User talk:Duae Quartunciae

; Archives
	July 2007 ; August 2007 ; December 2008 ;

Thanks ...

for talking the time to comment at the Wikiquette page and elsewhere. It is always a bit scary when complaints get made, but I find it fascinating that total strangers, spread throughout the world, take the time to look into things carefully and then opine. Thanks again. --Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And it is fascinating. Frankly, I think we are a little bit voyeuristic. The whole wikipedia project is fascinating; and the way so many people work together on it; including some rather odd folks. Something like wikiquette alerts helps manage it a bit, I guess. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Duae Quartunciae. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
Message added 01:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Alan (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it?

May I ask you to explai what is it, or it, or it? It seems to me that Alaska is also in Asia (and belonged to Russia no so far away). May be, we must move it? What are we doing: trying to find a consensus or playing provocative games? Thanx! --Dimitree 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

We are trying to find a consensus, of course. You MUST stop taking all dispute over this as personal. These unwarranted insinuations of attack or game playing or provocation at disruptive of the project. Please stop worrying about motives of other editors and stick to the content, on the assumption that we are all working in good faith. Take all actual substantive discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Regions for airports. Thanks.

Also, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question. Would u please answer? It seems to me there is only one truth: smone can do whatever he wants inspite it is evidently silly. Smone must shut up and follow mainstream. Ok. The question remains: if it is correct to put Russian Federation in Asia unless there is no any consensus? May I hope to hear from you soon. Thanx! P.S.: I put 4 tildas from the very begining, but it does not work. Don't know why... --Dimitree 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

I answered the question, on what we are are trying to... we are trying to find a consensus. I also pointed you to the proper place for further discussion of the specifics of geographical location.

Ok.

Your rephrased question is a bit unclear, but you appear to be asking what to do if there is no consensus. If there is no consensus, then the correct thing to do in wikipedia is work towards consensus. The most important considerations for that, by far, are to assume good faith of other editors and keep your cool. The worst thing to do is make your own personal decision on what is "correct", and then edit war all over the place to maintain your choice, whatever it might be. You should leave the content of the article alone, and focus on obtaining the consensus. To do that, you have to listen to others, and be willing to change your mind if need be. See Wikipedia Dispute Resolution. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do anything unless there is no consensus. My opponent - User:Jasepl - does. He just violates established rules. Examples are here, here, here and so on. So I need an explanation: if there are this Template:Airline destinations and thatUnited Nations World Macro regions and components, why User:Jasepl is defigurating the data? That is all. Nothing else... --Dimitree 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help with the signing of posts over at your talk page. Hold on, I think we'll be able to fix it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you not to teach me what should I do and what should not? Teach yourself, please. And such kind of posts "Dimitree, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" put on your page, please. I'm enough educated to understand what is going on here. Except you, there are many others Georges W. Bushes with his "export of democracy"... Thanx! --Dimitree (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You called a wikiquette alert, and you have asked for help. I mean no offense but you badly need it. You are flatly wrong about about trying to tell ME directly above about so-called "established rules", and you are not following the established wikipedia guidelines yourself.

Jasepl has removed himself from the debate. You should not continue to bait him. That comment about dropping the stick is a standard comment in wikipedia for just the kind of problem, and you should read the link associated with the comment. Here it is again: WP:STICK.

This whole debate would go much better if you were willing to learn about more about these kinds of guidelines. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your intervention and your efforts. You correctly concluded that I have withrawn from the debate.

Dimitree's dogged refusal to even read any of the explanations by others just makes the whole thing too tedious to be worthwhile. His constant screams of the English-speaking world being on a Russia-bashing binge doesn't help either. Besides (and I don't meen this in a bad way) - I don't understand most of what he writes anyway. All colleague this, and comrade that. This is the Engligh language Wikipedia, isn't it?

All I will suggest is that don't go 100% by the UN definitions (they change) or by group membership. I saw there was a suggestion to include Turkey in Europe because it is potentially an EU member. So is Armenia, by the way. Will Armenia suddenly move to Europe if and when it becomes an EU member? Tomorrow Kazakhstan might decide to join the Southwest Pacific La-La Union. Will Morocco then cease being an African countty?

