User talk:HighInBC/Archive 29

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

civility

Hi Chillum—I noted with pleasure your in-principle endorsement of the new codification of civility at the policy talk page; I'll get around to returning there soon, with a view to implementing it if there are no outstanding problems. I posted a reply to your message at Jooper's talk page here. Tony (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have participated in three of the active discussions on the civility talk page, to which do you refer? Chillum 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xeno^talk

Thank you, I hope it will be productive. Chillum 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markreut

He has made another unblock request, but messed up the template. However, I think it should be noted that he made the request under his IP, after editing another article[1] while blocked. This is part of the problem I mentioned in my own unblock requests. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His first unblock request was declined, so I am not inclined to correct his misuse of the template. I have however blocked the IP with the same expiry as the account as blocked editors should not be editing. Chillum 03:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Photos

Hey, I checked out your userpage for reasons entirely unrelated with photography, but... damned good photos! --LjL (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is a hobby that I enjoy very much. I hope to have more time for it in the future. Chillum 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and. I was about to write this earlier, I'll do this now after Ward's lastest reply to the section where you explicitly asked to refrain from whining. How's about we both try to restrict our answers to Ward (without going so far as saying "avoid answering completely") to no more than a line of text or so, such as what would fit in an SMS? I'm singling out Ward because I find he really does sound needlessly whiny (I certainly could say the same, and for that matter much more, about DreamGuy, on the other side of the argument). --LjL (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more that this type of behavior should not be rewarded with attention. I would say that I have no intention of responding to any sort of repetition of this circular debate. Should I do so may I feel regret instantly! Should Ward or anyone choose to continue to go in circles, they can do so without me. That being said if Ward or anyone starts to come up with fresh ideas then I will certainly be willing to discuss them. Chillum 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting

Are you using some kind of a peculiar browser that causes you to not indent properly? It would be ideal (especially at our favourite watering hole) if you begin using proper indenting. –xeno^talk 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say I totally agree with this suggestion. Tan | 39 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stick to the indentation I first used when I entered a thread. This makes sense because there are almost always less people than comments in a thread. You can also glance at a thread and quickly see who is saying what(See User_talk:Chillum/Archive_26#Civil for an example). If everyone always just indents one further then half the page is wasted in no time. I am not sure what you mean by "properly", is this documented somewhere? Chillum 15:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at Wikipedia:TP#Indentation, and in more detail at WP:Indentation. --LjL (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting guideline and essay, I like my way better. I have been using it for about 3 years now without issue. Chillum 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very confusing and a peculiar way to do it. Many times it makes it difficult to tell to whom your comments are directed (e.g., while I know your comment immediately above is directed to Ljl, had it been a more ambiguous comment, I might think it was directed to Tan). It also screws it up for others, whose comments might be ambiguously directed when your later comments have not been properly indented. –xeno^talk 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC) N.B. was unindented by page owner[reply]

The purpose of indenting to me is not to show who I am speaking to, it is to tell the difference between posters so the don't all bleed together. My previous statement was directed to the whole thread, if I wanted to specifically refer to someone I would use the users name. When people simply add 1 forever it becomes less clear to me than if they just stuck to a particular indent. I suppose different people prefer different methods. I don't think it is a significant issue. Simply adding 1 conveys no useful information, but sticking to a specific indent conveys the information of who posted what. Just look at this thread, you can tell as a glance who posted what just by looking at the left margins. Chillum 15:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what signatures are for. Anyhow, I guess I can't compel you to put down an old habit, but just letting you know it's mildly annoying, confusing, and sometimes disruptive (again, mildly) for those of us who use proper (standard?) indenting... –xeno^talk 15:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "common" would be a better word than standard or proper. It seems like very little thought was put into how we indent and that pure inertia is propagating the common method. Simply adding 1 does nothing to make the conversation clearer and leads to silly levels of indent. If the person above me has taken the indent level that I have been sticking to I will sometimes alter my indent for clarity. I really do hope this does not bother you too much as that is certainly not my intention. I am simply trying to use the intent to convey information that the common method does not. Chillum 15:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree... the standard way of quoting is pretty natural for me, as it's basically the same as I'd use on Usenet posts. I guess web forums have changed that old way of quoting for some... but the fact remains that hierarchical quoting is the only one that makes who you're answering to unambiguous and doesn't mess up formatting for others. --LjL (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LjL, I can simply use your name if I want to refer directly to you. I don't really have much experience with usenet or web forums. Chillum 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't make it clear which of my postings you're replying to (especially in a big talk page like the one this refers to), and it makes people have to "hunt" for what you're replying to, anyway (while with standard quoting, you just have to look up until you meet something less indented - and that's automatically what you're replying to). Really, it's a guideline for some valid reasons :-) --LjL (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at this thread. Think of how clear that would be if every posted stuck to their original indent level, instead it is more than half way across my widescreen monitor. That is not clear to me. I will however refrain from telling others how to indent and merely suggest that they adopt my method. Chillum 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That thread went on too long without one of us outdenting (which is mentioned at WP:TP, as it is indeed necessary when the tree becomes way too deep). As to your subtle hint about refraining from telling others, I'll add a subtle hint to the fact that guidelines are actually supposed to be followed by editors. --LjL (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, policies are meant to be followed by editors(IAR notwithstanding), guidelines are supposed to guide editors. If it was a policy I would probably follow it. Chillum 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"←Outdenting" is fairly common when threads get :::::::::::::too far indented. Your method is sub-optimal, imo. It doesn't bother me "too much", no. Certainly not to the point where I'd file an RFC or anything, but the example I've linked does show people feel strongly about people (administrators especially) adhering to guidelines that make it easier for users to follow talk page threads. LiquidThreads (if it ever comes) will solve many of these problems (but I'm not holding my breath on that). –xeno^talk 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, in 3 years this has not caused much disruption. I conceded it is possible that it may cause disruption in the future. If this potential harm is ever manifested in any significant way I will reconsider my point of view. Chillum 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.