them.
NAIR means "Not Another Introduction Reference", as I have begun somewhat of a citation spree with the same books. Sorry if I confused you. Marlith (Talk)01:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, one of the issues that I have tried to address is that inconsistencies in writing/editing style tend to crop up when formatting an article. In date conventions, there is a tendency to use two or three formats concurrently which has been pointed out as a matter of style choices. When using the ISO format of 2008-04-12, foreign users had indicated that it was not a familiar format and a confusion was left, was it April 12, 2008 or December 4, 2008? In WP:Aviation Project Group, a decision to use the "formal" convention of d-m-y, as opposed to the "familiar" m-d-y style, "standardized the style usage.
One of the other considerations is that editors and readers can also set the date preferences to the style they would like, however, the vast majority of Wikipedia users are "guests" or irregular users who will not have this preference set. The use of a common or consistent format is the simplest manner of dealing with the use of different date styles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Ed Fitzgerald)
So as a another editor, I have the right to to disagree with you and remove the "recommended" entry until it becomes policy. (recommendations are not policy) --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of consensus, neither choice is "correct". However, the collective wisdom of Wikipedia, while not able to reach consensus, has seen fit to make a suggestion as to the best placement. It would seem that following that suggestion would be wise. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)03:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much had my fill of that V-rocket guy, but there are various administrative ways and means that his behavior can be addressed if it accelerates. I'm just glad he and I have virtually no crossover on subject matter. But you never know about the future. Save some appropriate diff's for easy reference, just in case. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Meanwhile, Arcayne told me that the V-guy has file a complaint on the RS noticeboard (I'm trying to recall just what that stands for at present), accusing him and me of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets or something. That's pretty funny, given that Arcayne and I had some past dispute (I don't recall what) and when I was offered rollback privileges by an admin (which I hadn't even asked for), Arcayne cautioned (reasonably) about giving me those rights. All I have to do is recall what RS is, and then go there and find out if V-man is badmouthing me after I've already essentially disengaged from him. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?06:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finally figured it out. I knew it sounded familiar. At first glance, I don't see where he's accusing me of anything, and I hate to read through one of his many megillahs (he's on at least 3 or 4 different talk pages about this one obsession already), but I'll probably have to, to see if I've been insulted so that I can get annoyed at him. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have not been blocked as two of the reverts were consecutive edits by yourself so count as the same revert. However, for the sake of completeness...
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me. I do want to point out that there are potential BLP concerns about this edit, as it's uncertain at this time if the alleged subject of the pederastic relationship is still alive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Childnicotine has filed what seems to be a duplicate report on WP:AN/3RR involving the Bernard Montgomery article. This editor appears to have a real agenda, judging by all the pederasty-related edits s/he has made in the two or so days since the account was created. --clpo13(talk)07:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification, it seems that Childnicotine doesn't believe in doing so. I took a look at his or her contribs and it looks fishy to me for a brand new user. I've posted a note on AN/I, think this might be a banned user's sockpuppet. I've also commented on the second 3RR complaint. (Ironically, the last "revert" wasn't a revert at all.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)08:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought that it was fine with the username policy when I created the account in January. I in no way implied that I had any special position on Wikipedia, rather I was one of the thousands of editors of the wiki out there. It simply seemed to me that this was a good way of preserving my anonymity with a good username. In my 4 months I've been registered, no one has brought this issue to my attention before, so I generally assumed it was all right. However, I think it would be good opening a discussion on the matter if you are not satisfied. P.S. While I am willing to change it, I really do like my username. Editorofthewiki02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I didn't want to make more fuss on CapitalR's RfA, and still wanted some more reasoning from you. I'd like to make clear that I am NOT trying to change your opinion, or be a jerk - I'm seriously trying to understand. Your last comment simply reinforced the first one, that 6600/25000 is too low for you. I suppose an easy question here is, what if the numbers were 4000/8000? Would you support those numbers, as they match your percentage requirement? I guess I just don't grasp this logic. What if I made 10,000 mainspace edits out of 20,000 total. That would fulfill your requirement in this regard. Then, I decided to spend a few months working on templates, and the numbers went to 10,500/30,000. Now, my understanding of Wikipedia policy has probably not deteriorated. Also, and possibly most importantly to an RfA, my chances of somehow abusing the tools has not significantly been altered.