Besides, if 3% of its territory being located in Europe makes Turkey European, then why not Azerbaijan and Georgia? More than 3% of their territory is located in Europe after all.

Physical location is something that won't change - not for several millenia in any case. Seeing how that's one constant, and that Europe's land borders are the Urals to the east and the Caucasus to the South, it's best to work with those immutable factors.

As all of the related country and continent articles, as well as a simple glance at a physical map tell us:

Armenia and Cyprus are 100% in Asia
97% of Turkey is in Asia
Over 50% of Russia is in Asia (ie: East of the Urals)
More than 3% of Azerbaijan and Georgia are in Europe (ie: North of the Caucasus)

Thanks, again. Jasepl (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. I'm going to stick with it for a while, although I'm striving to live up to the high ideals of don't-give-a-fuckism. :-)

If you twist my arm, I'll confess that I don't actually share your particular view of the best solution. I personally think that the division between Asia and Europe is mainly political; not geographical at all. It is the actual choice of certain borders that is mutable. The boundaries you list are widely used, but not universal. They are, in effect, a consensus position -- and consensus is mutable. As far as wikipedia is concerned, I'd stick with what has been the norm now, in most articles, for quite some time, as far as I can tell.

Russia definitely belongs in Europe, because all the largest centers are in the West, and the East is far less populated and developed. There's no way Asia can possibly work as a consensus for Russia, and that's what matters in wikipedia. Turkey is more interesting; most of the airline destination lists put it in Europe, and that's where the major political links go. For airlines, I think that traffic should carry a lot of weight, and with the strong political ties from Turkey to Europe, this carries a lot of weight. It's been the normal position within the airlines project now for a long time, as far as I can tell. Cyprus belongs in Europe politically, and again this is more important, in my view. Being actually an island in the Mediterranean, the geographical argument is particularly weak IMO. Proximity does suggest Asia -- but more particularly it suggests Cyprus and Turkey belong in the same continent. I tend to think putting them both in Europe is best; and it is also the prevailing norm in so far as a norm exists.

I am looking at using some tools to help identify inconsistencies across destination lists. This also helps identify what the effective consensus is at present, which seems to be as I've indicated above. (I think.)

But hey. I'm going to be interested to see if anyone else speaks up. I've refrained from saying any of this on the discussion, in line with the solemn teachings of DGAF. Be well, and keep up the good work. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whould you please have a look at any map and see that: from the Kaspian Sea (moving to the West), Azerbaijan goes first, Armenia goes second which means that Azerbaijan (moving to the West from the Kaspian) is more distant from Europe. Moreover, land boundary of Europe and Asia is Northern Caucas Mountains. So all three countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) are below this boundary. So they are Southern Caucas countries and they are in Asia. Northern Caucas belongs to Russia (to its european part)... As for Turkey: only 3 % of Turkish territory is in Europe (Istanbul), 97% - in Asia. Cyprus is on an Asian tectonic platform. So Cyprus is in Asia (in the Middle East). Geography remains relevant. But politics is irrelevant... Thanx! --Dimitree (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) P.S.: you may delete my post as you usually do when smth does not correspond to your conceptions...[reply]

Dimitree, I have not ever deleted your posts or comments, and have no intention of starting to do any such thing. If you think otherwise you may provide a dif.

You are merely repeating your view above, which I understand. This view is not the only view around. Some time I may comment further on the boundary between Europe and Asia in the Caucasus region, as there have been many divisions proposed over the years by different authorities, based on geography. However, I do not have a big stake in this. I am mainly here to try and help editors resolve a dispute. My conception is not important, and I have not ever removed anything in these debates because of a different conception of what the solution should be.

