User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Born2cycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
WP:CRYSTAL interpretation
Hi again, I was wondering if you could help me understand your argument here and others like it. You said that WP:CRYSTAL indicates we shouldn’t choose titles based on expectations of future relevancy. By my read, CRYSTAL in no way supports this claim. In a nutshell, it says, “Don’t print speculation,” which doesn’t seem relevant here. So what am I missing? What part of CRYSTAL did you have in mind? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think the current wording has moved away from the original meaning and spirit which I always understood to mean we should not speculate about the future since we don't have a "crystal ball" and those don't know what the future will bring. I'm not going to dig through the evolution of edits, but I suspect someone did not like how it prevented them from speculating about the future, and weaseled it to the current wording. --В²C ☎ 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t see much difference in that version. It’s still regarding printing speculation about future events, no more applicable to what we were talking about than the current version is. It has never said we should not speculate about the future; it has always said our content should not speculate about the future (which makes perfect sense, since that would be unencyclopedic). So I’ll ask again, since I’m afraid I still don’t see the relevance: What part of that past version of CRYSTAL impacts the decision of a primary topic? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
That's word-for-word from WP:AT. To me that means we should not title our articles based on speculations about what usage will be like for a given term sometime in the future. --В²C ☎ 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- True, but that again has nothing to do with which of multiple topics should be considered primary for a given term. As far as I know, there is nothing in policy to suggest that we should not use our best judgement, or that we should not consider whether a topic is likely to be ephemeral. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Likely to be ephemeral is fine. In fact, that's what WP:NOTNEWS is about. But speculating beyond issues that are likely to be popular for only a very short time is not going to improve anything. We can always rename in a year or two or five or ten anyway, as actual usage indicates. --В²C ☎ 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue, the foundation of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is why the long-term significance consideration is important. It’s not an encyclopedia of “now.” As best as possible, it should be as relevant next Tuesday or next year as it is today. Choosing titles based on what’s popular right now conflicts with that basic principle. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but, again, Wikipedia differs from traditional encyclopedias in a number of ways, and one of those ways is, for better or worse, our more relaxed approach to article titles. We're generally less formal and less official than traditional encyclopedias, largely because of WP:COMMONNAME and the desire to serve users who are searching with a given term as efficiently as reasonably possible. That doesn't negate long-term significance, but it does give current usage a higher priority than speculations about future usage. --В²C ☎ 02:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t disagree with any of this. What I disagree with is claiming or implying that WP:CRYSTAL supports this in any way other than a very loose interpretation of the subsection title. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but, again, Wikipedia differs from traditional encyclopedias in a number of ways, and one of those ways is, for better or worse, our more relaxed approach to article titles. We're generally less formal and less official than traditional encyclopedias, largely because of WP:COMMONNAME and the desire to serve users who are searching with a given term as efficiently as reasonably possible. That doesn't negate long-term significance, but it does give current usage a higher priority than speculations about future usage. --В²C ☎ 02:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue, the foundation of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is why the long-term significance consideration is important. It’s not an encyclopedia of “now.” As best as possible, it should be as relevant next Tuesday or next year as it is today. Choosing titles based on what’s popular right now conflicts with that basic principle. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Likely to be ephemeral is fine. In fact, that's what WP:NOTNEWS is about. But speculating beyond issues that are likely to be popular for only a very short time is not going to improve anything. We can always rename in a year or two or five or ten anyway, as actual usage indicates. --В²C ☎ 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- True, but that again has nothing to do with which of multiple topics should be considered primary for a given term. As far as I know, there is nothing in policy to suggest that we should not use our best judgement, or that we should not consider whether a topic is likely to be ephemeral. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
- I don’t see much difference in that version. It’s still regarding printing speculation about future events, no more applicable to what we were talking about than the current version is. It has never said we should not speculate about the future; it has always said our content should not speculate about the future (which makes perfect sense, since that would be unencyclopedic). So I’ll ask again, since I’m afraid I still don’t see the relevance: What part of that past version of CRYSTAL impacts the decision of a primary topic? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I have closed this discussion per the request at ANRFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gaijin42, this is a very controversial issue. Your closing statement suggests some naivete about WP. Are you an admin? --В²C ☎ 18:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, nor is being an admin a requirement for closing discussions. I assure you though I am quite experienced in wikipedia. If you disagree with my closing WP:AN is thataway for a closure review, but historically one must show very strong evidence that the closing was improper to get any traction. The job of a closer is generally not to determine who is "right" but merely determine what the consensus is. Do you think you can show that the consensus was otherwise? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus of those who happened to be participating was not otherwise, but I think community consensus, as reflected in the substance of the arguments, was otherwise. --В²C ☎ 23:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t think the consensus on a major policy page could really be considered “local” and not representative… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The !vote counts of a couple of handfuls of people cannot represent community consensus no matter where the discussion is held. But community consensus can be measured by the strength of the arguments even in a discussion involving only a handful of people. --В²C ☎ 23:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t think the consensus on a major policy page could really be considered “local” and not representative… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus of those who happened to be participating was not otherwise, but I think community consensus, as reflected in the substance of the arguments, was otherwise. --В²C ☎ 23:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, nor is being an admin a requirement for closing discussions. I assure you though I am quite experienced in wikipedia. If you disagree with my closing WP:AN is thataway for a closure review, but historically one must show very strong evidence that the closing was improper to get any traction. The job of a closer is generally not to determine who is "right" but merely determine what the consensus is. Do you think you can show that the consensus was otherwise? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said, if you think my closing was improper, or want to argue that the discussion should be reopened and more broadly advertised, take it to WP:AN. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Moving non-country specific articles to country-specific
