User talk:H/Archive 6

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.

Calibrating monitors

I'm a Mac user, and OS X has a built-in calibration menu. If you use a PC, I don't know what you have. But this may help a bit: [1]. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate

circumstantial evidence != evidence. See WP:Reliable sources. HighInBC 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by this exactly? Timeshift 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, != is a programing term for not equal. I was basically saying that circumstantial evidence is not equal to evidence HighInBC 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could make that clear to Igor by editing your comment that would be much appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Blood of the Fold

Why are we fighting over year old vandalism/rubbish? Are you deliberately violating WP:POINT? Kim Bruning 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, you will have to be much more specific. What exactly are you refering too? Please do not be vauge when the question is accusatory in nature. I don't remember having anything to do with you. HighInBC 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you are probably referoing to Talk:Blood of the Fold. I came there due to a request of WP:3O. Other than refactoring or archiving there is not good reason to blank talk pages. You removed both valid and invalid content. Please assume good faith when I edit. I don't know anything about your edit war but I do know WP:POLICY. HighInBC 13:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for beating me to the punch on the revert. I appreciate you taking the time to lend a hand as a outside opinion. Cheers. NeoFreak 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry about the collateral damage then.

Actually any useful content on that talk page was already part of a discussion Elsewhere, where it should stay. It's terribly annoying when people apply meatball:ExpandScope. Kim Bruning 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content is relevent to the talk page so it should be kept there. Also I don't see how meatball:ExpandScope applies here without a gross disregard for WP:AGF. I ahve never even read it before now. HighInBC 13:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like all (wiki) antipatterns, Expand Scope can be deliberate, but also can just be stumbled upon accidentally. Several of the steps in that pattern have been followed here. Always try to meatball:LimitScope^[1] as best you can! Kim Bruning 13:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC) [1] hmm, limit scope is not so well documented. Annoying![reply]

Ya, you still have not made clear what specific behavior you object to. HighInBC 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoFreak performed several steps from the expand scope antipattern: Edit Warring, Forest Fire, and Enlisting 3rd parties. My "accidental trolling" comment has to do with the fact that expand scope looks a lot like (or actually is) (accidental) trolling. Read the meatball page for more information. --Kim Bruning 14:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Note that I'm not saying that NeoFreak is a troll right now! Just that certain specific behaviours currently exhibited by NeoFreak can be related to similar behaviours by trolls.[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would review all the records of my attempt to enforce wikipedia policy and the reactions to this before you incorrectly accuse me of anything, espcially in light of your curt dismissal of my good faith edits and your unilateral reverts that lead us to where we are now. Apologies to HighInBC for highjacking his talk page. NeoFreak 14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, this is what talk pages are for. I can always archive if it gets large. Kim, while the articles on meatball are interesting, I would prefer if you stuck to the english wikipedia policies for disputes here, as external essays don't directly apply here.

While edit warring is a violation of rules here, enlisting a 3rd party is considered a constructive step here. Not sure what you mean by forest fire. HighInBC 14:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resp NeoFreak) I'm not accusing you of anything as such, darnit! :-). I'm sure you have acted in good faith.

Even so, in your attempts to (blindly?) enforce wikipedia policy, I think you have lost perspective and accidentally violated WP:COMMON.

Another approach: I'm quite used to applying wikipedia guidelines, so all my actions so far have been fairly much on automatic pilot as per those guidelines. So we're both following guidelines in good faith. Why do our actions conflict? Kim Bruning 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I would like to ask that the specifics of the dispute to be mentioned, the current conversion lacks any context to an outside observer(me). Also, restating the specifics of an objection often clarifies matters and may lead to a speedier resolution. It also considers the spirit of Wikipedia:There's no common sense. HighInBC 15:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My common sense is that wikipedia is not a chatroom. Kim Bruning 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do hate to repeat myself. But, without the context of the dispute many of your comments(including the last) do not have much meaning. You are arguing vauge points and I don't know what you are reffering too. Please provide context to your comments. HighInBC 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neofreak is making a fuss over this edit, to be precice. Note the date. I'm just fussing right back :-) Kim Bruning 15:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Kim