My only concern with this issue is to help editors work together better. I am concerned with issues such as assuming good faith, civility, and edit warring, for all participants, in the hope that you can all work together better. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U r right: u r trying to help editor (not editors) supporting User:Jasepl. It is not objective and it is evident (I do not even talk about your endless and useless notations to me). As for deletion: here and here. That is all. There is always only one truth regardless the question we are talking. There are no 2 or 3 truths, because it is already a question of double standards. That is all. Nothing personal... --Dimitree (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitree, I think you have misunderstood both those edits. Neither one removes anything of yours, and neither one removes anything to do with airline destinations.

The first link you give is to an edit in which I deleted a personal attack by a well known sock puppet who is using multiple IP addresses. Such edits tend to be removed on sight by anyone, and the IP gets blocked if it continues to be a source of edits. Note that this user is leaving similar one line personal attacks on many different talk pages with closely related range of IP addresses. Removing such attacks is normal; it has nothing particular to do with you. Check the relevant talk page: User talk:203.76.185.35. The IP has been blocked, but not by me.
The second link is to an edit of YOURS, not mine. I have never moved any country between continents at any time in these discussions. My edit was simply to fix a problem with indentation. Here my own actual edit is here. LOOK at it for heaven's sake. All it does is line up the countries to a common indentation level, because the indentation got mixed up at some point. I moved nothing; and I have not taken any part in the edit wars on these articles.

I repeat; I have no stake in the content. I am concerned only with helping ALL editors engage the topic with appropriate civility and good faith, and without edit warring. I have certainly not tried to modify articles in favour of one side OR the other. That's the honest truth. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. --Dimitree (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we are on the same page again! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard appeal

Please see my appeal at the noticeboard. I was known as MoonHoaxBat, but for abusing (i.e. appealing) on my talk page, I had no way to find out how to appeal to ArbCom. I would appreciate it if you could see the noticeboard. I am notifying you because I am not trying to slip something past the community.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your post on the noticeboard. I am willing to not file a complaint against Ratel. I can understand your position on this. I found his comments offensive, but I trust that someone else will take up getting them removed. I don't need to get involved. I also consent to any kind of check you need to do on whether I am RJ11 of years past. Thanks,--FredUnavailable (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing unsigned comment

Thanks for signing the Dougmac7 comment; appreciate it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

The changes are [1].

Please look at [2] and Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus".174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do assume you are working in good faith, and I have not reverted anything of yours so far, for any reason at all. So this is an odd comment for you to be making.

On the other hand, I do disagree with what you are doing, and how you are doing it; as has every single other editor who has seen it as far as I can tell. I have explained the problem as I see it in the talk pages, at this link you have provided just above. That is where you should be taking this discussion; not here please. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your uncomfortability with my reporting?174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, there are many aspects of this that concern me somewhat, but we don't need to talk about it here, please. I do assume your good faith, and I have not as yet reverted anything you have added to wikipedia. I've commented on matters relating to your proposals in the appropriate general discussion pages, as you have also. That's the right place this discussion. That is where we focus on the substance and not on individual editors or motives, and also where others impacted may be involved more naturally. OK? It's best not to carry on a dispute over too many different pages. Best wishes —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)

I just read your post on Wikipedia talk:When to use tables. Actually, I appreciate and thank you for linking those wikipediaspace pages. I had no idea they existed, (except for the policy page, I just never read down there). I will abide by them in the future. As for Wikipedia talk:When to use tables, it seems I'm the major contributor to the discussions, with major changes already written. I assume that the discussion will start from my first post.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't plan to involve myself in that discussion. I came in because of reports made at dispute resolution pages, and as long as editors are working together well, I'll drop out again and leave you guys to it. Good luck. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A second request on table guidelines

I know that my past discussions give people a biased view as to why I am changing the guide line. I have stopped discussion in those fora. Please discuss the changes that you don't feel should be included in the guideline. Also, please specifically tell me how much time I should wait until I should change the guideline.174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to get a consensus for the changes. You do that in the talk page of the guideline, not here. The onus is on YOU to explain clearly what changes you think should be in the guideline. It is in your interest to be persuasive, and argumentative is rarely persuasive. At present, it is really hard to follow what you are even saying.

I have no particular stake in this. I am only here because there is a problem with editors working together.