Hi B2C, looks like I need your help again on a minor issue. I posted my dilemma here. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
If you hadn’t noticed this
I left an unanswered concern here: User talk:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation#The fundamental problem with this essay. I don’t know if you have any future plans for that essay, so I don’t know whether this matters, but I figured it best to drop a note. If you now consider it a personal essay, of course feel free to revert my changes or let me know and I will. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Poe's law
Poe's law. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wow. Had not heard of that before. Explains much. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 16:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Mustang
B2C, on various issues over the years, sometimes we have been in agreement on issues and sometimes in disagreement. Per my most recent post at the Mustang dab discussion, "bullshit" is not AGF nor an appropriate way to discuss the situation. There is enough drama at that board without me going to ANI over your personal attacks, which are unneeded. Reasonable minds can disagree. They don't have to start swearing at people. I would hope you understand the issue here. We have a Shetland pony, which within the pony world is commonly called a "Shetland", likewise, within the horse world, we have "Mustangs" "Arabians" "Hanoverians" and so on. Outside of the horse world, any rational person will clarify an "Arabian horse" or a "Hanoverian horse" so as to be clear where we are talking about a horse or not. Montanabw(talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, people commonly use "Arabian horse" and "Hanoverian horse". They do not commonly use "Mustang horse" (or Mustangian horse for that matter). They use just "Mustang". That's the difference. Get it??? --В²C ☎ 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not exactly rare to use "mustange horse", just not as common as some alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- B2C, phrases like "get it" don't help you make a case. And on this one, Dicklyon is right. It's common enough. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not exactly rare to use "mustange horse", just not as common as some alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Clarity achieved
B2C, thank you for expressing the WP:COMMONNAME argument so succinctly in your last post at the Mustang dab. I answered there, but wanted to offer kudos here that you expressed the point clearly and in a way that was easier to gain consensus from me. Also makes me wonder how much "drahmahz" on WP is people who just are not understanding each other... (as in real life too...) Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's great but misunderstanding is no excuse for closing an ongoing discussion the way you did. You were way out of line to continue closing after I reverted the first time demonstrating a lack of consensus for closing. Dreadstar, as an admin, was even more out of line to perpetuate it, especially after Dicklyon also objected to the hatting/archiving. I was prepared to file an ANI, but I'll just put the content of it below for posterity, just in case I need it. Hopefully not! --В²C ☎ 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if I extend an olive branch and you want to continue to attack with things like the piece below, then never mind. That "debate" at the Mustang dab that I collapsed (which ANYONE can do and is not the same as closing, by the way - I only tried closure after other efforts failed) was nothing but dramamongering and I stand my my decision. If you want to attack a solid admin for stopping an endless debate that was going nowhere, then do reread WP:TENDENTIOUS. It was nothing more than the same people (you and I included) arguing the same points that had already been argued. People arguing for the sake of argument are not achieving consensus; they often are trying to bully other editors or they are throwing a fit because they didn't get their way. I was originally under the impression that you weren't one of those people, you simply lacked clarity in your communication and were prone to attribute inaccurate motives to others or oversstate agreement/consensus. But now I am more of the view that you might just be one of those editors who simply prefer drama for its own sake. Can you prove me wrong on that one? Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not attacking you. I can't believe you can't see how wrong you were. Because the discussion you tried to stop continued, you and I came to an understanding. Now Dicklyon and I are too, perhaps. That's how consensus is developed... through discussion. It wasn't the same points. It wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing. It was discussion for the sake of communication and mutual understanding. Regardless, your initial collapse was not out of line; a bold collapse is fine. But when I reverted that demonstrated a lack of consensus for the collapse. Your re-collapse was totally out of line. We make decisions, like whether to collapse a discussion, by consensus of those involved. An involved editor does not get to decide to a discussion should be collapsed. You can express an opinion to collapse, and even do so boldly by collapsing, once. WP depends on acting respectfully with each other. That means BRD, not BRR.
As to the draft ANI below I had it all ready to go but then I saw we came to an understanding so the dispute seemed to be over, but I wanted to retain it. At that point I didn't realize yet that Dicklyon had been blocked. If I had I probably would have filed. But admins seem to back each other up like cops, even when they're wrong, so there was that consideration too. --В²C ☎ 06:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not attacking you. I can't believe you can't see how wrong you were. Because the discussion you tried to stop continued, you and I came to an understanding. Now Dicklyon and I are too, perhaps. That's how consensus is developed... through discussion. It wasn't the same points. It wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing. It was discussion for the sake of communication and mutual understanding. Regardless, your initial collapse was not out of line; a bold collapse is fine. But when I reverted that demonstrated a lack of consensus for the collapse. Your re-collapse was totally out of line. We make decisions, like whether to collapse a discussion, by consensus of those involved. An involved editor does not get to decide to a discussion should be collapsed. You can express an opinion to collapse, and even do so boldly by collapsing, once. WP depends on acting respectfully with each other. That means BRD, not BRR.
