User talk:Clpo13/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

User:Ed Fitzgerald and his unreasonable edit actions

Can you help me talk things out with this editor? He seems to be on some kind of style war, imposing styles other than what WP:MOS says. You seem to be a reasonable person, judging from what you said over at the 23 skidoo page. 128.208.53.45 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not really my problem, though I share your annoyance at the way Ed prefers to style the disambiguation pages. I already explained why I prefer things the Manual of Style way, but he didn't appear to care. I'll keep an eye out for you, I suppose. --clpo13_(talk) 10:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what is Ed doing on these dab pages that is objectionable? I haven't gotten in a good argument for a month or two, let me know what he's doing, and maybe I can butt heads with him, just to keep my blood flowing. Unschool (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't like the way he styles them by making the wikilinks of all the entries bold and putting in a lot of whitespace. This diff shows about the usual. It's really just a personal preference, but the manual of style does specify differently. --clpo13_(talk) 02:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag relocation

Yes, as you surmise it is indeed a usability issue. Those tags are essentially messages from one Wikipedia editor to another, and for the most part (with some exceptions) not particularly relevant to the Wikipedia user. I've drawn the analogy to a page of a printed encyclopedia with post-it notes from the editors slapped all over it: "Find some citation to this" , or "Rewrite this section". Basically, the tags are internal memorandum and as such they do not need prominent display. We already have a place where discussion between editors can take place, which is why my druthers would be that all clean-up tags go there, but that seems too radical a change for most people, whereas many editors accept putting them at the bottom, where they don't disfigure the page and get in the way of the user.

The best thing would be an icon in the upper might corner, similar to the "locked" or "featurd article" icon, which indicates that the article has been tagged by someone, and alerts Wikipedia editors to the clean-up tags, which could be in a special section at the head of the talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with User:Ed Fitzgerald on this issue of tags; placement of tags at the top of the article is symptomatic of editors' obsession with ourselves and our processes, and rather smugly assumes that the casual reader who comes here for information needs to concern himself with our procedures. And I've noticed that more and more editors are doing the same thing as Ed, that is, placing tags at the bottom of the page. I'm on board with this practice, with one exception I would make would be an exception for the well-being of the reader. If, for example, an article is stacked with some regrettable POV, the reader (who may, for Pete's sake, be a young student who is reading about the subject for the first time) would probably benefity from a POV warning. But the need for cleanup, or the fact that an article is protected, or even the need for citations (again, assuming that the article is seen as NPOV), these are essentially internal matters that don't need to be the very first thing that the reader sees when they open up an article. Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I didn't know it was a growing thing. Of course, in the case of Wikipedia, every user can be an editor, but that's not really much of an argument. Thanks for explaining. --clpo13_(talk) 02:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I have just been looking at your edits in the "9/11 conspiracy theories" renaming discussion and I have noticed that, even though we obviously disagree to a considerable extent, your comments have been clear and to the point. Unfortunately during this discussion I have found myself in the position of having to churn out thousands of words to deal with arguments that keep going round and round in circles. Therefore I have been getting frustrated, even though I knew full well from prior experience what kind of thing I might be letting myself in for before I got involved, and the frustration has been getting increasingly obvious. Without saying anything else about the behaviour of other contributors, I just want to let you know that I very much value your effort to take part in the discussion constructively and wish that I had recognised it sooner. ireneshusband (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I seemed short at all, but I share your frustration with discussions that go round and round with no end. --clpo13_(talk) 02:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

heads up

I just wanted to be sure that you check back at Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi for my response to your comment. - Nunh-huh 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Chad Lewis (paranormal investigator)

Hey there - in regards to the {COI} tag on the Chad Lewis (paranormal investigator) article - I placed it there since the originator of the article bears the name Unexplainedresearch - just as his series of programs are named The Unexplained.... I'll keep an eye on the article for neutrality, my concern mostly was that the article could be a self-promotional piece. --Ozgod (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, too. But I removed the tag because the article, at first read, didn't appear to be too self-promotional. It seemed neutral enough, though desperately in need of more references. I'll keep an eye on it, as well. --clpo13_(talk) 06:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Catherine de' Medici/ de Médicis

Thanks for your comment. Please see my reply -- and the article (paragraph 1)! --PL (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)