Here's a suggestion, which I don't mean as an attack, but as something that may help. You've raised this in all kinds of different forums, quite inappropriately. You have, for example, raised this at wikiquette alters WP:WQA#Inflamatory Comments and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive115#User:Nifboy User:Gary King reported by User:174.3.111.148 (Result: No violation). In both those discussions, all the neutral input from other editors says that you are the one who is the problem. I concur with that general viewpoint; so far you haven't been following the long accepted and well tested wikipedia conventions for how we all try to get along and work together on the encyclopedia. I became involved because of the WQA alert, and wikiquette is my concern; not tables per se.

My advice: you should stop reporting people. You should stop trying to modify guidelines until you have clearly obtained a concensus. You have to accept that you might not get a consensus. If you don't get the consensus, then you NEVER get alter the guideline; it's not a matter of waiting long enough! At this point it certainly seems unlikely. I also recommend you stop trying to modify Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", as your changes to this essay are quite properly disputed, and ALSO look like trying to game the system. The reverts to your changes are NOT simply due to "no consensus" and nothing else. People have explained why they don't like your changes, and unless and until you get consensus, your changes are not going to take place. Don't try to get consensus by talking about it at a whole lot of different user talk pages. Don't try to get consensus by reporting people at dispute resolution pages when then disagree with you in good faith and edit appropriately in consequence.

Good luck with it all. I appreciate you are sincere in trying to work with the system, and mean this as friendly advice. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Superscripts marked "tables" are clickable links to a numbered response below.—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have clearly mentioned what is wrong with page. It is up to the interested parties to query me more for more information.^{[tables 1]}

Please look at this edit. Why is it that my edits require consensus, when I HAVE discussed my changes?. (Oh, and don't go reverting that change; I agree with it).^{[tables 2]}

I would like to believe you don't have legal interest either any of the issues that you have started reverting on, but precisely because you have done this, it makes me wonder..^{[tables 3]}

Please do not think I have raised issues with editors inappropriately. I think they were edit warring, with invested interest, which is reason to report bad faith behavior.^{[tables 4]}

Although the input maybe neutral, I still feel he was discriminating against me. I think that's hard to persuade.

I think I have been following civil behaviors editing. You are not the only one who have mentioned that they believe I have been acting in good faith.

I have stopped reporting people.

Concerning guideline modification, don't you think you owe me a reply if you don't feel when I said "I assume that the discussion will start from my first post" applied?^{[tables 5]}

I want to stress the significance of not waring on the previous points of contention that I had with previous editors. I have accepted some points that I could not get consensus for. Some edits on pages that I used to edit I no longer edit. I just have a very aggressive editing manner.^{[tables 6]}

Please compare this edit. This edit says alot.^{[tables 7]}

Please look at the discussions I've started. I makes me confused: how is it possible that people are objecting to the changes, if they don't even discuss their concerns? Canvassing is inappropriate. Obviously, I am opposing the current version of the page. There's already objection to the current version. I think due process should be given in this case.^{[tables 8]}

When I was reporting people, they were edit warring because they did not discuss their concerns.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like or don't trust my advice, then stop asking for it. You can always solicit advice from WP:WQA or WP:EAR, as advice, without making it a report against someone else. I am pretty sure that just like before, you will be told that you are actually the one who is a problem here. But for what it is worth, here is yet another attempt to explain. It is referenced back to your comments, so that you can click between your comment and my response:

^ Certainly not. People have already explained why they think your account of what was allegedly wrong was the page is itself incorrect. The onus is not on them to persuade you to agree. I think the real problem is that people just don't agree with you i.e. no consensus. Hence: no change.
^ In the case you have linked, no-one objected. In your case, they did. THAT'S the difference. Furthermore, you already knew from previous discussions on other pages that your perspective on tables is disputed! There's nothing wrong with being bold, even on a guideline, to start off with. If you get reverted, then stop editing and proceed to the talk page. Having been reverted, you should not make further changes to the guideline until the consensus is explicit. See WP:GUIDELINE.
^ Your reluctance to assume good faith is a big part of what is causing you problems. The only way this can change if you change it. That means deliberately assuming good faith for as long as you possibly can. i.e. No prejudicial speculations about other people until it is obvious to everyone that there is a lack of good faith involved.
^ I am certain that you have raised issues with editors inappropriately. You have been told this now by a number of neutral editors in the reports I listed above. You may well have reported in good faith; but you don't yet understand what is appropriate and what isn't. It's long past time when you need to stop and think to yourself: "Wow. Perhaps this wasn't appropriate." That's learning.
^ Of course I don't owe you a reply. I already told you that I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be. That WAS my reply. I stepped in to the talk page discussion to emphasize WP:GUIDELINE; I don't "owe" you a response on anything else! The situation on guideline modification is pretty dammed clear. You can be bold, to start off with, if you like. People can revert you if they don't agree; especially in a guideline. After this, stop editing and start talking. There is no guarantee that by arguing long enough you will prevail; nor are people obliged to continue to respond to your arguments indefinitely. I am not going to argue the policy with you, and I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be.
^ Consider adjusting your editing manner. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and I think this aggression is making life harder for you.
^ I don't particularly understand or care what you think about this edit; it is not to a guideline in any case, but to an essay. I don't see any particular problems with any of the recent edits there.
^ There has been a fair bit of discussion across a range of pages already, and what you have on the talk page mostly misses the point. The thrust of the guideline is that you should avoid tables, if something simpler works. You apparently want to use them more widely; but I don't see any clear argument for this, other than that you like it. Responses have already pointed out that the sentences you described as "vague" are not as vague as you suggest, and that there's no POV problem. The WP:NPOV is a policy on encyclopedic content. That is, they think your description of "what is wrong with the page" is itself incorrect. The due process has occurred, the discussion was engaged, and you did not get consensus. You can try and make your case again, explaining better why your changes are an improvement; but people are not obliged to keep going around this with you indefinitely.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WP:EAR, another cool link. I didn't know it existed before: thanks for showing me it. I apologize for all the trespasses I've tread instead of going to it.

They did not explain why they did not agree with me. I just don't like it is not an argument, they have to explain why they don't like it. Otherwise their edits are unconstructive.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; they DON'T have to explain. There are responses on the page and others are not obliged to keep going until you personally are satisfied.

You still have the onus backwards. This is a guideline, and so the onus is on the person proposing a change to make a persuasive argument. If other people don't like the change, then that's too bad for the change. Other editors DON'T have any onus at all to get you to understand why they disagree.

You have been told now by multiple neutral observers that you are wrong to accuse others of "unconstructive edits". You were actually the problem; not others -- because you persisted in making changes to the guideline long after it was clear you had no consensus, and you make it worse insisting incorrectly that others have to justify their reverts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments submitted by 174.3.102.6 on tables and lists, Nov 17.

Regarding your point 1: They explained what they don't understand, but I don't understand what they don't understand.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note both cases are completely different: Touhou Project's prose might just not fit well in a table. My proposed changes to the guideline does not affect the application of tables in articles.

Regarding point 2:"Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly delineated with headings categorically in a statistical manner." is my sentence. It does not say EXPLICITLY THAT ALL information should be put in tables. In this sentence, it just says that information like data should be put in table, which makes it more intuitive to read. Chemistry, biology, physics, and sometimes, data such as shows like survivor. Not all information belongs in a table. And it needs to be taken on a case by case procedure. People CURRENTLY believe the prose does not belong in a table, then I can't fight it.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Often a list is best left as a list." This sentence is POV because

It does not describe why they are best left as a list
It lends undue weight to lists
Each case should be taken on a case-by-case status
If taken out, the guideline will be more clear, direct, and useful174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table."
"..., and is not really what tables were designed to do"

According to wp:guidline#Content, it says that guidelines "should ... emphasize the spirit of the rule. Verbosity is not a defense against misinterpretation. Be unambiguous and specific: avoid platitudes and generalities." which is logical to take out those sentences.