Why indeed? Simply putting a pair of parentheses around bad faith accusations and attacks doesn't make them any less bad faith accusations and attacks and I don't appreciate the insinuations. I have not done so to you and would appreciate your reciprocation of this civility. I'm not sure why you continue to highlight guidlines and editorial essays to attempt to refute my enforcment of wikipedia policy leading to a snide dismissal that I found to be rather inapproriate. I can only assume that you were irked but reverts of your (admittedly ancient) edits by a person you seem to think is not as qualified to do so as yourself. The simple irrefutable truth is that wikipedia policy of talk pages does not endorse or even suggest that anyone ever blank or delete anothers comments anywhere, ever. While this is an admited pet peve of mine it makes it no less a legitimate part of wikpedia. I think that the issue has been put to rest with HighInBC's last edit to the page. Is this a point we can drop or is continued discussion required? NeoFreak 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must realise by now that you've been disrupting wikipedia.

It's quite possible to follow the rules and still disrupt wikipedia, as the rules are not comprehensive.

Kim Bruning 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this dialouge with you is no longer contructive. I've said all I have to say on the matter and am content with the results. NeoFreak 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice. Note that you can still be blocked for disruptive behaviour. Kim Bruning 15:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to persue that route it is certainly your prerogative as an editor. NeoFreak 15:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoFreak seems satisfied with the content being removed with a small note leading to the diff. This seems to satisfy your interest in removing the off topic nonsense. The diff I put there reflects this discussion about removing off-topic material and when the talk page is archived that diff will help future editors find it.

It seems everything was taken care before this big conversation here.

I am confused by your opening remarks Why are we fighting over year old vandalism/rubbish? Are you deliberately violating WP:POINT?. It seems I was agreeing with your view that the content should be removed[2]. Perhaps you did not read my comment before it was removed[3]. HighInBC 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the original deletion of Talk Page comments was apparently done a year ago and NeoFreak only discovered it and reverted it a day or so ago. The original deletion is old but the edit war is recent. --Richard 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I'm sorry that this discussion has become so heated and that User:HighInBC has gotten his nose punched for offering the third-party opinion that I requested on WP:3O.

I see now that part of the confusion is my fault for not informing Kim and NeoFreak that I was making the request on WP:3O. My apologies, I'm a 3O newbie, it was my first such request.

I would have hoped that we could have had a calm and reasoned discussion about this topic as I think it is an important and yet unclear area of the Talk page guidelines. I am about to propose that we change those guidelines to recommend the deletion of inappropriate Talk Page comments. I think this is a difficult area. I've seen lots of Talk Page comments that are inappropriate but most of them should be left in place because there would be more damage caused by edit warring over what is and is not inappropriate. IMO, only the most egregious Talk Page comments should be deleted. I think Kim's deletion falls into this category. --Richard 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, your submision to WP:3O was most constructive. And both parties involved were told I was from WP:3O at the begining of this page. I have given my opinion that it is okay to remove off patent nonsense, but when discusions of policy are involved that a diff should be given for the benifit of future editors.

While discussion continues this seems to have stopped the edit war, perhaps it will stay stoppped. HighInBC 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do beware of becoming too much of a Rules lawyer! :-) Kim Bruning 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific in your comments Kim or they are not productive, I have no idea what you are talking about. The edit war seems to be over and it seems everyone is satisfied, if you are not satisfied with the situation please give specific examples of your greivences. Not just links to articles, establish context. HighInBC 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was to Richard. Richard stated that he was changing the talk page guidelines. I don't think he should, as beyond a certain point, that's just ruleslawyering. People should use common sense. Kim Bruning 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay stay on topic, that has nothing to do with my talk page. HighInBC 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I replied on this page in the context of a topic that was raised on this page. I then clarified my comment, as per your own request on this page. Oh well! Kim Bruning 16:51, 8 September 2006 (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.