- Well, if I extend an olive branch and you want to continue to attack with things like the piece below, then never mind. That "debate" at the Mustang dab that I collapsed (which ANYONE can do and is not the same as closing, by the way - I only tried closure after other efforts failed) was nothing but dramamongering and I stand my my decision. If you want to attack a solid admin for stopping an endless debate that was going nowhere, then do reread WP:TENDENTIOUS. It was nothing more than the same people (you and I included) arguing the same points that had already been argued. People arguing for the sake of argument are not achieving consensus; they often are trying to bully other editors or they are throwing a fit because they didn't get their way. I was originally under the impression that you weren't one of those people, you simply lacked clarity in your communication and were prone to attribute inaccurate motives to others or oversstate agreement/consensus. But now I am more of the view that you might just be one of those editors who simply prefer drama for its own sake. Can you prove me wrong on that one? Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- The statement, "I can't believe you can't see how wrong you were" IS itself an attack; many of the comments you have made throughout the course of the discussion over at the dab page were condescending and disrespectful (and I can't believe you don't know that). BRD is a guideline, 3RR is policy; there's a difference. As far as I could tell, all you were doing was rehashing the same debate that had just closed and it seemed to me that you were just looking for a setup to provide grounds for another RM in a month or so. (THank you for clarifying that you will not) Between you and Dicklyon tag-teaming anyone who disagreed with your opinions, the debate was not reaching a consensus, it was escalating per WP:BAIT. If I may borrow your style of speaking, I can't believe you can't see how tendentious argumentation is running good editors of actual content off wiki. (IMHO, Dicklyon earned the block, it was all but self-inflicted) However, as for ANI, it's much wiser to engage in conversation in userspace than at article talk or some drama board where boomerangs fly in random directions, often making everyone in the room duck. Montanabw(talk) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is fact not attack to point out that it is wrong to assume someone is setting up for another RM, and so not bothering to think about what is being posted. It is fact not attack to point out that, if someone is setting up for another RM, being against such an RM does not justify re-collapsing such discussion, so thinking an RM setup is happening does not justify it either. It is fact not attack to point out an admin enforcing such inappropriate re-collapses is way out of line. It is fact not attack to point out that an admin is not supposed to threaten blocks, much less carry them out, without first understanding the situation.
Of course BRD is not policy. Nothing I said suggested it was. But BRD is a widely and wisely recognized and respected explanation for why and how WP:BOLD edits are allowed and even encouraged as part of developing consensus (really it's a very efficient test to see if there is consensus for the edit in question), that once such an edit is reverted you've not only discovered the bold edit is not consensus supported, but you've identified an editor who disagrees with the bold edit and with whom you can engage to work towards understanding and consensus. You ignored all that when you chose to re-collapse instead, thus disrupting from the consensus-building-through-discussion process. But despite all the disruption you caused discussion has been able to continue and we've achieved understanding and consensus on a number of key points there. Absent among those agreed-upon points is that your re-collapse was appropriate or justified by any measure. If you can't see how disruptive your re-collapse was and how outrageous Dreadstar's threats and blocks were, or why these actions might understandably lead to condescending and disrespectful commentary in response... well I'll just hope that's not the case, because that would sadly show that you've not learned from this. --В²C ☎ 14:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is fact not attack to point out that it is wrong to assume someone is setting up for another RM, and so not bothering to think about what is being posted. It is fact not attack to point out that, if someone is setting up for another RM, being against such an RM does not justify re-collapsing such discussion, so thinking an RM setup is happening does not justify it either. It is fact not attack to point out an admin enforcing such inappropriate re-collapses is way out of line. It is fact not attack to point out that an admin is not supposed to threaten blocks, much less carry them out, without first understanding the situation.
- The statement, "I can't believe you can't see how wrong you were" IS itself an attack; many of the comments you have made throughout the course of the discussion over at the dab page were condescending and disrespectful (and I can't believe you don't know that). BRD is a guideline, 3RR is policy; there's a difference. As far as I could tell, all you were doing was rehashing the same debate that had just closed and it seemed to me that you were just looking for a setup to provide grounds for another RM in a month or so. (THank you for clarifying that you will not) Between you and Dicklyon tag-teaming anyone who disagreed with your opinions, the debate was not reaching a consensus, it was escalating per WP:BAIT. If I may borrow your style of speaking, I can't believe you can't see how tendentious argumentation is running good editors of actual content off wiki. (IMHO, Dicklyon earned the block, it was all but self-inflicted) However, as for ANI, it's much wiser to engage in conversation in userspace than at article talk or some drama board where boomerangs fly in random directions, often making everyone in the room duck. Montanabw(talk) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Draft ANI
not pursuing
|
|---|
|
Both involved editor Montanabw and admin Dreadstar have recently been, or currently are, closing ongoing discussion sections at Talk:Mustang (disambiguation), requiring discussions to be continued in new sections in a disjointed fashion. On the one hand it's a trivial matter hardly worth bothering about; on the other hand these are inappropriate and disruptive actions that are against consensus and are causing edit warring. I'm asking for a consensus here agreeing that they stop doing this.