Regarding the === Simple lists === and it's paragraph, it's just not true. It really depends on the case. Some "lists" are better organized in a table. As I've mentioned before, some biological or cultural data may be best put in a table or, even though it seems "simple" (in this case).

The new sections that I put in helps to explain when tables are useful and when they are not. The rationale sections help to divide the reasons behind the bylaws so readers can more easily understand and follow them.

The reason I used a table that you can use in toolbar is to encourage a more widespread use of tables (the button in the toolbar increases access and ease-of-access) in the toolbar. The reason I used merge was so it can help demonstrate the use of merge.174.3.102.6 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used a prose example is because the prose example is almost where a table should never be used.174.3.102.6 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the bloody talk page for the guideline. This argument does not belong on my talk page; I don't matter.

As a point of information, the POV argument is silly. The wikipedia requirement for neutrality is only for encyclopedic content. See WP:NPOV. A guideline is not encyclopedic content. OK? Any policy or guideline is necessarily taking a stand for how to write the encyclopedia. Guidelines do express stylistic preferences, intended to give a consistent style that is easy to use and maintain. Saying that a guideline is "POV" simply fails to understand the relevance or significance of POV in an encyclopedia.

I have no particular comment on other details in the rest of your argument. It's a waste of time putting it here.

Just keep in mind that you have to actually be persuasive. Aggression will backfire. This guideline impacts all of wikipedia, so you should make your argument self contained and easy to follow for someone coming to the page for the first time. It should be calm, and clear, and needs to start afresh in a new section. It would be sensible to give on the talk page the key new text you propose to add into the guideline, and focus on what is good about it. It needs to be clear what change you are proposing to make, not merely what you don't like about the current version. People have to LIKE your change, or it won't get consensus.

Your previous attempt on Nov 7 (this edit) was calm and clear, but unpersuasive. The POV point was silly, and the sentence you called "vague" is not vague at all. You did not explain what you proposed to replace it with. People DID respond to this, and they are not obliged to keep responding to you until you change your mind. Beyond that, your argument on Nov 7 boiled down to "I don't like" having a preference expressed for simple lists.

Try again, if you like. But people are not obliged to keep going around the mill with you on this. If no-one else likes your changes, then you don't have consensus. It's that simple. But ~~for the love of Harry~~ please, go away and stop trying to make the argument on my talk page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finis. I have deleted ongoing unwanted badgering; archived as these hard links: 1, 2, 3. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The edits repeatedly made to Sal the Stockbroker -- made by an anon with a edit history that is entirely nonconstructive -- include obvious and indisputable BLP violations and clear failures to comply with WP:RS. The most conspicuous example is at the end of the first paragraph, where the text accuses not only the article subject, but his father and his sister, of committing serious US/federal crimes. The anon originally left this paragraph unsourced, but later added a "reference" to a randomly chosen page which includes only unrelated derogatory comments about the article subject, and does not mention the supposed criminal activity, or the article subject's father, or the article subject's sister. Adding fake sourcing to a Wikipedia article in order to prevent BLP violations from being removed is quite clearly an "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," which is the definition of vandalism. The other sources in the article clearly fail WP:RS, as was pointed out in prior discussions, and the anon has made no effort to improve them -- they are blogs, nonindependent claims made on the official Stern site, and a mirror of the article itself. The anon vandal has done nothing to resolve the major problems in the article; instead, he makes superficial, nonconstructive changes and then posts phony attacks on me for refusing to let his vandalism stand.
I wouldn't go quite so far as this user's comment does [3], but I strongly believe that when dealing with a persistent nonconstuctive editor, that repeating the full discussion ad nauseum, whenever the nonconstructive editor pops his/her/its head up again, is simply playing into the hands of people trying to damage Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have clearly decided not to assume any good faith from this editor any further, I personally am of the opinion that it is better with a clear description on the article talk page of the problem, for the benefit of others. That will help. I'll add a comment there to confirm I see the point. Thanks for responding. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this clearly show that this user does not assume good faith and bites new comers some action needs to be taken against the user.98.117.34.180 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that the editor does not assume your good faith. That's unfortunate; but there's some basis for it. I would prefer he does assume good faith; but in reality there does come a point where the assumption of good faith is no longer tenable. I don't think we are there yet. Hullaballoo apparently does. I recommend you simply try to show that you deserve good faith a bit better. That means you set the example; stop referring to his edits as vandalism (they are no such thing), or generalizing about his "antics" (he does a power of useful work on maintaining BLP standards) and start giving more substantive comment about the article itself on the talk page. So far, you've got very little there and what it is seems to be all about your own personal animus with nothing substantive on the article. This doesn't look good. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry, but i don't care what that user thinks about me if he wants to game the system i can play him at his some game, this user have over 25 documented complaints against here (do a search) that has to means something. The saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander or something. I can watch every edit he makes and nit pick it like he does to me. That is what he is doing98.117.34.180 (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel he needs to read WP:AOBF this is what is happing right now! 98.117.34.180 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you have ALSO decided to assume the worst rather than assume good faith, and deliberately plan to do what you think is being done to you. What could possibly go wrong? LOL. This, I think, would backfire on you badly. I certainly hope so, if you do deliberately take up such an ill advised course of action.