You're not really missing anything, but your example supposes a particular sequence of editing, and I'm operating on the general assumption that the edit count is representative of the editor's overall activities. What if the editor were to bring to my attention a situation such as you outline? I don't know, I suppose it would depend on other factors -- but in any case 50% is not a hard and fast figure, and I might support someone with ~30% if the skewing of the ratio were (as explained) a recent or singular phenomenon. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you wrote the article. It's pretty good and thank you for your work.
I don't mean to offend your sensibilities, but some of the writing is very awkward. I think a lot of it is because the writing is not as detailed as it needs to be so it's hard to fix.
Anyways, if you revert edits I think people will appreciate if you explain why they are not good, rather then make unexplained reverts or say "improve writing."
Wanna talk me through these two edits at Marx Brothers and Duck Soup? I'm especially surprised about the latter, as there's a note about the issue on the talk page. Yet your contribution to the talk page (fortunately, you wisely thought better) was this. I'm a little confused by your desire to edit war here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) There's a distinct difference between trivia and miscellaneous facts.
2) In any case, trivia is discouraged and not forbidden.
3)A trivia tag represents an editor's opinion about trivia. Removing it represents an editor's opinion about tags whcih disfigure a page and made it more difficult for the reader, who has absolutely no interest in Wikipedia's policies. Such notices belong on the talk page, which is where editors go, not readers. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)06:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood how such tags work. As such, I feel happy enough to put the tag back on the Marx Brothers page. You might want to have a look here. Moreover, as you can see, I did raise the issue at the Duck Soup talk page, and you summarily decided to ignore the fact. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to weigh in with an uninvited 3rd opinion here. I'm familiar with some of Jbmurray's work, and I have carefully read Ed's Wikiphilosophy. I respect both of you quite a bit, and I would rather you get this sorted out. About the part on trivia sections, I have to confess that I'm not the expert, although I have aspirations of someday being a "style guidelines guru". Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines was just created (I think, because there was a question about it on WP:VPP, and it just showed up in the style guidelines.) I confess that I haven't even read it, but both the guidelines and looking at articles written by the people who wrote it would probably be helpful. I know that the general idea behind "no trivia" isn't that we think movie trivia is bad, at all, it's just that it's done so much better in so many other places that Wikipedia is generally not trying to compete, and movie fans have tended to be a bit of a handful in the past...they tend to take as much rope as you'll give them, and then some. See www.wikia.com for a much more complete treatment of many entertainment topics. Having said that, I don't have a position on entertainment articles, it's not my field.
Ed, you say in your wikiphilosophy: "..it is being applied to simple observation and summarization, which are core requirements for any Wikipedia article. Not only is this ridiculous, it is untenable and unenforceable." It depends entirely on what you mean; can you give me an example of something that someone has reverted (preferably a GA reviewer or someone with reviewing experience) that you want to defend on those grounds? This is a key point, and people tend to make mistakes in both directions, from what I understand from the endless discussions at WT:V and elsewhere. (Feel free to reply here.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, even more obtrusively, I read the RfCU on you and left a msg there. I think you're making a couple of technical mistakes, Ed, that might well get you into trouble; I see no evidence of a madman run amok. We need to chat about {{fact}} tags. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always willing to learn, and I generally don't have a problem admitting that I've made mistakes. My take on tags in general is that for the most part they represent one editor's opinion of a situation, and are therefore as subject to deletion as anything else, if, in another editor's opinion, the tag is unjustified. It seems ridiculous to me that all the text in an article is challengeable except the part which is plainly an opinion.
As for "fact" tags, it seems to me that they can represent a number of different things:
1. An editor who wants to undermine a fact, by, essentially, labelling it as suspicious.
2. An editor whose knowledge of the subject is deficient and doesn't realize the obviousness of the fact being labelled.
3. An editor who has questions about the verifiability of a fact and want to provoke a citation.
I gather that official policy only recognizes the final possibility, and wants all fact tags to be dealt with as if they were reasonable and justified calls for citation, but I've seen them used much more often for the other two reasons, i.e. POV-pushing and stupidity. Now, perhaps my experience with such tags used as "opinion grafitti" and shows of lack of knowledge has warped my perception of them, and made my response to them somehat knee-jerk, so I am not honoring legitimate "fact" tags when they're posted -- I will try to take more care in my evaluation of them to avoid that error.