Now I just noticed that Dreadstar got into an archive/unarchive edit war with Dicklyon:
I've witnessed some strange and pointless disruptive interactions before, but closing ongoing fresh discussions is a new one on me. To top it off I get thanked for my contribution to a discussion Montana tried to close. User talk:Born2cycle#Clarity achieved. |
I had the above all typed in and about ready to save/file at ANI when it appeared to me that the issue was getting resolved because I saw an update that referred to an agreement between Dicklyon and Dreadstar. That was misleading. Dicklyon had in fact been blocked at that point, but I didn't know. By the time I realized what was happening I decided to not pursue. I'm leaving this here for now as there are lessons to be learned, and might update it to include diffs to the blocks. But the discussion that sparked all this seems to have reached a natural conclusion, as usually occurs (and is likely to continue elsewhere), once again demonstrating that no closing/collapsing/archiving against the consensus of those participating was necessary, or justified. --В²C ☎ 19:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please see: WP:POLEMIC. In other words; shit or get off the pot. — Ched : ? 19:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- To state more appropriately, if this isn't here just briefly to get feedback or something before actually posting to ANI, it would probably be best to get rid of this section, B2C. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Since the discussion in question seems to have concluded naturally, and Dicklyon's block has expired, an ANI at this point probably is no longer appropriate. Is there some other forum in which this information would be helpful? Basically, I'm thinking some kind of RFC of uninvolved people who look at what happened, especially Montana's re-collapse of the discussion sections, and Dreadstar's endorsement and repeating of it, to weigh in whether that was appropriate or disruptive, and thus whether the threats and block were appropriate. I really think there was admin abuse of powers here, and I'm troubled in particular by the number of admins who endorsed it. Is there a place for such a review? --В²C ☎ 20:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't followed what this was about, but I agree that an editor's hatting and then re-hatting, after objection by another, is unpleasant, and ought to be more specifically denounced in some appropriate guideline. It's worse than, say, an editor saying something bad, then re-stating it after an objection, because it hides/dismisses the other's words and views and objection. Probably should be covered at Talk page guidelines, wp:TPG, probably in the wp:TPO section about editing others' comments, there. I recently went to Talk page there towards addressing another deficiency, and I see there are 3 running discussion sections now, sort of related to wp:TPO needing work. Seems suitable to raise this, too. About this example that you have documented, I think it's useful that you have documented it, as an example of the general problem or maybe of the specific editors involved if it is likely to come up again. But since others have objected to it appearing here, and since there's no big wish on your part and no obvious forum to pursue this specific case further now, I suggest you just at least archive this Talk page section, to render it clearly inactive, at least. I kinda agree that it is unpleasant to have it open, like a sword that might be wielded. --doncram 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I just read your user page, doncram. I share your concerns about the WP bully culture, and I think the actions discussed here exemplify that. What concerns me is that not only do the bulliers not see themselves as bullies, but other admins are fine with it too. They seem to think that the only way deal to with problems is by bullying, but don't see it as bullying (not to mention that they see problems where there are none). So strange. --В²C ☎ 23:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Or hatting, like you have done, seems fine. Yep, I agree that some admins seem blind, and hypocritical, around bullying. Others are better. Many editors are averse to speaking out or taking other action against bullies, because that's negative too and probably not what they came to wikipedia to be involved in. But there's a really important paradox of intolerance, we need to develop understanding of that. The overall culture is embarrassing to be part of, I think. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves if we are not actively trying to curb the bullying that goes on routinely; those who just wish to edit about innocuous postage stamps or whatever are at fault, too. Though it is hard to blame them, some higher responsibility to participate in making the community work properly needs to be required of them, too, IMO. --doncram 04:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I just read your user page, doncram. I share your concerns about the WP bully culture, and I think the actions discussed here exemplify that. What concerns me is that not only do the bulliers not see themselves as bullies, but other admins are fine with it too. They seem to think that the only way deal to with problems is by bullying, but don't see it as bullying (not to mention that they see problems where there are none). So strange. --В²C ☎ 23:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't followed what this was about, but I agree that an editor's hatting and then re-hatting, after objection by another, is unpleasant, and ought to be more specifically denounced in some appropriate guideline. It's worse than, say, an editor saying something bad, then re-stating it after an objection, because it hides/dismisses the other's words and views and objection. Probably should be covered at Talk page guidelines, wp:TPG, probably in the wp:TPO section about editing others' comments, there. I recently went to Talk page there towards addressing another deficiency, and I see there are 3 running discussion sections now, sort of related to wp:TPO needing work. Seems suitable to raise this, too. About this example that you have documented, I think it's useful that you have documented it, as an example of the general problem or maybe of the specific editors involved if it is likely to come up again. But since others have objected to it appearing here, and since there's no big wish on your part and no obvious forum to pursue this specific case further now, I suggest you just at least archive this Talk page section, to render it clearly inactive, at least. I kinda agree that it is unpleasant to have it open, like a sword that might be wielded. --doncram 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Since the discussion in question seems to have concluded naturally, and Dicklyon's block has expired, an ANI at this point probably is no longer appropriate. Is there some other forum in which this information would be helpful? Basically, I'm thinking some kind of RFC of uninvolved people who look at what happened, especially Montana's re-collapse of the discussion sections, and Dreadstar's endorsement and repeating of it, to weigh in whether that was appropriate or disruptive, and thus whether the threats and block were appropriate. I really think there was admin abuse of powers here, and I'm troubled in particular by the number of admins who endorsed it. Is there a place for such a review? --В²C ☎ 20:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- To state more appropriately, if this isn't here just briefly to get feedback or something before actually posting to ANI, it would probably be best to get rid of this section, B2C. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft Surface Pro 3
User:Illegal Operation moved over some of you comments in regards to the Surface 3 requested move discussion to the Surface Pro 3 RM. Just wanted to make sure you know, wasn't sure if the ping from the talk page worked as those can be flaky. I was mentioned in the move comment for example but didn't get pinged on it. PaleAqua (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Station stuff
Since you participated in the RM discussion at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February_2015, you may have thoughts worth commenting on at the related RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, including especially the survey at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Simpler questions / concise survey. If so, please comment there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! Since you previously introduced a proposal to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, would you like to help draft a new proposal on this topic at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request? Since some editors have objected to a new move request on the assertion that there has been no change since the last inconclusive request, it would be particularly helpful to find newer evidence (arising within the past nine months) in support of such a proposal.