I continue to advise you to try and assume good faith yourself, to do better in showing yourself worthy of receiving good faith, and I'll say the same for Hullaballoo. Difference is, he's way WAY better than you at dropping the matter and getting on with work on the encyclopedia. I've told Hullaballoo what I think and we've moved on. Perhaps you and I will do the same. If you move on in the direction you appear to be proposing, you run the risk of getting blocked -- especially as you have pretty clearly indicated here that you plan to disrupt the system to score some kind of point. Bad, bad, bad idea. Don't say I didn't warn you. But do what you must. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are both at it again. Use the talk page.

Is there something that can be done when you reverted Sal the Stockbroker a couple of hours later our friend comes and redirects it again, what can be done to stop? 98.117.34.180 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done is what I have done. I have asked for, and been given, an adequate description of the problems with the article on its own talk page. You also must STOP saying vandalism. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Furthermore, given the information on the talk page which is easily confirmed, Hullaballoo is correct to say that the article is still unacceptable, still improperly sourced, still a BLP violation. I have, accordingly, reverted to the redirect. You now ALSO have to engage on the talk page, and stop just edit warring without discussion. Unlike Hullaballoo, I am willing to assume your good faith, for the time being; but you are the one now in the position of needing to explain yourself on the talk page. THAT is the problem, all along. Inadequate discussion. You have contributed to that as well. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it does not matter most of the actions he does is an great example of Gaming the system 98.117.34.180 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at this point I think you are the one who seems to be gaming the system. I'm not particularly impressed. But I am simply speaking of appearances. I really don't know what either of you is thinking, and can't identify or judge your motives.

Therefore I am continuing to assume good faith, for both of you. I note that you have still said pretty much nothing substantive about the real issues with this article on the talk page.

It would have been better to work on the article in your own sandbox somewhere and then post the revised version with a clear acknowledgment that your previous referencing WAS invalid and that you acknowledge it needed to be fixed. But I'll wait and see. I recommend that you avoid making this into a personal issue. You are not on very firm ground with such a tack. Stick to the actual substance and if you can assume good faith as far as you possibly can, this works better when other editors start to look at what is happening... as will occur when we have an edit war going on. I appreciate that this is going to be difficult if you do not receive that assumption yourself; but truly, it is in your own interest. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the IP in question. Just an FYI, but the IP has already started threatening to use sockpuppets, so keep an eye out. I'll semiprotect if it gets out of hand. Enigma^msg 07:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. The attack was hilarious; I've not seen anything like it before. Very educational. In the meantime, I have left a comment on Talk:Sal the Stockbroker which lists some more of this IP's history. Very revealing. The page itself seems okay at present but I could be wrong. The content is so thin that the redirect still looks a better option; but I can't see any need to insist on it at present. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On attacks on this page

I seem to have upset someone; there have been a series of attacks made on this page in recent time. I don't take myself sufficiently seriously to find this anything other than hilarious; and since there are hard working people around who deal with this kind of nonsense, I am free to sit back and ignore it.