Now the sense I'm getting is that my take on fact tags runs contrary to policy, so can you (Dank55), give my a thumbnail sketch on in what way that is the case, or give me an idea of how policy (or is it a guideline?) can be followed and still deal with the illegitimate fact tags of #1 and #2? Thanks. (Not to put you on the spot, or anything!) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take, in rather general terms, for what it's worth...
Every edit made by any editor represents one editor's "opinion."
As such, equally, every edit is subject to change or dispute.
But my rule of thumb is that a good-faith edit almost always indicates that something is wrong and should be changed, if not necessarily in the precise way that the editor suggests.
In other words, even if an edit is wrong or mistaken, it indicates that the original text could be clarified or improved in some way. So if someone adds a fact tag, and you really don't think it should be there, I think the thing is to reword so as to make it clear that the fact tag is not required.
In general, when I see a fact tag turn up in an article I'm watching, sometimes it's valid and sometimes it seems like it was posted by an idiot: "The sky is blue." {citation needed} However, I also see that as a challenge to prove something is correct even though I already "know" it's correct, and by doing that investigation, I might find additional useful info that could be added to one or more articles. And once in a blue moon, I might even find that what I "know" to be correct is not correct.Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←Those are good answers; here's another. When someone asks you to source things you don't think need to be sourced, there are several things you can do, depending on how wrong you think they are, whether it's a pattern or just the one time, whether they're being a jerk, etc. Those two answers are good for the general case: try to make a change along the lines suggested and see if it works; be willing to think about it and do a little research; maybe it will all work out. But some editors are harder to deal with, and then you have to know your rights and obligations. If it's material that everyone who reads that particular article is already likely to know, the best thing to do is to try to convince other people that you're right. If you say "A whale is a mammal" and someone asks you to source that, list a college zoology textbook in your general references and tell them to look it up themselves. Some people will say you need to give an inline citation every time you're asked, but for simple questions that are covered in a general source, you'll probably be okay with just the general reference. If they're slapping {{citation needed}} tags all over your articles, you might take them to one of various dispute resolution forums: WP:DR, WP:WQA, or WP:THIRD. When you're there, you'll probably want to claim that, in your view, they were violating WP:POINT, the part that says that it's wrong for them to "impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community".
But one option you don't have is to tell them you're not going to source it and revert them when they take it out. WP:V#Burden of evidence, first section, first two sentences, in bold: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If someone challenges a sentence, no matter how trivial, you can ask them to leave it for a couple of weeks (more or less) while you search for a source, but if you don't find a source, they can remove it. This isn't a Wikipedia policy, this is the "core content" policy, along with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If they don't understand that Wikipedians don't generally source that kind of statement, then they might be guilty of WP:POINT, and you may be able to use that to win some kind of dispute resolution process, eventually, but until then, you still have to source the statements, or lose them. You can't say "not gonna", and then revert. If you do, that's one of the criteria at pages like WP:TEND that can get editors blocked. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those responses, all of which were helpful, although I think perhaps they may underestimate the misuse of fact tags. Still, as I said, that could very well be my own biases showing, and I'm going to try to be more open minded about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with that. I was just focusing on how to keep you out of trouble. Most opinions I've heard lately agree that fact tags are a plague. The original idea was that they would shame people into fixing it right away; the reality is that WP is covered in fact tags. It's also agreed that there are people who use fact tags as a way of reviewing without thinking: instead of learning the subject and figuring out which things are basic and which things aren't, they just insist that everything be sourced, in a mistaken belief that WP:V says that's okay. I understand the frustration. On the other hand, most of the editors and reviewers at the WP:GA level get it approximately right, so we're winning, it just takes time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Fitzgerald...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endeavors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed...There is no reason for me to be uncivil to you for your reservations about my ability to use the tools for which I was nominated. As Keegan said in the nomination, it is no big deal. Hope your day is going well. - LA @ 13:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