This proposal is likely to launch about a week or so after the closure of the current Village Pump discussion on whether another move request should be permitted, if that discussion produces a consensus in favor of permitting another move request. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Move review for Carbon (fiber)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: In all good Humour
B2C, in all good humour no points missed at all, despite your impassioned plea at the end of the RM, I cannot in all good faith close against local consensus in an RM. Secondly, making those kinds of pleas and admonitions to prospective closers doesn't help your cause. No body likes to be told how to think. While your Yogurt essay may have merit, it carries no weight of policy or guideline. Because indeed your contention that there's wide community consensus for Humor over Humour may be true, I left the opportunity open to confirm that. Take advantage of it. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mike Cline, the only way to demonstrate the community consensus in favor of moving it back to Humor is to move it back to Humor and observe the lack of policy-based arguments to move it again. --В²C ☎ 18:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorta Manifest Destiny Wikipedia style. The ends justify the means. My close allows you to cross the prairie, take advantage of it. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Others will cross the prairie, as they did at Yogurt. I'm just hoping we could get to the obvious resolution and avoid all that. By the way, a closer most certainly can ignore local consensus if the arguments on one side are based much stronger in community-consensus-backed policy than the other side, which is the case here. --В²C ☎ 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorta Manifest Destiny Wikipedia style. The ends justify the means. My close allows you to cross the prairie, take advantage of it. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,
This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.
Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Move comments in Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Hi, I'm asking editors (on both sides of the question) who have made responses to individual !votes in the survey section to move those discussions to subsections in the discussion section. That will keep things tidy. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
HRC discussion
Hey there B2c. I'm just popping in to say hi and ask why you have me listed as "(no policy-based reasons given)". I'm understand it is still under construction, and I'm guessing you haven't read or applied my arguments in I want the shed to stay blue!. My rationale as discussed in that section, while not explicitly pointing to any pages, cites: WP:CONCISENESS, WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:COMMONNAME (to prefer scholarly, academic sources over merely reliable sources), and less importantly - subject preference. Thanks for taking your time to close this, I'm very much appreciative that you're doing it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 10:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not closing the discussion - I'm involved in the discussion. I missed your rationale, apparently. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Cycling home
I found your pub addition to the Clint-gate discussion to be quite illuminating in regard to the Wikipedia approach to titling and those of other encylopedias. Britannica, inc. uses Public House as a counterpart of our arguably more local Pub. Cheers. GregKaye 06:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, in an earlier RM the COMMONNAME argument favoring a change to Pub failed due to "lack of consensus" fueled by a furious effort to "defined" the right and proper full name. But a few years later Pub was favored by a near landslide. --В²C ☎ 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Negativity about a specific editor
RE: Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory
I found your edits to increasingly contain negativity about a specific editor. Not outrageously so, but there is POV bias present that reflects on particular individuals. This is not appropriate in a neutral history of the yoghurt story. On looking further into this, I see that the page contains excessive mentions of editors who may actions or comments you would not agree with. Editor DR in particular. The whole page needs a degree of de-identification of exactly who did what. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Don't blame the messenger. It's not my fault the same person who changed the title in the first place is also (I just discovered today) the person who flamed the fires on the UK notification board in favor of retaining that title in the early years of the controversy, never revealing that he was the one who caused the problem. But as a token of cooperation, I did change a couple of names to anonymous references. --В²C ☎ 23:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's a lot better. I was thinking of converting subsequent mentions to abbreviations. There are lessons to be learned, but the lessons aren't helped with focus on specific editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still digging, but I think there is a lesson with respect to how much impact just one editor can have in swaying RMs in favor of WP:Status quo stonewalling, even after dropping out, once the foundation has been laid. But I'm really not trying to punish anyone. In general I don't believe blame or finding fault in people has much value. Finding fault in behavior and focusing on improving behavior is where I like to put energy.
Also, I long suspected some kind of conspiracy among UK Wikipedians, but I didn't want to say anything because I had no evidence. But now that I found this board I'm looking back at other controversies where the UK contingent seems organized. This explains much[17]. I just found a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias and haven't even looked at that talk page history yet. --В²C ☎ 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still digging, but I think there is a lesson with respect to how much impact just one editor can have in swaying RMs in favor of WP:Status quo stonewalling, even after dropping out, once the foundation has been laid. But I'm really not trying to punish anyone. In general I don't believe blame or finding fault in people has much value. Finding fault in behavior and focusing on improving behavior is where I like to put energy.
- Thanks. That's a lot better. I was thinking of converting subsequent mentions to abbreviations. There are lessons to be learned, but the lessons aren't helped with focus on specific editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I largely agree. There are editor behaviours that if recognized can be learned from and collectively improved upon. Documenting wiki-behaviours, with de-identification of individuals, is a good thing to do.
I don't think Status quo stonewalling is most of the answer, although it has commonality with the readily observed behaviour of any individual "getting their back up" and "digging in heels" when challenged on a previously stated position. That essay might be more persuasive if it weren't for the POV/combative/confrontational "stonewalling" in the title.
I still think that having a defined outcome in the case of "no consensus", basically WP:RETAIN, is the solution to many of these sorts of disputes. I saw editors aggrieved due to a perceived injustice, even though there was nothing of substance at stake.