But in the meantime... the most likely attacker seems to associated with 98.117.34.180 (talk), who has apparently taken some exception to the engagement I had in his dispute with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk). You can read about it in the two sections immediately above this one. The funny thing is that as far as I am concerned, I gave more practical support to the IP in relation to his work on the Sal the Stockbroker page than anyone else; but apparently because I did not come completely over to his way of thinking he's reduced to this attack.

In the meantime, anyone trying to contact me on this from an IP address may find be unable to do so. You probably need to contact someone else anyway. I'm not an admin and I have no special authority on anything. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That IP returned again and was blocked for three months by a different admin. Enigma^msg 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP also has made me a target. Whack-a-proxy yesterday on my talk page. Based on the comments it was trying to add, it was clearly 98.117... Enigma^msg 04:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Noticed your "two cents" at Talk:Global_warming_controversy ;-) Nice to see you back on the 'pedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't think I'll be hugely active for a while; and that topic particular bogs down pretty badly. But I'm dropping in occasionally! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are awesome! Keep up good work! Phyton505 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

[1] Certainly not. People have already explained why they think your account of what was allegedly wrong was the page is itself incorrect. The onus is not on them to persuade you to agree. I think the real problem is that people just don't agree with you i.e. no consensus. Hence: no change.

[2] In the case you have linked, no-one objected. In your case, they did. THAT'S the difference. Furthermore, you already knew from previous discussions on other pages that your perspective on tables is disputed! There's nothing wrong with being bold, even on a guideline, to start off with. If you get reverted, then stop editing and proceed to the talk page. Having been reverted, you should not make further changes to the guideline until the consensus is explicit. See WP:GUIDELINE.

[3] Your reluctance to assume good faith is a big part of what is causing you problems. The only way this can change if you change it. That means deliberately assuming good faith for as long as you possibly can. i.e. No prejudicial speculations about other people until it is obvious to everyone that there is a lack of good faith involved.

[4] I am certain that you have raised issues with editors inappropriately. You have been told this now by a number of neutral editors in the reports I listed above. You may well have reported in good faith; but you don't yet understand what is appropriate and what isn't. It's long past time when you need to stop and think to yourself: "Wow. Perhaps this wasn't appropriate." That's learning.

[5] Of course I don't owe you a reply. I already told you that I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be. That WAS my reply. I stepped in to the talk page discussion to emphasize WP:GUIDELINE; I don't "owe" you a response on anything else! The situation on guideline modification is pretty dammed clear. You can be bold, to start off with, if you like. People can revert you if they don't agree; especially in a guideline. After this, stop editing and start talking. There is no guarantee that by arguing long enough you will prevail; nor are people obliged to continue to respond to your arguments indefinitely. I am not going to argue the policy with you, and I don't plan to involve myself in the question of what the guideline should be.

[6] Consider adjusting your editing manner. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and I think this aggression is making life harder for you.

[7] I don't particularly understand or care what you think about this edit; it is not to a guideline in any case, but to an essay. I don't see any particular problems with any of the recent edits there.

[8] There has been a fair bit of discussion across a range of pages already, and what you have on the talk page mostly misses the point. The thrust of the guideline is that you should avoid tables, if something simpler works. You apparently want to use them more widely; but I don't see any clear argument for this, other than that you like it. Responses have already pointed out that the sentences you described as "vague" are not as vague as you suggest, and that there's no POV problem. The WP:NPOV is a policy on encyclopedic content. That is, they think your description of "what is wrong with the page" is itself incorrect. The due process has occurred, the discussion was engaged, and you did not get consensus. You can try and make your case again, explaining better why your changes are an improvement; but people are not obliged to keep going around this with you indefinitely.

[tables 1]

[tables 2]

[tables 3]

[tables 4]

[tables 5]

[tables 6]

[tables 7]

[tables 8]