I also think that the creation of WP:MR has had a massively positive effect on the RM process. Mostly through providing a forum for venting. Previously, if a RM close was disagreed with, it was not uncommon to see the eruption of a page-move war. The thread and case at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2014#Lack_of_respect_for_a_close demonstrates a new standard for this sort of behaviour.
You think that a group of people may be sensitive about their declined influence on what is considered "correct" English. Don't say that to them, it would not be productive.
I note that you are anti-moratoria. What do you think of my suggestion that repeat RMs should be obliged to have a seconder for the nomination? As in this case, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah
Whether or not "stonewalling" is correct, the repeated use of the word is confrontational, makes you like like the bad guy, and is counter-productive to building consensus. Try saying what you mean without the confrontational word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment
I posted a comment about the article title on Talk:Bicycle transportation engineering. Since you created the original article, I thought you might weigh in. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Los Angeles County naming dispute
Hi, I noticed that in back in 2008 you opened a failed request to move Los Angeles County, California to just Los Angeles County. Right now, I'm trying to simplify the names of the uniquely named counties in the US, so I was wondering if I could get your help in another attempt to move the Los Angeles County and possibly others.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Prisencolinensinainciusol, I'll support any such proposal per the same argument I made in 2008. Perhaps consensus has changed in the last 8(!) years! You could also try a multi-move of all California counties with unique names. See WP:RM#Requesting_multiple_page_moves for instructions. If you'd like a draft of such a proposal reviewed I'd be happy to do that too. --В²C ☎ 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I tried moving a bunch of county pages about a week ago, but I was told not to do this unilaterally. Suffice to say, I'm not sure if the consensus has changed much. Alternatively, is it at all possible to create some exception for counties in California, Arizona and Louisiana?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- If there is any question about consensus, all you can do is make an RM proposal. You can try just one, or propose a big one that proposes moving all counties in those three states that have unique names per the instructions I linked above. The latter is more work (you have to identify and list each one), but gets it all done in one shot. --В²C ☎ 00:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- I tried moving a bunch of county pages about a week ago, but I was told not to do this unilaterally. Suffice to say, I'm not sure if the consensus has changed much. Alternatively, is it at all possible to create some exception for counties in California, Arizona and Louisiana?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
A page you started (Cherax snowden) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Cherax snowden, Born2cycle!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I commented out the TBD sections as it looked empty and awkward. Feel free to unhide them when there is content!
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
- Thanks. I started it with a copy/paste of a similar article, and replaced the content in most of the sections with TBD. Commenting them out is much better. Hopefully you, I or someone else will fill them in soon! --В²C ☎ 16:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Health professions appeal and review board
Hello B2C,
The article Health professions appeal and review board has been nominated for deletion. The reason I am here is this comment made by the nominator: if the title mentioned Ontarion it moight be redirectable but as it stands, way too generic. I wonder if you would care to address this comment there? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
The above warning is in regard to this edit. Your accusation/aspersion is completely uncalled for. For the record, what it seems like to me is you are pissed TheRedPenOfDoom is not seeing things your way at the article talk page where you left your accusatory and completely inappropriate comments. If anything like it happens again, I will have no qualms about taking you to AN/I for it. In fact, you can count on me doing it. Disagree with editors, dislike editors, be in conflict with them over editing and the like. But accuse them out of the blue of sockpuppetry? Not okay. In case you want to raise the non-AGF flag against me for these comments, feel free. I am perfectly willing to wager there are other editors who will see your comments the way I see them. Plainly put: knock it off or you will possibly be facing consequences you may not like much. In fact, it would be a great show of good faith (and probably a wise move) for you to strike your accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- I searched for that username and all I could find was evidence of sockpuppets related to that name. That's why I asked. --В²C ☎ 17:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Kim Davis, AN, etc.
I believe we can agree we are making no headway on the Kim Davis RM/MR, so why are you continuing to argue the point? Nothing new appears to be said, and if the only involved editors are the three of us, I think the point is clearly being missed about the purpose of an MR. Your actions on both the RM and MR are consistent with the concerns expressed in your editor review and your ANI. I am not challenging your knowledge of WP Policies or Guidelines, nor on your proposal for the original move. If anything I have always been a weak-supporter of the move, but that is not my formal role as a closer... However, your conduct in how you are treating me and other editors is out of line. It is not your facts or information that is the problem, but rather your approach. The continued discussion on the MR isn't leading any closer to consensus, and further discourages new editors to contribute due to the wall of text, and prevents even an admin closure due to the ongoing discussion which continues to miss the point of the MR process as a whole. I know you're an experienced editor, which a vast amount of knowledge on the project and specifically with titling. You are passionate about what you do... Those are all excellent, and praise worthy. But they are cast against a dark shadow due to how you treat other editors. Lack of good faith, personal attacks, and being belligerent... You contribute constructively, but when your beliefs about a topic are challenged to the same degree that you assert them, you become very inappropriate towards other editors. I welcome you to comment, and help me understand how you're working within the spirit and letter of your pledge. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. --В²C ☎ 06:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
I see that you've been rather inactive recently. Perhaps you're busy IRL as I have been. I hope that our recent conflict hasn't soured you to wiki. Have a cookie and have a good holiday season. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
Something up your alley?
Hi B2C and a happy new year to you. I just happened to see this and was wondering if this grabs your interest. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Humour article spelling again.
Just to let you know if you still care. Juan Riley (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- See you again someday if we are still around. Thanks for the thanks. And just thanks. Juan Riley (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, it's probably going take the effort of creating a Humor title history akin to Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. Sad because it takes so much time and effort to persuade others of something that is so obvious. --В²C ☎ 02:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Don't look at it as sad. What you did in writing the yogurt spelling history essay and in clearly and honestly outlining the issue was a significant accomplishment whether it succeeded or not. And there it did. Just the fact that you had other editors at humor discussing what is or is not a stub is a victory. I thoroughly understand that it might be up to someone else now for humor. I aint no young chicken either--nor do I think I have the talent and energy to do so. But someone will. Someday. Have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I have appreciated all your essays--not just the spelling ones. Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Don't look at it as sad. What you did in writing the yogurt spelling history essay and in clearly and honestly outlining the issue was a significant accomplishment whether it succeeded or not. And there it did. Just the fact that you had other editors at humor discussing what is or is not a stub is a victory. I thoroughly understand that it might be up to someone else now for humor. I aint no young chicken either--nor do I think I have the talent and energy to do so. But someone will. Someday. Have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, it's probably going take the effort of creating a Humor title history akin to Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. Sad because it takes so much time and effort to persuade others of something that is so obvious. --В²C ☎ 02:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- See you again someday if we are still around. Thanks for the thanks. And just thanks. Juan Riley (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to recently started RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
An other CfR discussion for US city categories
There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Od Mishehu: Why is this discussion (and others like it) taking place? Are wp:Categorians under the impression that wp:Naming conventions do not apply to wp:Categories? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me
- We're under the impression that categories about places should use thew same name for the place as the article does. Looking back at previous discussions, I get the impression that consensus is moving in that direction regarding cities in the US like Seattle and Chicago, where the article name doesn't include the state name; and the immediate trigger for this discussion was the creation of a category for Seattle which doesn't include the "Washington", and an opposition to a speedy attempt to fix that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion is valued
Hi,
Just wondering if you have an opinion about Wikipedia:Help_desk#sort_name_in_a_category_different_than_a_person.27s_pagename. Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me
A discussion you may be interested in
I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
companies of or companies in
I happened to see two articles on Wikipedia which seem to be covering the same information. One was created in 2009 List of defunct airlines of Uganda and the other created in 2015 List of defunct airlines in Uganda. Not sure which name is the practice at Wikipdia. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawahitech, "Of" seems to be more commonly used. --В²C ☎ 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks B2C. Here is one that may interest you (?): Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_13#John_in_Islam?. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Lane splitting that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Born2cycle personal attacks. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about all of that...
..so many times your name was taken in vain. Editing another's comments does annoy me. Juan Riley (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
3RR warning
This is a caution, to both you and Magnolia677 that you have been edit warring at the article La Jolla. Please take it to the talk page and do not edit war. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Born2cycle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to the ongoing RfD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Your "tolerance" toward other people's viewpoints
You were previously warned to be tolerant toward other people's viewpoints. Yet evidence at Talk:Chandra Levy, Talk:Hawaii Five-O and Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) might show otherwise. Or maybe I'm wrong. Can you explain how you grew more tolerant than before? --George Ho (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- If anything I've said to anyone appears to be expressing intolerance of their viewpoint then I'm being misunderstood. When there is disagreement I do try to understand the opposing viewpoints and this can lead to questions, explanations of my viewpoint, and lengthy discussions, but this is not intolerance. --В²C ☎ 21:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Though you weren't involved in this year's Levy RM as you were three years ago, in the latest 0 vs O, you said you understood our viewpoints but found parenthetical disambiguation pointless. If I attempt to challenge you, the evidence would direct against me, though I have been polite and did not resort to insults. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I never said parenthetical disambiguation was pointless. In fact, I'm advocating it at the Talk:Sarah Jane Brown RM. Perhaps it's my fault, but I sense much misunderstanding by you of my point of view. I'd be happy to discuss it further, but not if you take my participation in such discussion as an expression of intolerance of your viewpoint. --В²C ☎ 00:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no. The back-and-forth arguments between us prompted me to believe that you were less tolerant. However, the comments at both talk pages of "Hawaii" reveal that you countenance my viewpoint about the situation. That was when you cleared out the confusion. Maybe I'll countenance your viewpoint when I can understand it, but I'll not agree with yours. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC); see below. 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)- Nevertheless, whenever you question others' viewpoints about titles, I would indicate your assumptions that I misunderstood you. The way you question others' viewpoints or titles... can mislead others into assuming your "intolerance", which you deny. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, since you brought up the recent RM at Talk:Chandra Levy, which I did not participate in but just looked at, what do you think of the closer's comments essentially dismissing your proposal for lacking any "coherent argument". But you're taking me to task for being intolerant of others' viewpoints? --В²C ☎ 00:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I conceded the closer's comments mainly due to the "putting readers first" principle but only for the recent RM. The one from three years ago, though that was long ago, I reluctantly conceded to avoid further disruption. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I never said parenthetical disambiguation was pointless. In fact, I'm advocating it at the Talk:Sarah Jane Brown RM. Perhaps it's my fault, but I sense much misunderstanding by you of my point of view. I'd be happy to discuss it further, but not if you take my participation in such discussion as an expression of intolerance of your viewpoint. --В²C ☎ 00:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Though you weren't involved in this year's Levy RM as you were three years ago, in the latest 0 vs O, you said you understood our viewpoints but found parenthetical disambiguation pointless. If I attempt to challenge you, the evidence would direct against me, though I have been polite and did not resort to insults. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I saw your comment saying "preposterous" toward the "sexist" claim against "(wife of...)". Now this concerns me a lot. If you say you are "tolerant", why calling the idea preposterous? Must I distinguish viewpoints from ideas? Are viewpoints and ideas interchangeable? George Ho (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I take that back. Guy summarizes your attempts to advocate your challenge to community norms and rejections. George Ho (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Preposterous means contrary to reason and common sense. I gave many examples that demonstrate why the claim that "wife of" is plainly inappropriate is preposterous. This is all verifiable. --В²C ☎ 23:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why you rely on sources who take women for granted, like journalists. Can you think other sources that emphasize women more like equals or powerful influencers, like academic sources? George Ho (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Briefly reading Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation and User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation, I still am growing more concerned. One of my essays was in a similar situation, which then I userfied in response before it went to the same level of that MfD: User:George Ho/Competence is not required. Also, you can compare revisions of the essay as guidance to make essays friendlier to the community but based on your heart, i.e. heartful: first, before revamp, and revamp. By the way, I wonder if you can help me expand it without making it less friendly to the community. George Ho (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
SnowFire told you to drop it at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Can you abide to that? If not, I shall take this to WP:DRN because it's solely about introducing the person. Or maybe you can? George Ho (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- George Ho, please stop harassing me. If you believe you have a legitimate complaint about my behavior, then be clear about what it is and what policies or guidelines are violated by it. Otherwise, these comments amount to unhelpful snipes. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
January 2017
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. MereTechnicality (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Attack page? Wow. I've been trying to get editors to stop attacking each other with far, far worse language over the years, and have never been able to get any traction. Well, maybe things are finally improving. I hope so. That would be great. --В²C ☎ 01:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirect
If you do anything like that last redirect again, you will be blocked. You know better. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. I didn't know. I've seen that term used to refer to that person enough times to believe it might be helpful to have the redirect. I still think it would improve WP to include it, but I'm not going to fight you about it. --В²C ☎ 01:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, that's why we do warnings. Given the number of derogatory nicknames and insults we've had to delete over the past few election cycles, we shouldn't be adding to the list, sources or not. You can imagine what was created for Obama and Clinton, and we have no business being less thorough now. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Gotchya. Thanks for taking the time to give me a thorough explanation. Much appreciated. --В²C ☎ 01:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, that's why we do warnings. Given the number of derogatory nicknames and insults we've had to delete over the past few election cycles, we shouldn't be adding to the list, sources or not. You can imagine what was created for Obama and Clinton, and we have no business being less thorough now. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have fulfilled your request at WP:RM/TR. Please fix anything that needs to be fixed per WP:RMCI. Thanks for the request. SkyWarrior 21:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Trent Valley Line
I can only assume that you didn't see the section I just filled out at Talk:Trent_Valley_Line#New_evidence, shortly before this remark of yours. Please do look again, and you'll see that you've been misled. Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see clearcut evidence for lowercase being more common usage in WP:RS. I think the burden is on those proposing the change to prove their case. The fact is that reliable sources use both. Maybe I'm still missing something but I just don't see a compelling case. Sorry. --В²C ☎ 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- You don't find the books and news searches compelling? What does it take? Sure the web search also supports my case if you look hard at it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about books and news searches in that section. But what I did just see buried in one of your comments is the ngram stuff. That is compelling. --В²C ☎ 06:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking again and changing your position. I really appreciate it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about books and news searches in that section. But what I did just see buried in one of your comments is the ngram stuff. That is compelling. --В²C ☎ 06:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- You don't find the books and news searches compelling? What does it take? Sure the web search also supports my case if you look hard at it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious close
Hi B2C. Just in am random wanderings, I notice that your close at Talk:Garage_punk_(punk_subgenre)#Requested_move_23_January_2017 feels a bit dubious. "Consensus to move" would not be my reading, but if it is yours I think the close needs a better explanation of your reading. The closing statement is particularly non-ideal. "Most of those opposing don't indicate having understanding/appreciation..." reads a veiled personal criticism of Oppose !voters, and it lacks substance (it begs "what are the opposers misunderstanding"). "the excellent reasons" also, separately begs. You should state what the "excellent reasons" are, and why. These extra demands on the close are required when the close is not obvious. Overall, I find it it has a whiff of WP:Supervote. Per that essay, I suggest you unclose and !vote instead, and see if the next person along closes the same way. I say this in confidence that you closed without any personal bias, and I assure you that on the merits of the RM, I have no opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies, I was in a hurry and did not explain as well as I could. I've since done so. Thanks for the head's up. --В²C ☎ 05:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Very good, you're welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
WP;RM listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WP;RM. Since you had some involvement with the WP;RM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Ought to
The recent Talk:Fabergé egg#RFC on egg naming convention is a good example of the reason we have the wording in the policy WP:AT contained in the section WP:TITLECHANGES. If my memory serves me well, there wording was there before the "Men's rights movement title debate" of 2012, the issue was the interpretation of the word "should" in that sentence. "Should" is an imprecise word because different dialects of English interpret it differently. Here is a blog page that sums up the difference as seen in British English. Personally I think it would be a good idea to replace "should" with "ought to" as that is less open to misunderstanding. As the blog says:
Ought is less strong than must, and isn’t used to talk about things that are compulsory. It often carries with it slightly more forcefulness and more of a sense of moral obligation or appropriateness than should.
It was on the interpretation of "should" that much of the "Men's rights movement" title debate revolved. To see the details of that part of the debate, do a search on KillerChihuahu in the WT:AT archives. It throws up 3 archives in which you will find the opinions of many more editors. -- PBS (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)